Loading...
2018-11-15MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION E IDIAN MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance X Lisa Holland(arrped 6:50 pm) O Steven Yearsley O Gregory Wilson X Ryan Fitzgerald X Jessica Perrault X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Adopted as Presented Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Del Taco (H-2018-0106) by Tom Lennon, Located at 1617 W. Island Green Dr. C. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Sulamita Church (H-2018- 0110) by Matthew Garner, Located at 4973 W. Cherry Ln. Approved Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing for Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120) by B&A Engineers, Located at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit Modification to reduce the amount of open space approved with a previous PUD (CUP -05- 016) to construct additional parking on the site adjacent to Locust Grove Rd. Approved B. Public Hearing Continued from November 1, 2018 for Buyrite LLC Apartments (H-2018-0096) by neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located at the NW corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. 1. Request: Rezone property from C -C (5.90 acres) to R-40; and 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi -family development consisting of 96 multi -family residential units within 4 multi -family structures on 4.772 acres of land in a proposed R-40 zoning district; and 3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to allow for R-40 zoning and to change certain other provisions of the agreement Recommend Denial to City Council — Scheduled 12-18-2018 C. Public Hearing for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018-0090) by A Team Consultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 multi -family building lots and 7 common lots on 3.99 acres; and 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit For a multi -family development consisting of 60 multi -family residential units within 15 multi -family structures on 3.99 acres of land in an existing C -C zoning district; and 3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to change an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan Continued to December 20, 2018 D. Public Hearing for Alicia Court Subdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning Services, Located 4036 E. Granger Ave. 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 6 building lots and 2 common lots on 3.084 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district Continued to December 6, 2018 E. Public Hearing for Shelburne East (H-2018-0112) by Shelburne Properties, LLC, Located at 4080, 4115, 4205, 4301 and 4330 Bott Ln. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 35.09 acres of land with R-4 (23.58 acres) and R-8 (11.52 acres) zoning districts; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 101 building lots and 21 common lots on 34.62 acres of land in the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning districts Recommend Approval with Modification to City Council — Scheduled 12-18-2018 F. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate, Located at the SE corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.51 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C -C zoning district (63.796 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (17.713 acres) in the city; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 2 common lots, and 2 other lots for future right- of-way dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C -C and R- 8 zoning districts; and 3. Request: Variance to the UDC 11-3H-413.2 for 2 accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 Recommend Approval with Modification to City Council — Scheduled 12-18-2018 G. Public Hearing Continued from September 6, October 18, 2018 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 Continued To Future 2019 Date Meeting Adjourned at 1:53 AM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 15, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 15, 2018, was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland _______ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on November 15th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have no changes at this point, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Perreault: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 2 of 144 B. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Del Taco (H-2018- 0106) by Tom Lennon, Located at 1617 W. Island Green Dr. C. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Sulamita Church (H- 2018-0110) by Matthew Garner, Located at 4973 W. Cherry Ln. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and I believe we have three items on the Consent Agenda. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Fitzgerald: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony and there is a sign-up iPad in the back for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. There will be a bell timer and, please, be respectful of that. If you are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent that group, you may be given up to ten minutes and after all that testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. Then 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 Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120) by B&A Engineers, Located at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit Modification to reduce the amount of open space approved with a previous PUD (CUP- 05-016) to construct additional parking on the site adjacent to Locust Grove Rd. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 3 of 144 McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for H-2018-0120, Ferguson Parking Addition, and we will begin with the staff report. Leonard: Good evening -- good evening, Madam Chair, Members of Commission. The application before you this evening is a modification to a conditional use permit. The site consists of approximately seven acres of land. It's zoned I-L and located at 586 North Locust Grove Road. To the north there is a trucking company, zoned I-L. Let me go to my slide, actually, so you guys can see what's going on. To the north there is a trucking company zoned I-L. To the south is the Union Pacific Railroad and city-owned property, zoned I-L. To the east there is North Nola Road and a construction supply company, zoned I-L and to the west there is North Locust Grove Road and an industrial supply company zoned I-L. In 2005 a CUP was approved to allow for two buildings to be constructed on one lot, which was required at the time. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this area is industrial. Previous -- previous code required the CUP or a planned unit development to allow for two buildings to be constructed on the same lot. At that time two amenities were required to be provided with the CUP, one of which was a ten -- a ten percent open space. The applicant is requesting to reduce the amount of open space from 34,550 square feet to 12,050 square feet in order to construct 58 additional parking spaces on the site adjacent to North Locust Grove. That's in this area right here that's landscaped. They are proposing 58 spots there. The second amendment required at the time was a seating area for employees and customers. Current code no longer requires a CUP to construct two buildings on one lot, however, the amenities required with the original approval are still applicable. This is the original site plan that was approved with the CUP back in 2005 and this is the currently proposed site and the landscape plan for the 58 parking space addition. Staff is amenable to the loss of open space, because additional parking will help with growth experience of the applicant and will aid them in complying with UDC parking standards. Staff does recommend that the applicant mitigate the loss of open space by adding three trees to the existing 25 foot landscape buffer. So, along here. And a five foot landscape buffer between the proposed parking addition and the existing parking area and the building on the east portion of the site. So, right in here. Additionally, staff recommends that a seating area for employees and customers be constructed. Written testimony was received by David Crawford with B&A Engineers, who is the applicant representative. He is in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and staff will stand for any -- any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Crawford: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Crawford, I'm with B&A Engineers. My office address is 5505 West Franklin Road in Boise. I'm here representing the applicant Ferguson Enterprises tonight and I know you got a lot on your plate, so I will keep it brief. As you're probably aware, it's pretty busy around here and Ferguson supplies a lot of the waterworks around the valley for a lot of the construction projects, along with many other things. But they have experienced a lot of growth and have need of this parking area to allow continued operations in Meridian and while we are reducing the common area boundary and removing about 12 trees in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 4 of 144 total, give or take, we are also adding almost 23 trees and mitigating for the ones that we are removing. So, the planting densities are increased and while we are maintaining the buffers along the road and what we are replacing this -- which is, essentially, a storm water swale currently, we are replacing it with a parking lot and going subsurface with the storm water disposal for the site. So, just wanted to let you guys know about that and I will stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. All right. Thank you. Chris, do we have anybody signed up for this application? Johnson: No one indicating they wished to testify, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on H-2018-0120. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0120. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I think this would be a great use of the space. It's not even -- the code doesn't even exist anymore to have that much landscape in the industrial and the commercial zone, so I think it would alleviate a lot of parking issues for the client and I'm in favor of it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Totally agree. I know Ferguson is a great business -- local business. We appreciate their -- their work locally and -- and I think they are a busy group of people. So, having parking for their customers is a positive and I think it -- it works very well. Cassinelli: I'm pretty much in agreement with those comments. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 5 of 144 McCarvel: Yes. Perreault: As long as the applicant is an agreement with the staff report I don't have anything additional to add. I think it's -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- I agree with the staff report, to go ahead and put in that customer seating and stuff and keep it looking nice, but I would be appreciative of the extra parking, so -- okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0120 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15th, 2018, with no modifications, just their conditions. Johnson: Madam Chair? I just want to point out that this would be approval. McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. This is a CUP, so it's -- Cassinelli: Oh. Okay. McCarvel: -- approval. Cassinelli: Then I will amend that motion to approve the CUP. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2018-0120, Ferguson Parking Addition. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from November 1, 2018 for Buyrite LLC Apartments (H-2018-0096) by neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located at the NW corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. 1. Request: Rezone property from C-C (5.90 acres) to R-40; and 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 96 multi-family residential units Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 6 of 144 within 4 multi-family structures on 4.772 acres of land in a proposed R-40 zoning district; and 3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to allow for R-40 zoning and to change certain other provisions of the agreement McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will move on and continue application number H- 2018-0096, which has continued from November 1st, Buyrite Apartments, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This evening this is a -- an application with three separate application types. One is a rezone and one is a conditional use permit and one is a development agreement modification. This property -- it consists of 5.90 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-C, located on the northwest corner of North Linder and West Ustick Roads. The property was annexed into the city in 2009 with a C-C zoning district as JJA Land. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation -- excuse me -- is mixed use community. The applicant is requesting a rezone -- as I said, a rezone, a conditional use permit, and a development agreement modification to develop the property with multi-family lots with 96 dwelling units. Their overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units per acre. Access is proposed via West Island Green Drive. Let me back up. Access is proposed via West Ustick Road, North Linder Road, and what's called Crosswind to the west. Access is designated to be right-in and right-out only on both Ustick and Linder Roads. Staff has concerns with the majority of the traffic from the Windsong Subdivision, which is the subdivision to the west. If we go back to my aerial here, which is actually currently just parcels, it's -- there is no homes built in the subdivision currently, but any traffic will likely come and go out -- funnel out to Linder through a drive aisle, instead of a public road. Staff has concerns with the backup nature of traffic on that and the volume that there may be with that. Per UDC 11-3-C-6 parking for commercial or in this case the leasing office is based on a gross floor area for the office of 450 square feet. So, one parking space is required. The site plan before you here tonight shows some -- it's difficult to see, but they are showing some parallel parking stalls on this drive aisle. The current development agreement that is on the property requires that the road be extended. It currently says that it needs to be extended with a public road out to Linder Road, as well as stubbed to the north. The proposal shown here is a drive aisle, not a public road and ACHD has concerns with the parallel parking, as well as the parking for the office, that would be in what they are requiring to be a drive -- excuse me -- a public road. I did receive -- in the staff report I have indicated that after we sent the applicant the staff report, we received a revised site plan showing that that is a public road and they have made some other changes to the -- to the site. One specifically is the access point moved further south closer to the intersection and neither staff, nor a highway district has had any opportunity to review that, so we are not sure how that does or does not comply with any UDC sections or ACHD policies and I will say that also regarding the landscaping, a 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required to be constructed on both the frontages of Linder and Ustick Roads, which are considered Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 7 of 144 arterial roadways. The requirement to extend west cross -- Crosswind Road, which is, again, this -- what is shown here as a drive aisle coming from the west and going to the north. Require the applicant to sub divide the property. Additionally, the creation of a public street in this area will split off an area of land so the applicant is proposing to construct a dog park. This will require the applicant to place the dog park area in the northwest corner of the site in a common lot. The applicant currently is not proposing a preliminary plat, but with the creation of that road it would require the property to be subdivided. Staff finds the proposed development is not consistent with the mixed use community land use designation for several reasons. The proposed density for the development is above the density range supplied by the Comprehensive Plan, which is anywhere between six and 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing that it be 20. The development does not provide a mix of land use types as set forth as a requirement in the mixed use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. As I said, we received a revised site plan that neither the city, nor the highway district, has had any opportunity to review and provide comments. I did receive a written -- written testimony for a large number of folks this evening. Those are on the public record, instead of me reading off for 20 minutes all of their names. Again, staff is recommending denial of the project for those reasons I just indicated and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, we don't have a picture of the proposed new site plan. I might be able to -- I did not put it in the public record, because we have not -- Fitzgerald: We haven't seen it. Beach: -- used that, but I -- while you're -- excuse me. While you're deliberately I should be able to pull that up and show you what -- what they are showing. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Putman: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jeremy Putman, representing NeUdesign Architecture. Business address is 725 East 2nd Street, Meridian, Idaho. And I would like to address a few of the comments that were listed in the staff report and go forward from there and, then, later maybe address some of -- some things in the staff report that could use some clarity and, then, stand for any questions you have at the time. Just because you build it doesn't mean that they can get there. ACHD has limited the access to this site by right-in, right-out access only on both Ustick and Linder. The previous development agreement was hoping for commercial use, but with businesses you don't thrive where access is limited. Commercial use is the wrong way Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 8 of 144 for this parcel. This parcel must become a destination, a part of the community, woven into the fabric that fits within this intersection, the school that is north of the property, the park system that is south and east of the property and also to the neighborhood community that is a half a -- half a mile east. With staff -- staff's recommendation we pursued the R-40 zoning -- rezone for this parcel. You can look at the -- that's seen in the pre-app notes. The Comprehensive Plan -- the MUC indicates that R-40 is an appropriate zone for the -- for the Comprehensive Plan and, yes, the MUC has a density suggestion of six to 15 units per acre. The mixed use category in the Comprehensive Plan also allows for additional density based on providing greater than five percent of quasi-public space, outdoor gathering, or open space on the property. Page 28. The staff report indicates that we have 36 percent open space and so with this we are proposing additional density to this property of 20 units per acre. If under the -- or when under the R-40 designation, we would still be -- we were not seeking to max out this -- this designation, we are trying to provide something -- a current zoning that harmonizes with the future Comprehensive Plan, addressing some of these comments. The Comprehensive Plan mixed use designation allows for higher density, as previously stated, with the staff recommended R-40 zone -- rezoning request. The current zone and development agreement has approved a single commercial use previously. The past has shown that this, however, will not work due to limited access. Another concern was the extension of the Crosswind Street through to Linder. The staff report page five. And it is at odds with the ACHD report. Page seven of their report indicates that Crosswind should be approved connecting to the property to the north as a public street, which is what actually the -- the current site plan that was displayed shows. However, ACHD did make recommendations to remove parallel parking from there and parking that would back onto that public street in the new version, which we will take a look more at that section in a moment -- has addressed that and just remove that and made it purely a public street. The site amenities on this lot, which include a tot lot, barbecue areas, several of them. The dog park and the 50-by-100 grass area. One thing that was pointed out in the staff report is we were missing a quality of life amenity and we propose to add covered bike storage for that to make that compliant. A staff concern about traffic from the Windsong Subdivision is understandable and this site, as -- as they are indicating, you know, would have access through our site to Linder, yet in the next sentence in the report on page seven indicates -- so, there is -- there is expressive concern, but, then, it's indicated that that road must go through. So, you know, if there is a concern about traffic flow through this property, it seems inconsistent to make the -- you know, make it both ways and per ACHD's suggestion on page seven of their report, they approve the direction of Crosswind going north -- going to the north property. I'm assuming that that has to do with access back out to Linder in a more appropriate fashion for traffic to get from Windsong, which does have the current unbuilt properties -- is connected with the subdivision to the north, which has access to Linder. So, it appears that ACHD is currently routing traffic back north to where it could be an appropriate right-left exit from -- onto Linder, not on our property, which is right only. They have said that it needs to be a right only. This is a view of -- of the north end of that site plan showing the street as it turns north. Same configuration as before. We have removed the parallel parking, removed the parking stalls backing onto that public street. We have jogged, per ACHD's request, so that there is not a, quote, unquote, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 9 of 144 straight shot through the site, which would help in reducing traffic speed and traffic -- even ability -- you know, desire to go through there. ACHD also requested to limit it to a 24 foot drive aisle, which we have provided. The mix of land uses, residential dwelling, is one of the mixes that can be provided in the future Comprehensive Plan. We are looking at and willing to provide a different -- a couple of types of residential units -- provide rental units and five percent for purchase condo ideas. Also with this public -- or with this acknowledgement of a plat being required to separate the northeast corner, the dog park, from the property, because of the public way, we are willing to maybe either have that dog park open to all or remove the fence and make it public open space with a pavilion that people could enjoy from the Windsong community when it gets developed and be an established part of the neighborhood. Additional thoughts. The proposed development will bring an appropriate use to this part of Meridian supporting the neighborhood community half a mile to the east. This will be a desirable destination for families and professionals seeking to work in the area. Close access is noted in the staff report for the Ten Mile area, which is growing rapidly. Traffic is a concern for sure and in previous -- in the previous ACHD approval they calculated the commercial use to this property would generate 2,000 trips per day, which can be seen in -- in AZ 09 -- or in the -- unfortunately, I don't have the number in front of me. The previous approved use. This proposal, according to ACHD, will only generate 552 trips, roughly one quarter of the commercial use. We are looking at -- and here is a colorized version of the -- of the current site plan that -- that Mr. Beach was referring to. These apartments are going to be at or above market rate. These are not below rate market apartments. They are upgraded finishes, architectural design, and increased open space. Here is a contextual shot of the neighborhoods showing that it is within the similar vocabulary of the neighborhoods around them and showing how they will mesh in with the community and with that I welcome any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: The original parking figure that we had on here was 200 spaces. With the change in the plans is that -- has that number changed? Putman: It has not. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: The schematic that you had -- that you just showed us about two slides back, that -- is that what was submitted to staff on the 13th? Putman: This -- this configuration? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 10 of 144 Perreault: Yes. Putman: Yes, it was. Perreault: Okay. And so that just shows the entrance from Linder slightly farther south than it was before? Putman: Correct. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner. Fitzgerald: Just clarifying. So, you have amenities, the tot lot, a barbecue, dog park, and 50 by 100 field. The dog park in the 50 by 100 field are separate; correct? Putman: Correct. Fitzgerald: And the 50 by 100 field is one -- is the MEW in the middle. Is that what I'm -- Putman: Correct. Yes. Fitzgerald: Just wanted to make sure and clarify that. Thank you. Putman: Yeah. There is the large space here in the middle. The tot lot is north of that, along with another barbecue pavilion here located in the southwest corner and another at the north end. McCarvel: Thank you. Chris, do we have anybody signed up for public testimony? Johnson: Madam Chair, we do. The first is Steven Lloyd. McCarvel: Okay. Lloyd: Good evening. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. And please state your name and address for the record. Lloyd: Steven Lloyd. We are at 1370 West Ustick, which is Llama Lane. Most of you are probably familiar with where the pumpkin field is within the last couple of years. That's our property. So, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I'm not here to oppose just to oppose anything, but I think before I talk about that I think it's important to go backwards a little bit. My wife and I purchased our property, four acres, which is landlocked behind eight acres in 2005 and we have raised Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 11 of 144 our family there and they went to school and it was wonderful. The first night we were there my wife stood on the back patio and she -- she cried, because she couldn't believe she got to live there and it -- and it's been an awesome place to live and now that doesn't happen anymore, because when we look at our back patio now there is a -- I don't know how tall the cell phone tower is behind Sawtooth Middle School, but that now blocks our view to Squaw Butte. So, we missed that meeting because we were -- we were away and we didn't even -- we didn't get the paperwork that said that that meeting was going to take place and now when we -- in the mornings when we are looking to our east, instead of seeing a sunset, about 70 feet away from our deck we have two story Corey Barton homes that are backed up to our property to our east and that's what we get to look at now when we look out to our east. It's not so bad that there are two story, but in order to create that property they had to bring in 25,000 yards of fill dirt and raise it up approximately six feet. When I look to my east I'm eye level with the -- with the -- with the concrete on the -- on the home's patios behind me and what they did is they -- in thinking about us and -- and our views and our quality of life there, they build a four foot fence behind those houses for privacy. I look over the top of the fence and can see the patios. Now when we look -- and is what I'm concerned about is we are being surrounded. We have -- we are landlocked and we have this property in front of us that I know is going to sell and Planning and Zoning and the City Council is going to have to decide what they are going to put there and where does that leave us? Do we want a three story apartment complex on the corner? No, we don't. We don't want that much traffic. And in closing is what I would do is welcome anybody on the Commission or the City Council or anybody that's opposing this or for it or whatever, to drive down our 900 foot driveway where we are landlocked and stand on my front porch and look to the east and the west and, then, go to the back and look to the north and, then, look to the south and, then, make your decision on what you will do with some of these properties that are coming up and I do very much appreciate your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Next we have John Walsh. Walsh: Good evening. My name is John Walsh. I live at 1859 West Quiet Peak Street in the Watersong Subdivision, which is just a -- oh, about a -- about a fifth of a mile north of where this development would be. I'm also on the HOA board. I don't think any of the other members are here tonight. We have looked at this proposal and as a board we are opposed to it for a number of reasons. First of all, the land right now under the Comprehensive Plan is -- is light commercial. They, obviously, had a plan when they -- they designated that eight years ago. Now, they are reviewing the plan and I think it would be inappropriate to rezone something while that plan is still being developed. They may decide that they still want it as commercial. If you rezone it and then -- then you have gone against what your -- your city planners are doing. Also, it's hard to tell from that diagram, but it looks to me like there is a drive access from the back of that proposed apartment complex into the Windsong future subdivision, which means that a number of those people living there are not going to wait and do right-hand turns onto Ustick or Linder, they are going to come through Windsong, through Watersong or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 12 of 144 through Bridgetower to get out and make a left-hand turn, which just creates a lot more traffic in our subdivision. It takes away from our -- our quality of -- quality of life. Plus what the gentleman said earlier, three story buildings we get to look at, have more traffic generated -- generated by it. It's just really inappropriate from our standpoint. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Next is Carl Wibel. Wibel: Good evening, Commissioners, Madam Chairman. My name is Carl Wibel. I live at 3045 North Springtime Way, which is in the Tumble -- Tumble Creek Subdivision, which is due south of this proposed project across Linder and Ustick. My request this evening is just to provide some discussion items that I have met with some of my neighbors to discuss this proposal by Buyrite Apartments. The first thing I want to clarify that none of our neighbors or any members of the NIMBY or BANANA tribe and I don't know if you're familiar with that, that's not in my backyard or build absolutely nothing anywheres near anything. We are not that type of residents in the area. We do believe that substantial growth in our community is ongoing and healthy, provided that everyone sees the big picture as to the benefits for the community and its residents. Again, once we got this notice through our HOA I went and met with my neighbors just to make sure that they had received the notice via e-mail and I met with them, but I didn't start the discussion on a negative standpoint, I wanted to make sure that they got the proposal and they understood what was being proposed for the apartments and we came up with some ideas that we understood. The area is currently zoned C-C, which is used for retail, wholesale, service and ancillary offices and government offices. Upgrade for Linder Road, as well as Ustick by ACHD in the next two to four years is going to go from two to five lanes in both directions. So, there are some widening projects already planned. Ingress and egress to the property would either be from Linder Road southbound or from Ustick westbound from Linder. Again, limited ingress and egress again, but maybe through a subdivision and I'm not sure how those people would feel about that. The commuter traffic on weekdays, especially between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., as you must know, is heavy at that intersection due to the schools, due to businesses. Again, this could add another 500 trips per day to that area. It may not sound right and I question the 5,000 if there was some stores there, but I will not question, I have not read that ACHD report that the gentleman brought up. But everyone in our subdivision would like to see something that -- we were excited about that C-C designation. We were excited thinking maybe a hair salon, maybe a nail salon, dry cleaner, ice cream shop, a brew pub, maybe a couple of restaurants there, something that would fit into the existing zoning of that area. Something that would draw families there after work and maybe on weekends. What we believe in as positive at this corner is what they call a walkable neighborhood concept. When I worked economic development in a small community in northern Arizona, we worked on this, trying to make it something where the community made it walkable, someplace they could go to without having to drive, find a parking space, and, then, drive home. This area already has those components in the area. We have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 13 of 144 people, mixed use, we have parks in the area, pedestrian areas. There are schools in the area. Streets that are designated for bicycles and pedestrians. We already meet that. So, again, I'm asking for you people to take a look at that and, please, deny this request for these apartments. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Next is Robin Brooks. Brooks: Hi. My name is Robin Brooks. 2999 North Glenfield Way in the same subdivision as the previous gentleman. We were both at the HOA meeting last week. My concerns are mostly the density. Not that people shouldn't live there, but it's density and I think that this plan is too dense and inappropriate for our immediate area. McCarvel: Could you pull the -- I'm sorry, could you pull the mic closer to you. Brooks: Sorry. It will lead to hugely increased traffic, air pollution, which we don't need, noise, graffiti and increased pressure on public services. The -- the road problem near me is already leading to road rage, speeding, and frustration. Trash collection. All these people are dumping trash. What is that going to bring with it? Mice. Excuse me. The lack of the ability of the paved land to absorb rain runoff is a big concern. It cannot get into the water table to replenish it and if it does it may be contaminated with oil and gasoline. Snow abatement is going to be a problem. There is no place for kids to play. The property tax payments will probably be offset by paying far more for public services. There is air pollution from dryers and just people living there that is all over the place. The increased density will lower all our individual property values and the project I feel is way too close to the school. We have our HOA meeting in that school. The traffic getting in and out of there -- it's terrible. That poses a danger for students. Same kind of congestion, noise, pollution and long-term effects on young people and the other quality of life is our view of the mountains is obscured. There is too much lighting at night. This will cause sleep deprivation and anxiety and we will forget who we are. And a comment I would like to make is as I talked to more people who live here, they are beginning to feel less safe. So, that's my comment and thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Johnson: Next up is Steve Arnold. Arnold: Mr. Chairman -- or Madam Chairman, I apologize, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve Arnold. I'm with A Team Land Consultants. 1785 Whisper Cover, Boise. 83709. McCarvel: Just a -- Steve, just a -- Dean, can you hear him? Okay. Yeah. Pull that -- okay. There you go. Thank you. Arnold: I'm not here to talk about the specifics, you will hear me talk next on the project just across the road. I'm here to talk about the -- the use that is being proposed and I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 14 of 144 met with the developer and client yesterday to go over our two projects. We have looked at this property for -- it's probably been about five to seven years to purchase and the problem with this commercial piece and -- you know, I think people know me more as a design consultant. I have worked for several engineering firms, but they don't put my name as a realtor. I hunt for dirt for developers and I hunt for dirt for commercial projects. This piece of dirt, because of its severe access restrictions, it's not something that any commercial use will go into. The -- the traffic that comes in and out of the site of commercial use wants to see that they have got clear and direct traffic into their development. The only reason that you're seeing this tonight redevelop is because the developer beforehand couldn't make it work. That's the case that's going on across the road as well and you will hear me pitch that next, but the other thing that I think the Commission needs to hear is that the demand for that retail or commercial in that area is not as high as the current demand for multi-family. Multi-family vacancy rates are about 1.85 in Ada county. A normal vacancy rate is right around the four to five percent, which is key to steady stream that keeps the rents at a containable amount. The demand for the multi-family far exceeds the demand for that commercial and retail and, frankly, that retail won't ever happen at that location, because ACHD has severely restricted the access. So, I'm here to tell you from just the real estate standpoint that doesn't function. I mean if -- if this P&Z commission doesn't approve the multi-family, we have got to think about probably doing something completely different in retail or commercial. So, I will leave that and I would stand for questions and I will see you next. Thanks. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Next Paul Gazhenko. I apologize if the name is incorrect. Gazhenko: My name is Paul Gazhenko. 3696 North Sky Place -- Morning Sky Place. We moved into the area just a few months ago and I did some deep research before we chose the area we purchased our house in and a lot went into that research and the school was one of the major factors. We have three kids. My oldest is in elementary school and we had a hard time getting him into the school district that we purchased the house in, because it's already overcrowded and so they diverted our son into Willow Creek Elementary, because they had more space than this one here. Even though it has lower ratings, we ended up going with that. We had no other choice. Not -- not to mention that -- that we couldn't even get him on the bus, like we have to wait for two months before we could finally have the bus driver pick him up and that happened just recently, just two weeks ago. So, Hunter Elementary School is already overcrowded and if we add more residents that's just going to create even a bigger jam in that school. The other factor is traffic. We have Sawtooth Middle School right across from our subdivision Watersong and the traffic gets very backed up there. I mean because not only our subdivision is using that access, but also to exit onto Linder, but also the bigger subdivision, the Bridgetower. And so traffic just -- it literally takes about four or five minutes, sometimes eight minutes just to pull out of the subdivision during the morning rush hour and if we add more residents to this area it's just going to create a bigger traffic jam than we need, not -- not to mention safety, because we have a school right Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 15 of 144 there, middle school, and so kids are walking, biking to school. I mean we want safety for all of that. I prefer just keeping that property as it's zoned and just add a pizza place there, yeah, just small business that we could utilize, instead of driving all the way towards Eagle Road, which is just insane traffic there. So, I would rather just have a few businesses here locally, so we can walk to them just like someone already mentioned. We already have bike lanes. We already have good walkways there. So, I mean we could just take our kids and go for a walk and just visit one of these places, maybe a restaurant, maybe just a small business that will hold a lot of other things for the local residents. I think that would be much more beneficial than multi-family. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Next is Chris Williams. Williams: Good evening, everyone. My name is Chris Williams. 1762 West Canyon Ranch Street in Meridian. 83646. I'm in the Watersong Subdivision, which is just north to the proposed location that we are discussing. Number one, you know, my -- myself, my family, we are against this project for a number of different reasons. Number one, as many people mentioned before, the current zoning. The zoning is not for R-40, it's not for apartment complexes. When we purchased our home there about six, seven years ago we did our due diligence, we researched the areas, we researched the schools, knew that eventually there was going to be, you know, probably some type of commercial there, which we are completely fine with. I'm realizing that some people are saying, including the applicant, that commercial doesn't make sense there. Maybe that is the case, maybe that's not the case. I respectfully disagree with that. I think it does, but regardless. Next traffic in there. As we know it's already heavy. They are talking about, you know, pulling out to the northbound going through our subdivision, Watersong Subdivision. If any of you guys have been there, please, come there in the morning, come there after school in the evening, try going north out there. It's hard enough for me as is and, then, we want to go ahead and stack on some more people in there? It doesn't make sense, you know, on that. That, you know, number one, the City of Meridian, they are currently reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, you know, this is another item, excuse me, on number one. We shouldn't be making any changes until this new Comprehensive Plan is done. Let's see what we come up with and go from there. You know, the schools. You know, the gentleman who spoke before me, he lives in the same subdivision I am. It's ridiculous that we buy a home in the subdivision and our kids are actually in that subdivision for the school and they can't even go to the school, because of the overcrowding and, then, we want to slap some more apartments in? It's just making the problem worse. It's ridiculous even to consider it. You know, the apartments, especially three story apartments, it's going to give zero privacy to the development behind it once that gets developed. You know, our HOA has been in contact with the owner of the property. You know, we have a decent idea of what's going on, you know, with that. It will be developed soon. Let's see what else do we get? Oh. And also, you know, it was probably about six slides back. The applicant put up how their proposal is going to look in the area. On all corners, for the most part, we have single family homes. Single family homes. Single family homes. I realized there is an application there for townhouses across the street. Single family homes in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 16 of 144 other subdivision. To throw in an apartment complex in there it just doesn't make sense. You know, again, so I'm just -- you know, I kindly ask that you guys do recommend denial of this application and that's where I stand with that. McCarvel: Thank you. Williams: Thank you. McCarvel: And before we move on with public testimony I would like the record to reflect that Commissioner Holland is present. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Next we have Miquelle Crosland. Crosland: Madam Chair and Commissioners, my name is Miquelle Crosland. 2217 West Windchime in the Bridgetower Subdivision. You can see my house -- Windchime is the second pod up, just left of the property in question. My kids asked me to come tonight, to be one of those weird people, because I have brought them for years for scout meetings -- to be one of those weird people to fight an issue and so I'm -- I'm here on behalf of my children. I would like to contend that this is not the best use of the property -- property that Buyrite Apartments is claiming that apartments is the best use. Maybe multi-use isn't also best zoned for -- for this property. We could have a five acre Papa John's and that would be the best use, because we would all support it. If we have 96 more apartments that means 192 more cars on that intersection. That intersection looks decent, because we have a right turn lane on -- on all four sides, but really those roads are one lane roads. We cannot handle 200 more cars on those roads. The accidents between -- I'm talking about Linder between Ustick and McMillan, we have fewer car accidents than you do from McMillan to Chinden, that the amount of car accidents you have, because of the extra townhouses, the apartments and the high school drivers, please, don't do that to our children. Please don't make our kids a Meridian statistic. When -- those of us who live in Watersong or Bridgetower or Sawtooth Creek, the other communities around, we can never turn left. We always have to go out of our neighborhood -- no, I -- no, I need to go this way, because I can only turn right, because turning left on those one lane roads that are already overcrowded is impossible. The only time we can turn left out of our neighborhood is if we go out of Water -- out to Watersong and have -- if I'm blessed to have a kid in the car with me, I have him push the pedestrian button and, then, we can turn left out of our neighborhood. People have already mentioned overcrowded schools, that's a serious problem and roughly we are going to have at least a hundred more kids in these 96 apartments. I would like to contend with Buyrite's point that he says that families and professionals would be seeking to live -- to work in this area would love to live here. My husband and I are both professionals and we would not seek to live in a three story apartment surrounded by homes. I appreciate your time. I'm grateful for everyone who has come here tonight, whether they are for or against. I -- because we are all here for things that are important to us and I just ask that you each remember the children. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 17 of 144 Johnson: Madam Chair, the last sign in is David Manning. McCarvel: Okay. Manning: Good evening. My name is Dave Manning. I live in the Tumble Creek Subdivision. 3076 North Springtime Way. My wife and I bought a house in there about a year ago. We have lived in Meridian for the last 20 years and I'm a local Boise kid growing up and when I was small we lived on Eagle Road. We had 20 acres where the Papa John's is now and, yes, I'm mad at my dad for selling that, because we could have all retired. But the reality is is Meridian was a small town. Meridian is no longer a small town. But it has been a bedroom community where the employment is outside of Meridian. The reason we have so much traffic is there is not a lot of local jobs, not a lot of local businesses, and what I have seen recently is an increase in the subdivisions, shopping malls that are being developed. There is, you know, obviously, the big stuff down Eagle Road, but what I'm looking for is to make it a more livable environment, like was brought up earlier. If we could have restaurants, ice cream places, dry cleaners, we would have employment for local needs, we would have entertainment for local needs. I do believe that would enhance our quality of life tremendously. In the neighborhood that I live in now there is a bunch of great people, we get together on an ongoing basis and to be able to walk across the street to go enjoy dinner would be -- that would be a blessing. I also think that the traffic -- we are going to get traffic either way. The reality is is when these streets get turned into five lanes in the next few years, which is going to be great for traffic flow, we will even have less ability to pull out and turn left or right across any lanes of traffic, because right now you have to dodge traffic in -- in one lane each way and pretty -- pretty soon it will be two lanes and it's very very busy. I can cut it off. Today you guys have heard a lot of good reasons to deny this project and I hope that you listen and take it into account when you make your decisions. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. And with nobody else signed up to testify on this application, is there anybody else in the room that would like to at this time? Yes, sir. Evans: My name is Richard Evans. I live at 9560 West Pebblebrook Lane in Garden City. I am involved in this project. I will be supervising the construction of the project and I want you to know that I have done many projects in Meridian. Strata Bellissima, South Stone, we have done other projects. Sagewood office. I did Riverside Village down in Garden City. I want you to know this is going to be a quality project. You are going to get traffic -- as soon as this ground gets used for any purpose there is going to be more traffic. I'm a good neighbor builder. We take into consideration the neighbors. Part of our design on these buildings were full hip roofs. We are putting the air conditioners up in the roof where they can't be seen or heard, which reduces the roof height to below residential standards, which will be below 35 feet. Residential is 35 feet. We are interested in doing a higher level apartment than a lower level apartment. Our rents are going to be in excess of a thousand dollars for the smallest units and they could be as high as 1,300 by the time the project gets finished for the larger units. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 18 of 144 have tried to design this so that the actual tenant is off the road and has quality of life themselves. We have backed the buildings up to each other, so that they look on to a park area and not out onto some highway or street somewhere. Much of the growth in Meridian is from Meridian residents. They are not all coming from out of town. And so our children are going to be living in apartments and that's just the way it is. So, with that I would take any questions if you have any. McCarvel: Thank you. Evans: Thank you. McCarvel: Was there anyone else that wanted to testify on this? Yeah. Hold on. Okay. Go ahead. Neal: Good evening, Commission. My name is Jack Neal. I live at 3101 North Marburg in Tumble Creek Subdivision. I am the president -- the HOA president there in that subdivision. I have been on the board for eight years. Lived in the subdivision for ten years. Didn't come equipped with a lot of research and a lot of facts. Came equipped with some history and also some observation that if that is a commercial use property, traffic flow on Linder and Ustick will not increase from that. Now, there may be traffic flow into that commercial property, but there won't be any increase in traffic. No one will be living there. So, I disagree with the fact that a commercial use will increase traffic. But what I really want to say is that our subdivision there on the corner of Tumblr Creek -- I'm familiar with the Bridgetower Subdivision and know the folks on the board there. I love my subdivision. Absolutely love my subdivision. It is a diamond in the rough. You drive through that subdivision, they are not extremely expensive homes, they are probably middle range homes, but they all look wonderful. I think people love living in that subdivision. I can tell you about the financials of the HOA and that is that we have very, very few people that don't pay their dues. We have very few rentals, although there are rentals allowed in there, but I personally can't think of anything good about putting apartments on either one of those corners, particularly on that corner right across from our subdivision. I hate to be, again, one of those people that opposes to just to oppose, but I love my subdivision, hate to see that happening. Thanks for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Reynolds: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Greg Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street in Meridian. I appreciate you letting me come up. I didn't intend to speak on this tonight, but as I was sitting there a couple thoughts came. If you will forgive me if I can grab the mouse here. Let's take a little road trip up here and if you notice this corner right here looks a lot like the other corner. There is a small business there. There is some other businesses that are coming -- coming in. They have proven very successful. They get traffic. They get traffic from the neighborhood. They get traffic from the school. They get traffic -- traffic from people going by. So, I don't know that I agree with the statements. I think when the developer says that it won't work, what they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 19 of 144 mean is they can't get as much money for this as they could for a big set of apartments and at this time I'm definitely opposed to any step ups at this time. You will hear I think all night the common theme that people are opposed to these large apartment complexes popping up. I think it's going to go on and on tonight as you hear all these different applications and especially as we are reworking the Comprehensive Plan step ups at this time are inappropriate I feel. So, I hope you will take that in consideration and I hope you look here at this corner and notice that the same situation applies and it can work. Thank you. I will stand for any questions. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. If there is no more public testimony, would the applicant like to come back. Putman: Madam Chair and Commissioners, do want to just speak to some of the things that have been said and looking at this in -- would it be possible to bring up my PowerPoint again? Sorry. Looking at this development, there is a lot of single family residents in the area, specifically around that corner. Thank you very much. The -- the proposed development would help bring a mix of uses into this area that desperately needs it. It's either, you know, agricultural land, vacant, derelict land or single family residences. We are trying to bring some more density into the area, which ACHD's traffic trip generation shows would be less than commercial. It would also, with that increased density, these two roads are slated for public transit, but public transit isn't triggered until the density is there to support it and so with the development that's going along Ustick, looking a half a mile to the east with that neighborhood community that started there, there are some small shops, a gas station, restaurant, coffee shop that is near this and business and development need to go -- or residences need to go hand in hand. If we are trying to make these walkable areas, then, we need the density of people and -- and a good mix of business for showing -- this development is fairly close to the -- the commercial neighborhood community that's -- that's close to there. Also a couple of comments. The commercial zone that this property is currently also allows for multi-family. It was a staff recommendation that we pursue R-40 and showing that it -- it goes hand in hand well with the density that's allowed in mixed use. So, whether in the commercial zone, multi-family is a possibility on this property and both multi -- C-C and R-40 are acceptable zones for the mixed use community Comprehensive Plan as well. So, I don't want to stand up and firmly say it's inevitable, but the city's long-term plan for these -- these parcels around this intersection have been there and the possibilities for multi-family for commercial development have always existed. So, it's -- we are not asking for something new, we are just asking for a -- a zone that more humanizes with the mixed use community. Also regarding the types of persons that are looking to live -- live in apartment uses. These are the people that can't purchase single family residences. It gives them an opportunity to be in and a part of a community and if so desired we can talk about having some of these available for -- for -- for purchase, to get someone into something that they own and can start to build investment in and work on that nest egg for the future. Young professionals are the ones that are in the apartments. The young professionals don't typically have children. If they do they are young, they are not, you know, a strain on the current school situation. So, just kind of looking at the demographic that -- that would be in this area, they are more mobile, they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 20 of 144 would be, you know, taking a run down to the coffee shop. Hopping on their bike, going to the park down at Settlers Park, get on the tennis court or the ball fields and run back. So, this development -- this -- this destination would address some of those needs to bring life and vibrancy to this corner and to this part of the community. Also looking at this aerial, density of the proposed lot has more open space than single family residents around. Looking at those areas also we see is -- is just house, house, house. Here we have got onsite public park, public open space for the people, the children of the area. Looking at the -- the site plan, the tot lot for the children is on the interior of the property. We want to make sure that the kids don't -- all of the kids don't have to cross the street to get to a public green space, so a majority of those will be in here. So, we are trying to create a small community, a tighter knit community, that fits within this fabric of Meridian. With that I can stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Jeremy, I have got a question for one -- one of the -- I guess point number one on the staff report for their -- with their concerns was that the density range, even though it's -- the zoning says R-40 is acceptable. The density range of that is actually six to 15 units per acre. So, when -- when that conversation was going on that's my question for you is did -- do you have an alternative to this project for a lower density based on those numbers? Putman: And Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassinelli, the density range, you are correct, in -- in -- in the MUC zone is -- is a suggestion of six to 15. There are ways for -- what is it? For increase of density with that open space, which is what we have provided here and what we are asking for and we are not asking to max out the density that we could possibly go with the R-40, we are asking for an R-20. Does that -- so, we are trying to work within the rules and the give and take that is a part of this process with the Planning and Zoning Department and the community. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: You had mentioned on your slides that in the past this has shown that it won't work as single use commercial. Can you -- is there a specific instance that you're referring to? Are you -- Putman: Sure. Perreault: Can you clarify that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 21 of 144 Putman: I can provide -- I don't have it with me. There was a plan put forth a couple of years back -- soon after the approved proposal of the single use commercial for -- that showed a 45,000 square foot single box store type idea and, then, also another development that had gas station, coffee shop, totaling, again, about to 45,000 square feet, which is where ACHD came up with the trips generated of 2,000 trips per day for commercial use. Since then, since the approval and since that plan has gone out to market, this property has since -- sat vacant for eight, nine years. When eligible purchasers are taking a look at this and they see the restrictions that are placed on it, they realize that it -- it's a burden for any small business, you know, that -- the mantra of business is location, location, location. If you can't get people to your store and they have a hard time getting out, then, they are not going to want to go back. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I guess -- this is probably not directly to you, but the challenge I have is a mile down the street at Ten Mile and Ustick the same -- you have a right-in, right-out and a very difficult intersection with a Maverick on the corner. So, I'm confused on why there can't be commercial use there, because it -- it seems to me that there is a similar corner with a similar difficult setup with a right-in, right-out access and you're saying that it's not -- I -- maybe this is not the right time for that corner, I'm just -- Putman: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- I don't think the access thing -- to me doesn't jive. So, I'm just -- any feedback you want to -- because that's where my mind goes. Putman: Yeah. I appreciate that and that's a good -- that is a good comparable and potentially the issue with why that corner developed and this one did not is because that corner has a lot more trips than Linder and Ustick does. ACHD, excuse me, in their report shows, you know, generally how many trips are actually on that -- on those roads in that area and so from a commercial standpoint, sure, if I have got, for example, a thousand trips on this corner of Ustick and Linder, but I have got 2,500 at the corner of Ustick and Ten Mile, where am I going to put my dollars? I'm going to put it to where the more traffic is. So, that would -- could be a reason why that developed over this particular corner. Fitzgerald: I think you would agree that they are similar in right-in, right-out access point -- Putman: Yeah. I completely agree. Fitzgerald: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 22 of 144 Putman: And also just for the record, I'm a president of my HOA, the one that I live in and we do have apartments in -- in our area. It is a challenge. We recognize that. It's - - it's hard, but we need to -- if we want to be a vibrant community we need to be one that welcomes people in in a -- in a very controlled manner and I think that this and the development -- proposed development to the east would bring a mix of uses into this area that would spark more interest and more, you know, ability to bring in those small businesses and coffee shops. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. Putman: Thank you. McCarvel: So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0096? Cassinelli: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0096. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. I just got to start with, number one, we are not even looking at the plan of this. Staff hasn't even had a chance to look at the final plan of what's just been proposed, but even with that being said, I guess I'm not real inclined to change the zone up to an R-40 on this corner. I just -- I mean a project that comes in and asks for that kind of density I would want to see I guess more amenities than just some open space and I -- I just -- I'm not seeing it for this. It needs a conditional use permit. Granted, it could be higher density in the mixed use, but it needs a conditional use permit for a reason. It needs to take a look at each individual situation and I just don't see this corner being an R-40 and I agree -- I was thinking the exact same thing on the right-out, I was thinking -- I mean there is several gas stations on right-in, right-out corners. I can think of all over the place that make it just fine and I think we hear from the residents around there -- I mean they are begging for some sort of restaurant or, you know, some gathering place to be there and I think that zone on this corner is a good zone. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I completely agree and Commissioner Fitzgerald had stated -- or had talked about Maverick. You know, Linder is going to widen next year -- not next year -- in a few years that section is going to widen and it's going to be five lanes and we don't know how the traffic counts are going to change then. They may be more comparable Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 23 of 144 to Ten Mile and in that case, you know, we want to take that into consideration as to what's going to go there. It's not all that far out. So, I don't think that putting -- I mean it's not a large piece and I don't think that putting commercial in there is going to increase the traffic more than a 96 unit development, so at this time I don't -- I don't see that as the best use for that location. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Well, there is a couple things at play. One I -- not having the staff fully have all the facts in front of them in regards to what the traffic access is going to look like, how we evaluate them from a city perspective, it's hard for us to make a decision that we can recommend either way to the city -- or the City Council, but I -- I tend to agree with both of your -- my chair and Commissioner Perreault's comments. I -- and there is -- where -- I live in north Meridian and I want -- I want a PF Chang's or I want a -- I want a bigger restaurant. I want something out there that -- I'm tired of eating pizza. So, I'm looking for other places where we can put commercial and -- and we talk about, you know, lack of commercial, lack of industrial -- obviously, we aren't going to put industrial there, but as we take away our fields that were -- used to be there and turn it into houses and those kinds of things, we have to have services for folks that are living out there and so -- and I -- I'm a fan of density on hard corners, but I'm not sure this density works there. So, that's my initial take. Cassinelli: On to me? McCarvel: Moving on down the road. Cassinelli: Well, I'm -- I -- I'm in agreement with -- with what -- where staff is at and one of the -- in looking at the -- if you look at MUC, it is clear that it's six to 15 units per acre and we are not -- we are not there. Now, could we look at something that's -- that is in line with those numbers? Possibly, but we are -- you know, we are -- we are blowing those out of the water. There are so many issues -- I mean all over the city right now, but I think in this -- in this part of town in particular, the school situation, even though, you know, we are -- essentially we are removed from -- from West Ada and we are not making decisions based on that, but we want a livable city, not just today, but in ten and 20 and 30 years we want a city that's livable and if -- if the schools are overcrowded and -- and schools suffer it's not going to be a livable community anymore. High density -- apartments, high density, are necessary and we have approved a lot over the last 18 plus months in particular areas where they fit. I can think just up the road we actually denied a potential high density development just to the north of Rocky. The applicant came back with -- with a perfect commercial fit that everybody was happy with. The developer was happy with it. The -- the -- the residents around it -- everybody was happy with it and it worked. I think that -- that something can be designed in that -- and developed in that corner that can work for everybody and make everybody happy. So, at this point I'm definitely on board with -- with staff's recommendation and -- and, again, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 24 of 144 the fact that we haven't even seen the -- the adjusted plan, I can't -- personally I can't go forward with any other but -- other than a denial. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Last, but not least, I tend to agree with one of the other comments that were made on the Commission tonight. I -- I'm not opposed to multi-family projects where they make sense. I think it's -- it's good to have a variety of housing types. Everybody's got different situations of kind of where they are at and what their housing needs are. This corner is a tough piece. Six acres is not a lot to work with to put in a multi-family project and I certainly understand where -- where they were coming from on -- on some of the ideas here. I like that they put kind of the green space in the middle of -- of the apartment complex, but I just think for some of the same reasons you all mentioned, as well as what staff's mentioned, I see enough concerns that -- specifically number three of what the staff mentioned that they received a revised site plan on November 13th, that hasn't given enough time for understanding some of those changes and there is not a great mix of land type -- land use types and proposed density being above what's recommended in the Comprehensive Plan that I think there is enough reasons. I don't know that this is a perfect fit for that site. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: To -- to expand upon what Commissioner Holland said, I think, you know, if you look at the broader sense of that area on Ustick, there is a real -- again, for mixed use community from the comp plan -- and that corner does not have anything as of right now. There is nothing there. There is a mile to the east and a mile to the west, but there are a lot of houses -- rooftops in that area that might -- as many of the neighbors have talked about this evening that have somewhere to walk, to go get ice cream or go get -- and so that mixed use community for that corner was the reason for that zone there and so -- and I know we were in the middle of a Comprehensive Plan change, but, still, we have -- our job is to stay within the Comprehensive Plan. We have -- or try to adhere to that and so that -- for that reason -- I mean I think we have to take a little closer look at this. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I do want to say, though, I think that -- I don't think this is a great fit for that location, but I think it is a well designed -- Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 25 of 144 Perreault: The renderings are really very, very nice. And I think that at least from what we have seen that it -- it looks like it's well designed within itself and the buildings are, you know, have a great look to them. So, I just want to put that out there, because it's -- for me it is not the actual design of -- of that development, it's the location concern. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Absolutely agree. Because I think the -- there has been a lot of thought to them not living to the street and those kind of -- and having space in the middle where kids can play. I think that it's great. It's -- it's just a tough -- tough corner. McCarvel: Okay. With that would somebody like to make a motion? Perreault: Madam Chair. So, with the other Commissioners stating that the staff hasn't had an opportunity to -- to review those changes in detail, are you suggesting that we continue it until they do that or -- McCarvel: I -- I think, honestly, we have -- we are all kind of in agreement that the R-40 isn't going to work anyway. I mean we are not inclined to make that, so I think we just move forward with the other one. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of file number H-2018-0096 as presented on the hearing date of November -- November -- what date are we? It says the 1st. McCarvel: 15th. Cassinelli: 15th today. In 2018. For the following reasons that I will give. That staff has declared that it doesn't meet the density range of 60-15 units. Does not provide a mix -- a proper mix of land use types as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and also that we have not seen that they -- there -- there have been adjustments that have not been brought forth at this time. Perreault: Second that motion. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of H-2018-0096. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion to deny passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 26 of 144 C. Public Hearing for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018- 0090) by A Team Consultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 multi-family building lots and 7 common lots on 3.99 acres; and 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit For a multi-family development consisting of 60 multi-family residential units within 15 multi-family structures on 3.99 acres of land in an existing C-C zoning district; and 3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to change an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan McCarvel: Moving on. We will open the public hearing for H-2018-0090, Alpina Townhouse Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we didn't move far. This is an application for a preliminary plat, a conditional use permit for multi-family and for a development agreement modification. This site is approximately 3.99 acres of land. As the corner next door, it's also zoned C-C. It's located on the northeast corner of north Linder and West Ustick Roads. This property was annexed in 2014 as the Sugarman Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this one is, again, mixed use community. The applicant is requesting as a preliminary plat, development agreement modification and a conditional use permit, in this case for 60 dwelling units. Overall gross density of this project is 15 gross dwelling units per acre and 20 net. So, it's a little bit lighter density than the corner that we just spoke about. Are similar concerns. Access to this site proposed from, again, from Ustick and from Linder Road. ACHD has limited the access to right-in, right-out only. Staff has concerns that the applicant is not providing cross-access to either the parcel to the north or to the east and which is a requirement of the mixed use community Comprehensive Plan designation. Per 11-3-C-6 of the UDC, parking for multi-family uses is based on the number of bedrooms. In this case each unit contains two to three bedrooms, which requires two parking spaces per unit. One in a covered space. Based on the number of units, which is 60, the applicant is required to provide 120 parking spaces with 60 covered. The applicant is exceeding that. The applicant is proposing 143 parking spaces. Landscape buffers are required along Linder and Ustick Road of a -- 25 foot wide with trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Going back to kind of some of the similar reasons why the -- the northwest corner -- staff is recommending approval of that. We are similarly recommending denial of this project. The proposal does not comply with requirements of the mixed use community designation, because the property -- the density is between that range and the applicant's got some more specific numbers they can provide with us as to what the actual density is. The proposal does not provide a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 27 of 144 mix of land use types. In order to comply with the mixed use community designation -- the project doesn't integrate with the surrounding area. There is no pedestrian or vehicle connect -- connectivity proposed between this corner property and the properties to the north -- or to the east. Staff feels that the current proposal for the property is superior than the one being shown this evening. Did receive written testimony from Dave Manning and, again, the landscape plan -- the applicant is actually showing some innovative amenities. A dog park shown here on the east side, as well as a putting green in the center. The landscape planning provided here. This is the previous concept plan that was approved back in 2014. Again, this -- this plan is actually showing cross-access to at least the north, but it was commercial in nature with a drive-thru in the center and a gas station on the hard corner that would provide some neighborhood businesses for the -- the surrounding area. With that I will stand for any questions you have. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Josh, do we know why that commercial subdivision didn't continue in 2014? Beach: So, I guess to clarify my question. I don't know why it wasn't built, but this is -- this is from the existing development agreement, the concept plan that was approved and this is the one that we have on the books right now as to what should be constructed there. Perreault: Thank you. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I can -- I can let you know the developer at the time just speculated as to what he wanted to develop the property. He was from California doing some land speculation and nothing came to fruition. We did several time extensions on this particular subdivision to keep the plat going. In conversations with the previous owner he did not wish to do the improvements in order to record that subdivision. So, he's let that expire, but the development agreement still remains in place and as Josh informed you, this is the concept plan that is attached to that contract between the previous developer and the city. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, in regards to cross-access -- or does that not -- if we were to move forward with the conditional use permit -- with development agreement modification, is there -- just to clarify it, are we requiring cross-access to the north and to the east? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 28 of 144 Beach: Mixed use community designation should require that, so that -- that's one of the reasons why we are not in favor of it. Obviously, as I said, this concept plan here -- again, it's a -- it's a concept plan so something can change a little bit, but they are showing at least a cross-access to the north. Staff's -- staff's feeling is that, you know, even though this is actually the only parcel that is showing the mixed use community designation, the idea is to provide that connectivity and get folks from the surrounding neighborhoods to that proposed commercial development neighborhood serving commercial, so that you don't have to drive out onto the arterial roads and get back in through a drive access, you can get there through the -- through a street accessible for - - for -- for a cross access. We have met with -- this isn't super applicable to this application, but there is interest in developing in the area. We have met with the developer on this piece and they are wanting to do some multi-family and single family development there, too. So, we need some commercial in the area to -- and it functions a lot better if you don't have to increase the traffic on the arterial roads to get -- to get to those neighborhood serving businesses. Fitzgerald: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Arnold: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record, it's Steve Arnold with A Team Land Consultants, 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. Can I just click on one of these? Can you pull up the color one? Beach: Which one, Steve? Arnold: The color rendering. So, to give you an idea of a little bit of history on the site, as you know, it was approved as Sugarman Subdivision. It was approved with over I think five, six thousand square foot of commercial type use. This is in the MUC mixed use zoning district. The applicant -- or we are not asking for a rezone, the use that is proposed in this zone is an allowed use within that zone. We did -- we did hold a neighborhood meeting and since that neighborhood meeting we didn't meet with the property owner -- or the representative for the property owner to the north and it was always our intention -- and maybe I'm just not clear, but we were always granting cross- access to the north and cross-access to the east. We have got a drive aisle there up at the front right off of Linder that we are showing a cross-access to and, then, we have got another cross-access to -- off of the east at the end of our other drive aisle. So, the intent is to do the cross-access. We did submit this originally with either an office or a commercial use right off of Linder as you enter the site. Right now we -- we have met with staff at that time and they suggested they didn't like the way it integrated at that point, so they suggested that we try to provide three different types of multi-family units. So, we came back and you have this drawing in front of you. What we have got is a duplex, six-plex, and the other units are all a pinwheel type four-plex, similar to what we did at Timber Grove, at Shallow Creek, and Stone's Throw. Those are all the City of Meridian projects. It's the building type that we will be putting in this project. I will go into those buildings here in a little bit. To go into some of the site design and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 29 of 144 consideration, you know, we did provide the required landscape buffers along both Ustick and Linder, with an excess. Total landscape common area is about .96 or .97 acres. Our density calculation is exactly at 15 units per acre. This pinwheel type design -- again, we will get into building type, but it doesn't yield high density. It's kind of a medium density type product type. Like I said, we have it behind Dick's and Kohl's. Ironically that project was also in the MUC -- or M -- mixed used zoning district. In that product type we just did the single type of product. If it's the direction of the Planning Commission tonight, I can blow out that duplex -- it looks like we blew it out. And the duplex can become our commercial use there. I did reserved parking for it. This parking right off -- not sure if you can see it, but the parking right up here was reserved for commercial use. Like I said, it was the direction. We kind of were here nor there with the commercial or not, so we took staff's direction and we did three different residential types, but we can take -- change that and put that as commercial. We also are opposed to -- we could take our six-plex or even these four-plexes and plat them individually on their own land and those can be used to sell and that would be something that we would consider if that's the direction of the Commission to try to get more diversity in here. As staff brought up we did provide additional parking. A lot of that was for the commercial building, so we had additional there, but if it -- for the duplex we don't need as much, but I think it would be adequate still if we did that commercial use. Again, cross-access we are providing to the north and east. We have got pathways and we got pathways along Linder and Ustick. We have done micropaths to the north of this -- the development. Since we have read through staff's comments and they had some concerns with the type of amenities that we proposed, I -- in this color rendering I added a community garden here in the center area and, then, we still have the putting green and, then, I added a couple of plazas here, one of which I was considering adding some art -- you know, the public art as an amenity. I'm not very artistic, so I would have to defer that, but I would reserve a space and, then, figure it out later. There has been -- well, the -- going to the buildings. This building we have done and I have got pictures of those that I could show the Commission if they would like to see those. We have done a lot of these building types. They are 28 foot high pinwheel design, where each of the sides of the buildings is an entrance into the site where the tenant actually feels kind of a private use and in these type of buildings I can also plat them right down the common lot lines and I could sell off the individual units and we are considering that and if the Commission gives us that direction, we can add that as a condition as well. The buildings have multiple texture types, a lot of hips and valleys. They are very architectural pleasing. In the past both Commission and Council has been very receiving of our buildings that we have done. The -- again, if it's the direction of the Council -- or Commission tonight, I can blow out the duplex there at the east, kind of the way we originally planned, and we could put the commercial use there. One discussion tonight has been a lot about the traffic. One of my previous jobs was a traffic planner at ACHD. ACHD has written a report for this site for the Sugarman Sub. It was 4,000 trips a day based on those commercial uses. Whether it developed commercial or not, they have generated a trip generation for ours and they have approved our site plan at over -- we are at like 439 trips per day. So, the generation -- you know, there has been a lot of concern tonight about trip generation, but the actual trip generation of what was previously approved is greatly lessoned by what we are proposing. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 30 of 144 recommendation tonight for the denial is basically based on, one, that the MUC designation requires that we come in with three land use types and as -- as the -- your MU -- within your comp plan it talks to the fact that a mixed use project should include at least three types of uses, except maybe grant -- exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. I'm assuming that was done on Sugarman, because also in the Comprehensive Plan it calls for a minimum within the MU designation, a minimum of 20 percent residential use. In the previous Sugarman Subdivision there was no residential uses. What the staff report said is that we assume that there is going to be residential uses outside of that particular development, but the way the code reads is that the mixed use designation for that parcel has to provide a minimum of 20 percent. So, I'm assuming that the Commission and the Council granted that exception for this parcel based on the previous action and no residential uses on this development. One of the other things that the staff has recommended denial is because that the density was too high and as you can see tonight we are at 15 units per acre. You take the 3.99, you divide it by 60. That's exactly 15 units per acre. I think part of that confusion was me giving them information on taking things out and moving around, but if I do the commercial as suggested, I will even be lower density overall for the entire site. So, the other was that we were not providing the correct mixed use. Based on the comp plan we are asking that if you do not envision that we are providing those mixed uses tonight, that for this small of a parcel that you grant that exception and recommend approval to the Council, because I'm assuming that's what was done previously on this site when there was no residential uses proposed. Another reason that it was recommended for denial was that we were not -- the project didn't integrate with surrounding areas. There was no pedestrian connection, there was no cross- access, and that must have been a confusion on my part, relaying that to staff, because we are providing it to the north right off of our drive aisle on Linder. We have met with the developer or the representative, the person of the property north of us and that was acceptable to them. They are here tonight to discuss that as well. We are providing a center micro path that can be extended to the development when that develops to the north. We are also providing the cross-access to the east off of our drive aisle. So, I believe that with those that means that condition of being integrated. The other was that staff felt that this project had -- was not as high of a quality as the previous one and if you can, Josh, can you pull up the comparison slide that I had. So, as you can see when you compare the two developments, just with what we are proposing in our amenities, you know, we are providing a significant amount of amenities for the property that wasn't provided by the previous site plan. We believe that the previous site plan, although it -- it functioned as commercial, it was basically mainly asphalt. What we are proposing is several amenities for the development that will actually aid and enhance the area. If we blow out that duplex over here, you know, this would be a nice transition and -- in between the four-plexes and the six-plex and that can be integrated well with the development. Going back to the real estate side -- and I know, Commissioner Fitzgerald, you brought up the Ten Mile and the right-in, right-out there. What's likely happening there -- it was developed as a -- as a larger project. So, a lot of this they get better circulation through the site and they have got access to a full access driveway. I think what we are going to see now with ACHD and the city -- and all cities is that we are going to be moving commercial away from intersections where they have more Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 31 of 144 direct access to a full access driveway. I have worked for ACHD for some time and, you know, they always told us that we were killing business. So, I have seen what happens when we restrict driveways and it -- it really does affect a commercial business. They like to have direct access to a full access driveway. If a commercial use has to drive through someone else's commercial use that there is no control, the value of the drive -- the property that you are ended up driving through increases and the destination decreases. So, we are going to be seeing -- and it's something that the cities should start coordinating with ACHD in their land use decisions, because we are no -- with -- with how restrictive ACHD is getting, we are going to start seeing more and more of these uses move away. As an example would be just a half mile down the road from this site we have got a neighborhood commercial center that's doing very well. They have got exposure to Ustick and they have got a half mile local road that they can get full access to. So, there is commercial components that are going on and they work very well where you get that access. Any -- any commercial folks will tell you -- I mean it's -- it is -- key is access and if it wasn't access, this property would have developed a long time ago. It -- it had all of its entitlements, it had the zoning in place, alls it would take is a tenant to move in and they could have built pretty quickly, but I'm representing our buyer tonight, based on this use. The seller couldn't make that retail and commercial happen, it just didn't work for that -- that site. There is multiple areas in here in the comp plan that support our proposal that talk directly to multi-family and arterial roadways. I have got a list of those if you would like to hear them. I think there is more support for this type of a use than there is a negative and in -- in closing, I guess, the MUC district specifically states that you have three uses and that there are exceptions for small pieces. This is a small piece. I think that exception granted prior -- to the prior uses and that's what we are asking tonight. With that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. I do have -- okay. So, the commercial buildings are, obviously, coming right in. So, they are right there. Correct? Arnold: The -- McCarvel: From -- from Linder. If you come in up there to the right and, then, where you -- yeah, those two. Arnold: Well, this one -- I'm sorry, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Yeah. Arnold: This one is -- was proposed as a duplex. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Arnold: We originally had it shown as office commercial, but we can certainly if that's the direction of the Commission tonight, we can blow that out and make that back end an office and commercial. I would like, though, a reversionary clause that if we can't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 32 of 144 make it work in the next, you know, five to seven years, that we can come back and, you know, have the conversation to take it back to duplex ideas. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Steve, I had some questions here. We didn't see any elevations. So, if you have got them I would like to see them. And, then, also, Josh, can you pull that back up real quick. Beach: I apologize. Cassinelli: The plat. In the -- in the lower right -- kind of the southeast corner, I guess, there is a -- in -- we will call in pink. Oh, that's a dog park there. Okay. I was going to say is that a -- is that a future four-plex, but that's not. Arnold: No. Cassinelli: Because that is -- that's common area. Okay. Arnold: I have got elevations of actual building elevations and, then, we did submit as part of our application elevations for the buildings, but I will -- I can show you the -- Cassinelli: And, then, also covered parking. You didn't -- you mentioned it -- it says covered parking. What are we looking at for covered parking? Arnold: We will do -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, we will do a minimum of 60. Cassinelli: Okay. Arnold: We -- at least half of the units are covered. Cassinelli: Garages or a carport? Arnold: Carport. We have thought about garages, but at minimum a carport. We have done garages in other cases. If you would like I can go through the buildings and pictures. McCarvel: Yeah. Please. Cassinelli: We will be here for a while tonight, we may as well. Arnold: These -- like I said, this is what you have seen behind Kohl's and, then, let's see, Shallow Creek would be Franklin and Locust Grove. You know, we -- we had a lot Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 33 of 144 of character to the buildings. They tend to yield the higher rent, because of that and, then, we did this at Stone's Throw and there is a different -- we got several types at Stone's Throw as we will here, too. We do screening on all the patios and mechanical units. This one we actually did garages, but I'm not sure if that's going to be the case on this, so I would say at least a minimum -- right now we are proposing the carports. McCarvel: Yeah. Because how many spaces does that usually take out of -- if you do garages? Arnold: Madam Chair, they don't take up too much additional space. You make them pretty tight. McCarvel: Right. A couple. Arnold: If you go back to this picture. I mean that -- that's a tight garage. I mean it -- it's a -- there is room up front for storage and your vehicle and that's about it. So, it's -- they are -- this is the six-plex. This was the building right next to what could have been the -- the commercial unit and this would be the one that I most likely plat. We did this off of Five Mile and -- and Fairview and they have got a great street frontage and you just -- you plat them right down the party walls and that way we have got the dirt that we own underneath them and you can sell them with conventional financing type. If you condo it that makes it a little bit more difficult. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Steve, is this -- in regards to pointing this, is this pointing at the road towards -- Arnold: Yes. This would -- this would be facing -- Fitzgerald: Facing Ustick? Arnold: -- out in a green -- no. No. This was facing the -- probably the drive aisle. We could certainly flip that and make it face the commercial, too, would -- it works either way. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: Okay. So, that's -- Arnold: That's pretty much -- McCarvel: Go back to the -- the backside of that, Josh. So, that's what would -- right now as the plan sits that's what would be facing the commercial right there? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 34 of 144 Arnold: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Arnold: I think that's -- the other elevations that you may be -- they should be in your packet. I can try to pull those up if you need. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Steve, follow up. Were you also thinking as a possibility not just that duplex, making that commercial, but also that six-plex? Is that up for negotiation? Arnold: I think -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think that would be probably more than what we would want to do, because of the demand. I'm a little skeptical of making the other work, but the -- the duplex -- that footprint, I can get about -- about a 4,000 square foot, maybe larger, commercial building in there, which -- you know, that makes for a nice -- a fairly decent sized restaurant for the area, something that -- and then -- but -- you know, I don't -- I don't think we would want to do much more than that. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: And I guess the only other issues that -- if that goes commercial, would we have about eight parking spots up there? Was that all? In that little corner. Arnold: About ten. McCarvel: Okay. Arnold: But I have additional room where that six-plex is, if I go bigger on that I can slide that six-plex down and, then, if you -- if you notice along this area here, I don't -- I'm not showing any parking. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Arnold: So, I would slide this building down if need be and add parking here. McCarvel: Okay. Arnold: So, we have definitely the capability of doing that. McCarvel: Josh, can you push that up? How much open space would you be taking out? And that's just kind of -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 35 of 144 Arnold: Yeah. McCarvel: -- open for the sake of being open down there right now. Arnold: Correct. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Uh-huh. Holland: Is there a difference on the four-plex buildings? There are some that have kind of a white hash on, some that have the darker black. Is there any difference between those types of buildings? You see what I'm talking about? Arnold: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, there -- yeah. There is several different types. There is a -- we have the pinwheel design and, then, we have got, the more traditional design that we did at Stone's Throw, so those -- there is two different type of pinwheel types that are in there. So, yeah, you can see this one, it -- oh, that looks like it's the -- this one is different from this one and it's just -- they are roughly the same size. It's basically throwing out different facades, so that we get different massing, so you don't get, you know, this block that sits there and you look at it five different times in a row. So, the idea is to try to break up a lot of facades, so that you do get kind of a unique quality type of four-plex project. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I'm curious about the putting green and how that came to be an amenity, if you would shed light on that, please. Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, we -- so, we did this right off of Bird and Overland in Boise. So, we put a dog park in, we kind of put a gazebo and a plaza area and we -- we added a putting green and I have been starting to put those in more of these four-plex projects. They have -- it's amazing how much use they get. I used to do Bocce balls and the Bocce ball ends up being a place for, you know, people just hanging out and they are not used, but it was amazing when we put in the putting green how much use that we got out of it. So, I'm trying to incorporate that into more of our -- our four-plex projects. I hate putting in a use that never gets used and that is something that gets a lot of activity. The highest use of an amenity is a simple pathway. So, I like to connect -- as you see we have got a pathway at the north, it connects down to the sides and, then, along Ustick and Linder. A pathway is the highest used amenity within Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 36 of 144 any kind of residential use, but we are getting a lot of use out of the putting greens and they look neat. McCarvel: Okay. Yes. Perreault: So, are you familiar with the development on the corner of Ten Mile and Pine across from the Chevron to the north? Those are three story apartment units that are all platted separately and have different ownership and they have had consistent issues with different owners not keeping the buildings in compliance with the -- the CC&Rs and in good repair. So, do you have a way to address that if you end up deciding you want to plat every lot and sell them separately? Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, yes. So, the way we manage it -- and this is how we are doing Timber Grove, Shallow Creek and the last one -- Stone's Throw. So, what we do is when we -- when we plat -- so, there is -- there is a couple ways to do it. I can plat the building off and the building can be owned separately throughout different -- what I haven't done in Meridian and what I'm trying to convince my client to do is actually plat the building into four lots, so that I create a lot for each of the units and, then, I sell those fee simple. The way he manages it is you put everything under an HOA and you have that HOA maintain it. You have within your CC&Rs the dues and everything that accounts for the maintenance, the responsibilities for the building, the painting and you just -- you put that into your dues and you have it managed. I'm not -- I'm familiar with the area at Ten Mile. I'm not familiar with what happened. My guess is they didn't have it managed correctly and all of ours we make sure that we have an HOA that runs it. Perreault: So, they would, essentially, become condominiums? Arnold: If -- if I plat the individual units. I'm trying to convince our client to do -- I think they are worth a lot of money and I think you could sell them at a price point that you can -- you attract a lot of people moving into it. The type of people that we are seeing moving into these are ones that are not my generation, they don't have dogs and boats, they are mobile. So, it's a lot of a younger crowd that they don't have a lot of kids. So, it -- if I sell them. I think I would do great. If I don't, they would be held by, you know, one ownership for the four units and we would just have them maintained. Perreault: There is -- I have not seen a lot of those types of product in this area, the condo type product, that's -- that's available for purchase, so I was curious about that, because that's a type of residential use that we are not seeing a lot of out in this -- in this area, so -- Arnold: Madam Chair. So, a condo -- don't think a condo, think a townhouse. Perreault: Okay. Arnold: Because I'm in -- these would be owned -- the dirt underneath them -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 37 of 144 Perreault: Oh. Okay. Arnold: -- and the key with that is the financing. We do conventional financing for that type of unit and that -- that I can sell all day. The condo -- I have condo'ed these and they are a little bit trickier. Perreault: The ground's owned by the HOA -- or managed by the HOA with the condos? Arnold: A condo -- Perreault: It's a share -- yeah. Arnold: A condo is just the airspace. Perreault: Right. Arnold: So, they don't own the ground. Perreault: Right. Arnold: The town they would actually own the ground -- Perreault: Right. Arnold: -- and, then, the common areas around would be maintained by the HOA. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Arnold: Thanks. Before we move on to public testimony, do you guys need a break or do you want to power through and finish this one? You're good? Beach: Madam Chair, quickly before we do that I want to -- I want to say that I pulled up the staff report for the Sugarman Subdivision back when this property was annexed in and Sonya wrote the staff report and she did require them to provide three uses and so the uses there that are shown on that concept plan are the three required under the mixed use designation. So, just wanted to clarify that. McCarvel: The previous one? Beach: So, she did not receive -- as Steve mentioned, he was hypothesizing that she received -- so somehow they were granted an exception from the mixture of three use -- land use types. They -- they were -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 38 of 144 McCarvel: Okay. So, we will move on to public testimony. Do we have anybody signed up, Chris? Johnson: Yes, Madam Chair. We have six sign-ins. First is Cindy Fritz. Fritz: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Cindy Fritz and I reside at 4400 West Pasadena Drive, No. 41, in Boise, Idaho. I am testifying tonight on behalf of my mother Betty Vogel, who resides at 3610 North Linder Road in Meridian. This is the property that is adjacent and just directly north of the parcel on the northeast corner of Ustick and Linder that we are talking about tonight. So, I'm from Meridian. In fact, I went to kindergarten that's just across the road before this building was built and I have seen the growth in Boise and Meridian. So, I know what you're up against and I appreciate the challenge you're under. So, whatever development goes on the land that's being discussed on the northeast corner, we want to make sure that our land to the north has access to Ustick Road and there is connectivity to our property. Our realtor Norm Brown of Mark Bottles Real Estate met with Steve Arnold and he's willing to -- willing to give us that access as you have seen tonight and to the east and so I just wanted to confirm that and I thank you for your time tonight. McCarvel: So, the access that he's showing you guys have agreed on? It is going to gel well. Fritz: He's agreed to have access. McCarvel: Okay. But just that one little spot in there is the only access, so -- and that's acceptable to what you guys have planned? Fritz: We have not had a comprehensive plan, we just have that -- we have had agreement to have access. McCarvel: To have access. Okay. Fritz: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Johnson: Next you have of Steven Lloyd. Lloyd: Hi, again. Madam Commissioners -- or other commissioner, I'm going to go at this a little bit different here. So, I like what everybody's been saying about having commercial on the corners. Like the barbecue place down at Franklin and Linder. It's good barbecue. You will find a way in there if you good to barbecue, so -- but let's just go to our little property right back here. If you go down Ustick and turn on Llama Lane, it's a dusty dirt road and, then, we get back to us again. I'm not necessarily -- I'm not opposed to any development in this area, but why I'm here is because it's -- I should have been here many times before this and I -- I just should have been and I haven't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 39 of 144 and I am now and I'm looking for P&Z to help protect us. We have a lot of our retirement income and everything else wrapped up in this property, right, and I heard the previous gentleman talk about how they have talked with neighbors and talked to -- but nobody's knocked on our door. If this -- I don't know what's going to happen to the north of this product -- project, if this one goes in and they have the access connectivity. Is it a bunch more -- is it a lot more townhomes? Is -- are we going to be approved for more apartment complexes? It's a pretty big -- it's 15 acres. And, then, there is nine acres in front of me and, then, I have my private driveway, which is a dead end of these and a path that goes right down the middle. I'm -- I'm concerned about now and in five years if we decide to sell our property, does it suddenly become worth less money five years from now, because we have all these multi-family homes around here? Now, if there is -- if there is commercial property on this corner and nice commercial property here and something here that doesn't have a negative effect on my property right over here and in front of me, if we can manage to get a single family, single level or maybe an assisted living thing, something that doesn't have a negative effect on this property, then, maybe the property -- our values go up with everybody else's. I know this ground over here's property values went to the roof in the last five years. So, has the corner. That nine acres in front of me is skyrocketing. It's all for sale. If they want to do these kinds of things, then, fine, buy the whole corner and go for it, but there is just one of us. Okay? And that's why I'm here. Unfortunately, recently Les passed away and this little house right here is going to be gone soon and, then, it's going to be one big 25 or 30 acre corner with a little house here in the back and that's our house and we want some protection and I don't know how else to put that. But nobody's knocked on our door. If they offered us market value for it right now, we can't replace what we have anywhere else in this valley and I guarantee you in -- if all those -- what is up -- what I think is about to happen around us, five years from now we are not going to -- we may not be able to afford a house in this subdivision over here based on what we can get for our little -- our little piece of heaven that's quickly becoming not a piece of heaven anymore. So, I looked to all you all to help us out. McCarvel: Okay. Lloyd: And anything you could do and when we are thinking about what's going to be and not be approved. I have my wife and family and future generations that plan to be here would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Next you have Carl Wieble. Wieble: Madam Chair, Commissioners. Carl Wieble. 3045 North Springtime Way, Meridian. I just want to say that Mr. Arnold gave an excellent presentation on this, because what I saw on paper from the city's was totally different than what he just proposed. Can I say I'm against it? I can't. Can I say I'm for this? I can't. My only thing is that I do wish that if he's going to look at this -- I know this is for a preliminary plan, not a final plan -- is look at the idea if they can downsize the number of units, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 40 of 144 because right now they are at the max. They are at the zone maximum for units for the townhouses. If something could be done here in this small four acre parcel -- again, he was talking about possibility of -- of gutting some or changing some to commercial, I think that would be positive. The neighborhood -- I think we want to work with the developers. We really do. But, again, we talked about a walkable neighborhood or a sustainable neighborhood for the rest of the residents in the subdivisions. If we could mix that in, again, with these developers, like Mr. Arnold, it would be great, because right now it is at the max. But, again, we are looking at more commercial does mean some jobs. It does mean jobs for people in Meridian. It means tax revenue, which is a good thing for the city and the county. So, again, with this project I'm just hoping that when he comes in for his plat, his final plat, which we would like to see as residents, and to see what he really is proposing for you to approve or deny, because right now it's kind of in limbo. But, again, I don't envy your job. I know what this is like. We are growing so fast -- I think you're doing a great job, but you are under a lot of pressure, so, please, take your time on this and, again, I hope Mr. Arnold will work with the city and the Planning and Zoning Commission, downside maybe -- downsize the density possibly and converting some of that to some more commercial use. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Shon Parks. Parks: Madam Chair and Commissioners, Good evening. Shon Parks. I'm with TO Engineers. It's 2710 Titanium Place and I'm just here real quickly to speak on behalf of Mrs. Vogel at 3610 just to the north of this property. We are just in very early planning stages and also looking at partnering with the city in its Comprehensive Plan and annexation of this property. I just want to make sure that we have really great cross- connection. Our initial conversations on the planning of this we are considering some excuses and we want good cross-connection, vehicular and pedestrian, you know, from the parcel that we are talking about, because of the issues that we have talked about and difficulty in accessing the parcel off of -- off of Linder and, really, that's really the primary access into the piece that we are talking about that's owned by Mrs. Vogel. So, we just wanted to reiterate that and I'm open for questions if there are any. McCarvel: Thank you. Parks: Thank you. Johnson: Paul Gazhenko. Gazhenko: I'm here again. I'm Paul Gazhenko. 39 -- 3696 North Morningstar Place. Just looking at -- at this from a -- as a bigger picture, I'm in the same reasons, it would be on my -- just getting overcrowded, but I'm looking at it a little further down the road just a few more years. If Linder is going to get widened we won't have the traffic jam that we are having now, which is -- eventually is going to get even worse, because there are more houses that are being built, but also on this developed the land here Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 41 of 144 eventually they will have houses here as well I would imagine, as well as this property that's going to get developed and -- and some more homes are going to be built and I would rather have residential homes, they just make more sense, because the residential home owners have same values -- similar values versus apartment or townhome residents, and I just prefer keeping it in that same range. But as far as this land here I think it would just serve better use as commercial, just like the other piece of land across and once that Linder Road is going to get widened, it will generate enough traffic flow to make sense out of commercial use and that will bring investors into purchasing that land for -- for that particular use, which we just got to wait long enough for that intersection to develop into that type of model and so I would say that it's better for -- for like a pizza or a gas station or some other small commercial use and that's the way intersections work and they have worked great and I think this one here is a little different. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Your last person wishing to speak as Chris Williams. Williams: Long time no see. Chris Williams. 1762 West Canyon Ranch Street in Meridian. 83646. I don't live too far from the proposed applicant here. I'm right here on this corner lot over here, so -- anyways, with the spot here, again, I'm not anti- development. I'm fine having it being developed. I don't think that the current suggested development of the -- whatever you want to call them -- duplexes, townhomes, I mean I kind of heard a lot from the applicant. Me personally, I realized that this is very preliminary, so, you know, the final hasn't been worked out, but from the pictures, you know, that he showed, a potential of what it looks like, didn't really make sense to me for the area, to be honest. You know, the other areas that I referenced to back behind Kohl's, me personally, I don't think it looks very good there. It is what it is. Traffic. Even from those areas they may or may not have enough parking spaces if you go out there. They park out on that street as well. But with that said, you know, on that one -- I want -- I want commercial there and this area of north Meridian, I want commercial. I do. You know, whether that's small restaurants, give me more variety, you know, gas station -- I don't know whether it's warranted or not. That's not for me to decide, but, you know, my opinion I would like to see commercial in this area on that corner. If we can't do commercial, even single family homes -- I know, you know, it sounds like here, it looks like down the road where potentially maybe have some, I'm even fine with single family homes. I realized that this area of Meridian is desirable to live in. Again, I just think single family -- my preference is commercial, but if we have to have more residential I prefer single family, so that's where I am at on this. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Is that the last sign in, Chris? Johnson: Yes, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Okay. With nobody else signed in, was there anybody else in the room that wish to speak on this application? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 42 of 144 Putman: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Jeremy Putman. 1878 East Blue Tick Street, Meridian, Idaho. One thing that I was curious about in this proposed parcel -- Steve has proposed to do a mix of uses. I did kind of have a question about the previous approval, if there was a gas station and a coffee shop and things like that, all of those are commercial uses, so really there is only one use. The offering to be able to bring in a very -- a variety of uses on this parcel would be -- would be closer in line with the MUC -- the MUC district. And, again, you know, seeing the opportunity for connectivity with the adjacent parcels to the north and to the -- to the east. I think would be a good addition to this area to -- to make the area more walkable, especially with the plan that's laid out with paths around the current property and micropaths to adjacent. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. With no one else wishing to testify, would the applicant like to come forward? Arnold: Madam Chair, again, Members of the Commission, for the record Steve Arnold. A Team Land Consultants. Just address a couple of the statements that were made tonight. You know, I -- the Sugarman Sub that was previously approved, you know, it's -- it is under the MUC zoning district. I tend to agree that I think most of those uses were commercial, but, you know, we could agree to disagree, but we are trying to make ours, you know, meet the several use types by multiple types of buildings. We have agreed to blow out the duplex, if that's the direction of the Commission. I hope I'm not back here in five years asking for another DA mod, but we will give that building a shot and I think there could be some use there. As we have worked with the neighbor we are granting the Vogel property a cross-access. We will work with them as we develop our -- pardon me, I'm fighting a cold. The -- the density -- you know, we are going to be below that once -- the 15 units per acre once we blow out the -- the duplex, if that's the direction or if the Commission feels fine with the proposal, that's great. One of the discussions was cross-connections and we are definitely providing those. We can work with the engineer at Toothman Orton, they are already doing a fairly big project for me in Cascade. I would be happy to work with them additionally on this site. Single family. One of the discussions was doing single family. I don't think that's the highest and best for this site, but we would agree to do the commercial as suggested. And the traffic -- this is one of the lowest traffic generating uses that you could put on a site. You know, having worked for ACHD for way too long, I know what -- what developments generate traffic and what does not and this is a very friendly traffic generating use. It is all right- in, right-out, which means it's going to be destination trips, so people will plan their trips around how they are getting here. Unlike the commercial, most of it is pass by, so I don't see our commercial really taking off until we get access further to the north to a full access driveway, which will be a minimum of 600 feet, which the Vogel property has got and we -- we have a very high interest to work with them if we are doing commercial there. So, that's definitely something that would be fixed. Again, within the MUC designation -- and as we did on Timber Grove that was behind Kohl's, there is the option for the Commission and Council to grant exceptions based on the size of the property. So, as it stands we believe that it meets those codes required underneath the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 43 of 144 MUC designation and it was speculation that a variance was discussed, but in that report for Sugarman it assumed that there was going to be residential growth around the site and that's why it was not required for the Sugarman Subdivision. By code that property should have granted about 20 percent residential uses. It did not. We are trying to provide those residential uses. We are not trying to exceed the 15 units per acre, we are providing numerous amenities that we think that if you compared the two projects I think we have got a far better project than what was previously proposed through a speculative development and that's why that development failed. With that being said, I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Just real quickly, as far as the -- the four-plexes on the property are -- are concerned, how many -- how many are planned in that -- in that drawing? In your -- we had that listed on the site plan. The four-plexes -- it looks like we got seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12 -- 13 four-plexes. Cassinelli: Okay. Arnold: One six-plex and one duplex and there is two different styles of the four-plexes. That, again, was done to try to break up the facades and provide a mixed housing type in there. They are all -- not two stories, they are all single level. So, each four-plex you don't have anyone living above you, you have a downstairs with a kitchen and a living area and, then, the two bedrooms are above. That's what makes these so popular is you don't have basically people living above you and making a bunch of noise and that's why they, basically, function as a townhouse and if we subdivide them -- and I would be happy if the Commission were to make a requirement, at least with the six-plex and maybe several four-plexes, we would definitely be happy to subdivide those. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more thought for you. I'm just curious what your thoughts would be. If you were to replace the duplex with commercial of some sort, any thought about that six-plex becoming a potential commercial, too, if you had that whole kind of area be a little bit of a commercial use? Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I just don't believe there is that much demand for the commercial there. I would be very skeptical that we could get that to take and, then, I would be back here before the Commission asking for another DA modification, because I couldn't get the uses to work. We potentially could with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 44 of 144 duplex, you know, that -- it's roughly 4,000 square feet, move it -- a couple of small commercial uses, the boutique that people are asking for, but I don't think with that amount that we could get it today. McCarvel: Any other questions? Thank you. Arnold: Thanks. McCarvel: So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0090? Cassinelli: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0090. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: This has been an interesting one. I kind of like the townhomes in general, but I think -- as much as the other one was all commercial, this is pretty much all residential, so I do think it needs to be a mixed use and I'm really hesitant on the connectivity and where it's located and how that's going to integrate with those other two parts. I think this has a potential to be a really fabulous corner if it's all connected right and I just don't know that -- I mean I'm just having a hard time -- that's the only connection point that it's going to come together quite as nice as it could. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: A question for staff. So, with that requirement for connection, it's okay that that is just a -- a private drive area, it doesn't have to be a public street? Beach: So, our code requires cross-access connection. That doesn't necessarily mean that a public street doesn't make sense somewhere. I just don't know based on parcel lines whether a public street would meet any of the ACHD separation requirements from the intersection, either off of West Ustick or North Linder. I think they are too close to the intersection to -- to have a public street there. We need some sort of a public street. I can pull up -- we are going to need a public street. Likely it will line up with -- in my opinion somewhere over here and provide -- and you will have another access point off of Linder somewhere north of that 3610 property. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 45 of 144 Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Beach: But having said that, I don't know that the way that they have got it lined up is -- it functions really well. Perreault: That -- that means the -- the owner of that property would be required to maintain that, yet you would have a lot of use, potentially, from the northern property. McCarvel: Any other thoughts? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: You guys toss a coin. Fitzgerald: Yeah. No kidding. I don't -- to start I don't think get rid -- or removing the duplex and making it commercial makes any sense without taking the six-plex down, too, and so that's -- that -- it just doesn't flow. I wouldn't understand what that little dinky -- so, that -- that piece of the puzzle would -- would equate to. So, that -- it goes back to it's all residential and if that's the right use for that corner. The challenge I think I have is we have a big chunk of land that not -- it doesn't include the earth -- it includes this and, then, surrounding property, how are we going to plan that whole area and make it function and benefit the community and -- McCarvel: Yeah. I'm just afraid if we wall that off with those six towns -- six sets of townhomes there -- I mean you're stuck with it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. And that's the challenge. I think access -- like if you're talking about behind Kohl's and behind Dick's Sporting Goods, that's a street that is -- I would say it's kind of a buffer between commercial -- a very heavy commercial use and residential use in Champion Park, which kind of makes that density makes sense right there. Perreault: And also it has a light right there. Fitzgerald: Yeah. And this being a hard corner and -- I don't know. I -- it's challenging, especially based on the conversation we just had pretty in the previous application. I think it's -- it's very -- very hard. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I have a few thoughts. First of all, I will start with the -- the positives. I really like some of the amenities that the applicant's brought forward. I think it's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 46 of 144 Fitzgerald: Agreed. McCarvel: Absolutely. Holland: -- very innovative, something that's missing in our community. I really like the -- the -- you know, the putting course in the middle of the complex. I think it's creative and I think he was absolutely spot on that's something that would actually get utilized, which -- Fitzgerald: Is rare. Holland: -- is always appreciated and rare. They kind of went outside of their way of just trying to make sure they had some unique amenities to make a nice product. So, I really appreciate that. I would agree with your comment that if you were going to take the duplex and turn it into commercial I think you would need a bigger pad there for something more to draw to that -- that piece and so I would rather see -- even more than having the two separate buildings, maybe even having one really nice commercial building of some sort, whether it's a restaurant or something, some sort of commercial use that makes more sense, whether it's two buildings or one building. The only other issue I have with the way that the site plan is is I worry about where that cross-access is to the north with that corner coming in. There is a lot of angles on that corner and I worry that you have got traffic backing up and anyone that's parking on the west side of those four-plexes will have difficulty getting in and out of those parking spaces. You may have some potential collisions there in the future just with the way the angles are. So, I would almost want to see that cross-access potentially in a different spot to help mitigate getting people in and out of the complex. Otherwise, I like the design of the four-plexes. I think it's a unique way to look at a four-plex where they have all got different entries, they are not stacked stairs, kind of awkward. Those are some thoughts for now. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: The -- the part that's frustrating I think to everybody is that this is such a -- it's such a small piece on that -- on that corner when you -- especially when you look at everything. Right now we are -- we are going to be looking at -- at three, maybe four different developments in here and trying to fit different pieces of the puzzle in, getting a cross-access -- if there was a nice concept for all of that. Right now that doesn't exist. If you go a mile to the east on the intersection of Meridian and Ustick there is a commercial development on there that -- that definitely works and it's -- with the change in that intersection it's right-in, right-out both those. So, commercial will work on that. Just to the north of that if you're looking at a map on the north of Settlers Park there is a group -- it's Settlers Village, there is a group of -- the reason why I was curious on the number there, there is nine four-plexes in there. I don't think it's overbearing for the neighborhood. It fits in there. So, both applicants -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 47 of 144 Fitzgerald: With the park that's right there, too? Cassinelli: What's that? Fitzgerald: The park that's -- Cassinelli: With the park that's in the backyard. You know, I think both applications could work in there. I think commercial would work and maybe not retail, but -- but light office and -- correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, Josh, is that -- that fits in MUC, too. Light office? Okay. So, I mean there is -- I think there is demand for that, not just -- it doesn't have to be a gas station, it doesn't have to be a coffee shop or -- or a restaurant, but there is -- there is different applications there, too. What concerns me is that cross- access. It's -- it's almost a -- without a total redesign of this I think that -- that cross- access is -- is kind of a killer. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: And Madam Chair? I mean, Josh and Bill, we have -- in the past -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- we have asked applicants to, you know, work with your surrounding community neighbors to master plan this out, so we understand what is being proposed across three properties or across four properties. I know that's not very -- it's not easy to ask the applicant to do that, but when we are talking about a -- correlate this -- I think it's hard not to ask that. Correct me if I'm wrong. Beach: So, we have them do -- there is always a neighborhood meeting involved and we don't -- I think we have in the past asked them to coordinate with a specific landowner, sometimes we want them to -- when we know there is going to be a property developed -- in this case the Vogels who own 3610, hopefully, they are getting some input from those folks as to where they would like a cross-access to be located. I think a lot of -- a lot of times that -- that goes a long way with the surrounding neighbors working with what you have got going on. I can't think of an instance -- maybe Bill can - - where we required that they do so. Fitzgerald: Maybe not required, but to get moving forward we need to understand -- this is a pretty important corner in the future. Beach: We do -- we have required -- typically with annexation or there is a situation like this where we -- we don't know how it's going to develop. This is one of those situations where we don't -- we don't know where roads are going to go and so maybe -- maybe that was something we should have asked them is to say how do you envision your property developing in conjunction with all the properties around you as far as a road network is concerned and what that might look like. The use has been mentioned by one of the -- the residents testified we -- we have a site plan from the applicant. The one we have on our -- on our website does not show the location of the cross-access, which is why we have that in our staff report as to them not providing that. I don't know Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 48 of 144 that -- don't know what my analysis is on the -- the location of those right now, because I haven't had time to sit and think about that and compare what the code requires, but some of the points have been valid as far as the location of those and maybe potentially being problematic as far as traffic goes in circulation to the north and especially to the east. I'm just not sure how it would all function right offhand, so -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- Cassinelli: Oh. Sorry. McCarvel: Go ahead. Cassinelli: Josh, can you address a couple things on -- on -- number one being the density. Is -- is it in that -- is it or isn't it in that -- in that range. Are we at 15 or are we at 20? I know there is a difference between net and gross and I have yet to figure those out when it comes to density. The other one is for -- that was -- that's the main one right now. If you could address that one. Beach: As far as density goes. You want to know the difference between net density? Cassinelli: Well, not necessarily. We won't get into that, but does it fit with the -- with the parameters. Because you're saying it doesn't and you are -- Beach: The top -- the top end. So, Steve -- there is -- there is -- there is gross and net. Net would be 20, but we typically go off of gross and so there was some -- there was some confusion about which number to look at. So, 15 gross is at the very top of the threshold that is set forward in the -- in the Comprehensive Plan. Cassinelli: Okay. Beach: So -- so, I was incorrect on that. That -- it appears that his density is -- is the very top of what would be allowed in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use community. Cassinelli: So, as far as your recommendations and your reasons, that actually -- it does actually slide in to that? Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. I just don't know that we want it to slide in when -- especially when there is no other use going on there for the mixed use, you know. Cassinelli: Yeah. McCarvel: Why leave it that dense if -- Cassinelli: Again, we could always -- I mean we -- we could approve based on -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 49 of 144 McCarvel: Right. Cassinelli: -- making that duplex, which, then, would bring it down if we had that duplex commercial. McCarvel: I just -- yeah. I just think we are asking -- it's not like we are in a down economy. Like he said, those properties are for sale, it's -- I think it's close to being able to be worked on a little bit more with the adjoining property owners as far as making the connectivity better, because I just think to have connectivity, you say, okay, we can check that box, we -- we gave, you know, a cross path there, I just -- I see that as a problem spot to have it. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm wondering what the Commission would feel about possibly looking at continuing the application, so that we give staff enough time to kind of look at the other potential application that's in suit north of the property to see where the cross-access may make most sense. McCarvel: Are they -- are they ready for that yet or are we better -- Holland: I thought there might be an application in -- McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly what I think we should do it -- again, it's your purview, but what we could do and entertain for you is continue this out -- I have already given the contact information to the Vogels, so that's why Steve and that property owner has had conversations, because we -- we told them -- we informed them what -- what was happening along their boundary and they needed to know that and take that into account into integrating. What we should probably do is check with ACHD to see if they would entertain a public street connection for this particular property, as far to the east as possible away from the intersection and at least we can get some better separation along that east boundary and provide better access for the Vogel piece if it were to stay a residential project. I would also mention -- I think there is some confusion tonight at the hearing here. So, keep in mind that comp plan designation is not parcel specific, that -- that area can flow. We have flexibility there and that's some of the things that we talked about with the Vogels is that, you know, that mixed use could float a little bit and, then, if we kept this commercial, then, you could float that higher density and, then, transition into either a townhome or a single family residential product or you could have some commercial along Linder Road and, then, further away with some higher density to the east. Again, I think you're spot on. From staff's perspective we don't feel this -- this application feels a little premature for us. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 50 of 144 have too many vacant pieces around it and it doesn't fit in with the way it's currently designed and that's why we bring those issues to you this evening. We need to see how this is going to truly integrate with those pieces before we can give you a recommendation for approval. McCarvel: So, I guess if we were to continue it, though, we need to put a date on it. So, are we -- we are probably just better off -- if we deny it, though, they -- how soon can they bring it back? Fitzgerald: A year. McCarvel: It's a whole year? Fitzgerald: That's -- McCarvel: That's what I thought. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the -- we should ask the applicant to see what his desire is. I mean he's here, it's his application, is he willing to continue it out a month, two months -- I don't know. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Ten months. In order to go forward with denial and take his chances with the -- the Council. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And I think for us that, Commissioners wise, we got to decide whether residential right there and four-plexes on that hard corner makes sense before we send him off to go work with the applicant potentially to the north, if that's really giving direction. Is that what we want in that corner? I mean that's the -- McCarvel: I think -- personally I would rather see a true mixed use -- the 20, 30 -- you know, the recommended residential versus commercial. So, that's my two cents. Fitzgerald: I would tend to agree with you. McCarvel: Instead of 90 percent residential and a little corner of commercial. Cassinelli: Unfortunately, it's -- it's tough to do one on that small of a -- McCarvel: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 51 of 144 Cassinelli: I mean it could be done, but it's tough on that small of a -- on a parcel. Madam Chair, question for -- for Josh. The proposed cross-access to the east is -- is essentially through the parking lot right now the way it stands. Is that -- is that -- I mean there is -- the applicant said I have got cross-access. It's right out here right down the drive aisle, but is that acceptable to have it through a -- what is it, a parking lot for a residential parking lot? Beach: Sure. So -- so, we do require cross-access and that's really the way you would do it through a -- through a parking lot is -- is the way that he's showing it. Going back to what -- what Bill's comments were and the comment you just made, though, yes, this is a relatively small mixed use parcel, but that mixed use designation can flow. So, if this gentleman to the north -- that family who owns that wants to work with the city, as I mentioned that they are, potentially that mixed use community designation gets a lot larger and you may be able to get some additional uses in there and have an actual true mixture on the mixed use, as well as transitioning from some additional multi-family to single family as it gets closer to the school up to the north. But -- but, yeah, I mean through -- through a parking lot that's -- that's why it's hard in this case, because we -- we don't know how the rest of the area is going to develop and it's not -- it's not ideal to do it that way, because it feels like you're going to be funneling a lot of traffic through -- Fitzgerald: Residential. Beach: -- parking -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Beach: -- out to the access that are going to be on Ustick and Linder Road and it -- similar to the -- the project across the street, staff had concerns with what's coming from that Windsong Subdivision out to Linder and cutting through the parking lot for the -- for the multi-family project. It's a similar situation on this and going back to -- we didn't -- we didn't actually know until tonight where those cross-access locations were going to be, but -- but I don't see any other way to do it the way that they have their project designed. It doesn't mean they can't change that and -- McCarvel: Right. Beach: -- and improve that somewhat, I just don't -- don't have the -- I don't -- I don't even know what they are going to propose tonight to show you. But, yeah, that -- that's really the only way they would be able to do it with their current design. McCarvel: So, I mean there could be townhomes just arranged a little bit differently and better -- better access points and, then, maybe some commercial floated up farther and that would make that whole corner make sense. Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 52 of 144 Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I think we need to wait and see that. Yeah, Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: We usually -- we usually have the opposite scenario where we -- we are trying to fit something like this around other existing, you know, structures and so I think it's great that we could potentially have the opportunity to -- to see that designed well if - - if the neighbors are willing to -- to work with each other and, you know, we are always talking about making sure that we are finding the highest and best use, especially in that critical location. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Perreault: These corners have become really really important for us and so -- while I think the design -- they just put some great thought into it, I really like how they have designed it. I do like the -- the pinwheel design. I'm not sure that that's the best location for that either and I would -- I would propose that we see if it's possible to wait and continue it. McCarvel: Okay. So, would we like to make a motion to open the public hearing for the purpose of asking the applicant a desired date or if he would like to take his chances and move through? Fitzgerald: Yes. So moved, Madam Chair. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. Would the applicant like to come forward. Arnold: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Steve Arnold. What is the direction of the Commission tonight? Is it the direction of the Commission that we just work with the property owner to the north and relocate the drive aisle or see how the drive aisle functions with -- with a proposed development to the north? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? I will take a shot. I -- my -- my desire -- and I don't want to speak for everybody, but my desire would be the drive aisle is definitely extremely important. I think having it further away from the -- from Locust Grove -- I mean from Linder, excuse me -- because I'm looking at Locust Grove -- where that lines up and how that matches up with your guys's design would be important, but I also think how it flows into their -- their project would also help us understand what that -- that whole area is going to look like and I know that it's not easy, but how it flows is going to be important for that area. I mean at least for me. Cassinelli: Well -- and, too, the -- the cross-access to the east as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 53 of 144 Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think all those are needed. We need to understand what that looks like. Perreault: And per staff's recommendation discussing with ACHD how they might want to put a collector street -- potential collector street in that location. Arnold: So, one of my immediate thoughts is maybe what we do is we get rid of that driveway on Linder completely and, then, show just a cross-access to the north and we work with the property -- because that -- that driveway is way too close to the intersection. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. McCarvel: Yeah. Arnold: You know, it's not the most ideal situation and if we can work with the owner to the north to get that cross-access, then, I have got some flexibility where I can move things around. McCarvel: Right. And maybe they want to put some commercial right there and that would float your mixed use, you know -- Fitzgerald: That works. McCarvel: -- where you could have, you know, your six-plex and your four-plex and if the commercial was floated it -- you know, depending on what they want to do, you know -- like you said before, where the commercial is floated up to where the better access point to Linder was. Arnold: Exactly. If -- if I'm hearing the Commission right -- McCarvel: But we want to see that in this area somewhere. Yeah. Arnold Right. If we can -- so -- oh, I want to come back to you guys with a plan that you think is acceptable. What I would propose, then, is if we can work with them we can kind of master plan the area maybe for ours, because I don't have good access. McCarvel: Right. Arnold: I'm still pushing that. Then maybe I stick with all of the -- McCarvel: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 54 of 144 Arnold: -- residential units and I work with them to the north and get -- we work on an access -- a right-in, right-out driveway is what I see and, then, eventually they will have full access. So, I'm going to abandon mine on Linder, which is not good and then -- McCarvel: Make it all work. Arnold: -- make it that I can keep it -- McCarvel: Yeah. Arnold: -- and if that -- if I'm hearing and then -- McCarvel: Right. And so that's I guess -- Arnold: -- I can do that -- McCarvel: -- where -- our question to you is if -- so, at this point if we recommend denial, like Commissioner Fitzgerald said, it's another year for you to come back on this, so -- Arnold: Assuming the Council does, too. McCarvel: Right. Yeah. So -- but if we give you a continuance how long do you -- I mean do you think this is workable -- Arnold: The next available P&Z meeting. McCarvel: Uh? Arnold: Next available P&Z meeting. McCarvel: Okay. So, you think you can get this all worked out -- Arnold: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Arnold: We will be meeting with Toothman Orton tomorrow. McCarvel: Okay. But, staff, how many days -- well, you got the holiday in there and staff needs at least ten days -- am I correct? Perreault: I'm sorry, can I get clarification on something? McCarvel: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 55 of 144 Perreault: So, what I'm hearing from the applicant is that we are talking about redesigning access, but -- but leaving this all residential with these -- McCarvel: Maybe. Depending on what the -- Perreault: What the Commission's intending for him to work on? Because I got the impression that we -- that -- that we are wanting him to have discussions with the neighbor to the north about -- about redesigning this entire area as mixed use and potentially putting commercial closer to the intersection and residential further north. Cassinelli: Or his -- or remaining -- keeping it residential and having some commercial flowing to the north. McCarvel: Where the better access would be on Linder. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. Just -- just a little bit there. Perreault: Just to clarify -- McCarvel: But it's all still there. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Just -- Fitzgerald: And, Steve, I think you understand that we are trying to balance it with the north -- the property of the north of what makes sense. Is it commercial down low and it floats up into a single family residential closer or further north closer to the school or is it reverse, as you talked about with having it off the hard corner and having commercial kind of in a -- in its own little space. I think the staff understands where we are trying to go, so if you could work with the other applicant and talk to Josh and Bill, I think we can -- if they understand what we are trying to accomplish. McCarvel: Yeah. So, staff reports done by -- for the next available P&Z meeting would be December 6th. So, that would mean staff reports would need to be done by the 3rd to give us a chance to look at it. Is that doable with the holiday or do we need to go to the 20th? Beach: So, we need -- typically we need ten business days -- McCarvel: Ten business days. Beach: -- to review the staff -- to update a staff report, essentially, as it's going to be an entirely new staff report -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 56 of 144 McCarvel: Right. Beach: -- than what he is proposing to change and there is -- like you said, there is a holiday in there with at least a couple of days where we are not in the office. McCarvel: Yes. So, that's -- that's only eight days. So, I'm thinking -- Cassinelli: The 20th. McCarvel: -- it would probably need to go to the 20th. Arnold: Of December? McCarvel: Yeah. Merry Christmas. Cassinelli: May. Arnold: Boy. Well, we will have to work with what we got. But as long as I'm -- I'm hearing from the Commission tonight -- like I said, I have talked with the representative of the property owners to the north and I think the property owner to north wants to see the highest and best for theirs. McCarvel: Right. Arnold: I think if we can get more of the commercial push towards the full access driveway that works best -- best for both and that's the direction that I'm hearing, that if we can do something like that, that that would be something that this Commission would consider. If that's the case, then, yeah, I will -- I will definitely take deferral -- McCarvel: Okay. Arnold: -- and I will work with the owner -- McCarvel: Okay. Arnold: -- and staff and -- McCarvel: Do you want to do the 20th right before Christmas or do you want to go January 3rd? Arnold: The 20th. I would like to go to the earlier one, but -- McCarvel: I just don't think it's going to be enough time for staff to rework -- I mean to have them -- I mean -- I know you will be ready, but, then, they have got to do their due diligence as well, so -- okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 57 of 144 Arnold: Thanks. McCarvel: All right. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Holland: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0090. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Pogue: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Pogue: You need to keep the public hearing open, because you're continuing. McCarvel: Oh. Sorry. Close the -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I would move we reopen the public hearing for -- McCarvel: Thank you. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. Now go for a motion. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move to continue file H-2018-0090 to the date of December 20th, 2018. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to move continue H-2018-0090 to December 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Madam Chair, may we take a short break, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 58 of 144 McCarvel: Yes. Five minutes. (Recess: 8:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) D. Public Hearing for Alicia Court Subdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning Services, Located 4036 E. Granger Ave. 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 6 building lots and 2 common lots on 3.084 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district McCarvel: I think we are ready to begin, if everybody would have a seat. Okay. So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2018-0107, Alicia Court Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Turn my microphone on. Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is a -- this is not an apartment complex on the corner Linder and Ustick. This is a single family subdivision, a preliminary plat. This site consists of a little over three acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 -- I'm not on the right slide. There we go. At 4036 East Granger Avenue. This property was annexed in 2014 and CUP was approved for a church that has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential. The applicant proposes to develop a site with six single family residential lots and two common lots. Before I go any further with that though -- and the applicant this evening before the hearing came up to me and is requesting that the project be continued. She would like to address some of the -- some of the conditions in the staff report a little further with her team and I will let -- I will let the applicant come up and kind of explain a little bit further what she's -- what she's requesting, but I wanted to give you a heads up and kind of a brief overview of what they are looking for. So, that's all I have got for you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Constantikes: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Penelope Constantikes, Riley Planning Services, Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. Just to start with, we are not proposing any changes to the central characteristics of the subdivision. The developer wanted to make it pretty low density -- is a nice transition between the higher density Red Feather and Dawson Meadows and all the open space that is along Granger and Grenadier. So, we are not changing anything in terms of its layout, but there are some -- there are some elements in the staff report that -- that need some specific review, so that we can make sure we understand all the implications that are embedded in these. We need to have a conversation with Public Works. I always like to come to these meetings with as much consensus as possible with staff and get everything sorted out, so we just -- we need time to truly evaluate some of the implications of staff's recommendations. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 59 of 144 Constantikes: It would give us time to -- to get the staff report from ACHD for our waiver request to keep a private shared driveway, as opposed to a public street, and it gives us time to meet again with Planning staff and Public Works and just so you know, there is no objections from the neighborhood. We did have a neighbor meeting, they all seem to be excited. I have got two neighbors here and I got their e-mail addresses again. So, they are excited about the lower density. We are going to try and keep it real quiet. One of the purposes of a shared private driveway is to keep the -- keep the new subdivision really quiet and low key. So, if you would be kind enough to continue our hearing until December 6th, we would be most appreciative. McCarvel: I think we would, too. Constantikes: Thank you, ma'am. McCarvel: All right. Thank you. With that -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, are you going to open the public hearing for anybody who is here to speak on this or are we going to -- just clarifying. I'm just making sure we are -- McCarvel: I think it -- I would prefer to take public comments after we -- after they are for sure they have everything ironed out. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: So -- oh. Sure. Constantikes: I'm going to reach out to the neighborhood and make sure they know -- McCarvel: Sure. Constantikes: They -- they network amongst themselves pretty well, especially within their individual subdivision, so one of the reasons I got e-mails is so we can let them know and -- so that they know it's going to move to the 6th. McCarvel: Okay. Constantikes: So, I don't anticipate any negative testimony. So -- thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. McCarvel: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 60 of 144 Cassinelli: Josh, is the 6th -- that's what -- that's what you are planning on, too, is the 6th of December? Beach: That's just fine by staff, so -- Cassinelli: Okay. Beach: So, assuming we get the -- the materials within the days to review. Yeah. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: It doesn't sound like there is any changes. They are just -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- want to understand -- they are responding to your staff report. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: In that case, I would move to continue file H-2018-0107 to the hearing date of December 6th, 2018. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0107 to December 6th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Shelburne East (H-2018-0112) by Shelburne Properties, LLC, Located at 4080, 4115, 4205, 4301 and 4330 Bott Ln. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 35.09 acres of land with R-4 23.58 acres) and R-8 (11.52 acres) zoning districts; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 101 building lots and 21 common lots on 34.62 acres of land in the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning districts McCarvel: With that we would like to open H-2018-0112, Shelburne East, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 34.62 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and located at 4080, 4115, 4205, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 61 of 144 4301 and 4330 East Bott Lane. Adjacent land use. This site is surrounded mostly by rural residential and agricultural land, with some existing and future urban density residential. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential, which is three to eight units per acre. The applicant has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of 35.09 acres of land, with R-4 zoning, which is 23.58 acres of the site and R-8 zoning, which is 11.52 acres of the site and a preliminary plat consisting of 101 building lots and 21 common lots on 34.62 acres of land in the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. The proposed density of the development is 3.1 units per acre and that is consistent with the medium density residential future land use map designation. There are -- go to the aerial map real quick here. This is the overall property we are looking at here. There are four existing homes and accessory structures on this site. All are proposed to be removed, except for one home on proposed Lot 9, Block 9, and a garage on Lot 6, Block 7, which will remain on lots in the proposed subdivision. A new home will be constructed on the lot with the existing garage. The existing home will be required to hook up to city water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available. Access is proposed from the west via the future South Hillsdale Avenue and from the east via East Bott Lane and that is from Eagle and Cloverdale Roads further to the west and east. Both of these streets are designated collector streets. Stub streets for future extension and interconnectivity are proposed to the west to the Marsh and Rasmussen properties and to the south to the Williams property. ACHD is requiring Bott Lane to be improved off site from the east property line east to Cloverdale Road. A new bridge is proposed on Bott Lane over the Ten Mile feeder canal to replace the existing single lane bridge. A structural engineer is reviewing the existing bridge over the Ten Mile feeder canal to ensure it's capable of supporting a fire truck, 80,000 pounds, so that a secondary access is available to the site for emergency purposes until such time as the bridge is reconstructed. The Ten Mile feeder canal and the Nine Mile Creek cross this site. The canal is proposed to remain open and the creek is required to remain open and be improved as a natural amenity. The canal, if you can see my pointer here, runs right through the site here and, then, the creek runs right along the southwest corner of the site here. A 15 foot wide irrigation easement is depicted along the southern boundary of Lots 2 through 9, Block 4, and along the north boundary of Lot 9, Block 3. The UDC requires easements wider than ten feet to be placed in a common lot that is a minimum 20 feet in width, unless otherwise modified by City Council. The applicant is requesting Council approval for the easement to be located on the adjacent building lots, rather than be placed in a common lot. A total of 16 percent or 5.25 acres of qualified open space is proposed as shown there on the exhibit on your left, which is six percent or 1.85 acres of land over the minimum required of ten percent. Ten percent would be 3.4 acres of land. It consists of a community orchard, a pond, collector street buffers, parkways along collector and some local streets, stormwater detention facilities and open grassy areas at least 50 feet by 100 feet in area. A minimum of two site amenities are required based on the size of the development. Several amenities above the minimum required are proposed from each of the three categories, which are quality of life, recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation systems. They consist of the following: Three picnic areas with shelters and tables, kind of spread out through the development. A sports court, which is -- they are proposing a pickleball court as shown there. A segment of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 62 of 144 the city's multi-use pathway system along the Ten Mile feeder canal, internal pathways and micro paths. A pond with a bench. A tot lot with children's play equipment. A community orchard with picnic tables. And an additional 20,000 square feet of common open space area. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes within the development as shown that are consistent with those being constructed in Shelburne Subdivision to the west. Building materials consist of stucco and board and batten siding, with some stone veneer accents. Most of the homes will be single story in height with some two story. They will range in size from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet, containing three to four bedrooms and have two and three car garages. The rear and the side of homes visible from the Hillsdale Avenue and Bott Lane, collector streets, are required to provide articulation in those elevations. Written testimony has been received from John Carpenter, TO Engineers, the applicant's representative. He did include a response to the staff report. I will let the applicant go over that with you and from Tim and Lisa Petsky. They are requesting a six foot tall privacy fence and either a restriction for a single story home on the lot against their southeast corner or no second story windows facing north due to the location of their outdoor kitchen and pool area where they would like to retain their privacy. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project with a development agreement. Staff feels the proposed density is at the low end, but is consistent with that desired in the medium density designated areas and does provide a little larger lot type which is desired. Common open space and site amenities are dispersed throughout the development and are substantially above the minimum required standards. Pathways provide pedestrian connections to internal common areas throughout the development and to adjacent properties. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jeff Bower. Business address 601 West Bannock in Boise and I am here on behalf of the applicant Shelburne Properties. Sonya, we did send a PowerPoint over, if you would pull it up for me. Thank you. Allen: If I can find it I will. Bower: It is highlighted there in that window. Allen: Oh, this one right here. Sorry. I was looking at the desktop. Bower: Thank you, Sonya. Okay. Again, Jeff Bower here on behalf of Shelburne Properties and we have before you tonight Shelburne East. This is the third Shelburne project that you guys have seen. We have Shelburne number one and number two already approved and under construction and those are to the -- to the west of the site we are talking about tonight. So, to get you oriented, we are north of Amity Road and west of Cloverdale. Here is a vicinity map and the project site. Here is the future land use -- land use map, just kind of showing you, again, the -- the project location. As Sonya mentioned, we are in medium density residential designated area with three to eight dwelling units being appropriate. Again, we are here tonight on an annexation and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 63 of 144 along with that annexation we are asking for zoning -- 23 acres of R-4 and 11.5 of R-8 and as Sonya mentioned, the -- the Ten Mile feeder canal does run through the property diagonally there and that's sort of the natural break we are taking there on our zoning. So, as to annexation, again, there is a -- we meet the land use map. We are 3.1 units per acre gross overall, so we comport with the map. We are contiguous to the city. All the utilities are readily available and so I believe annexation is proper at this time. Next turn into the preliminary plat. Again, we are asking -- that's the second portion of our application tonight. Happy to be single family here tonight. Single family, 100 lots and 21 common lots. Sonya did mention there are within the plat two current owners that are retaining property. I just want to point those out to you. Right here, lot and block -- sorry -- Lot 6, Block 7. These are -- this is the lot with just a garage. So, an accessory use. These folks have plans to construct a single family home in the future. I'm going to talk about that a little more at the end of my presentation. And, then, the -- the existing home is down here. That's Lot 9 and Block 9. A little bit about access. We are in the -- in the center of the mile block here. So, Bott Lane will be our access out to East Cloverdale and Peaceful Pond, which connects to a street called Zelda -- Zielda connects -- Zaldia. Zaldia. Thank you. Connects to Eagle. And as Sonya mentioned, those are both collector streets. As part of the project in -- right in the middle of the plat you see East Bott Lane. Currently a local street. The developer is proposing to increase the capacity there and build that out as a -- as a collector street. In connection with that, all of the ACHD standards will be met. Bike lanes, detached sidewalks, and along with a 20 foot landscape buffer on both sides. ACHD has looked at this preliminary plat. Our hearing before them is December 12th. But their staff report is recommending approval with proper mitigation. They have blessed the street layout and our plans for Bott Lane. Turning to open space. Sonya, again, did a really good job. She stole all my thunder. We are going over and above in all the categories here. We have 16 percent open space where ten is required. You know, I can't really count them, because there is so many, but we are only required to have two amenities. You know, I think we have somewhere between seven and eight, depending. Over here is our -- is our tot lot and one of the picnic areas. Down here is the pond, as Sonya mentioned, that is part of the Nine Mile Creek. Here in the center open area, sports field, and this is the pickleball court. Also here you have a picnic area with a shelter. This side of the subdivision another open lawn area with a picnic shelter and up here to the north this is what we are calling the community orchard. A little bit of a different amenity. Going to have meeting space for our neighbors, hopefully, to have, you know, HOA meetings and gatherings and, then, one thing that's not on the list here or highlighted is the pathway along the Ten Mile feeder that is a ten foot wide path with landscaping and it is part of the city's master parks pathways plan. So, it provides connectivity there. All these green areas you see without any designation, those are five foot micropaths to increase connectivity. We sort of viewed this subdivision as, you know, kind of naturally divided into four quadrants. So, we tried to put an amenity in each quadrant, so that people living close could enjoy those. Sonya, again, already showed -- showed these and stole my thunder, but, again, pickleball -- I think an unusual great amenity. We are building homes hopefully to target an empty nester crowd. I know pickleball is really -- really popular with my parents and, then, a little picture of what we anticipate the orchard looking like. Housing product. So, again, this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 64 of 144 is a continuation of Shelburne one and two. The product is going to be very consistent. The architectural style is modern farmhouse or contemporary. These are the two styles we -- we foresee going forward. Predominantly single family with some -- I'm sorry -- predominantly single story with some two story and square footage in the 1,800 to 3,000 -- 3,000 square foot range. One thing in the staff report I did want to clarify -- it said all homes would have a three car garage. That is not the case. Some will be two, some will be three, but in any event they will all meet the city's off-street parking requirements. All right. As to the staff report, we agree with 99.9 percent of it. Sonya did a great job and on really short notice. I'm going to take you back to the Fulcher's lot. We have one issue there. Staff has recommended -- she's even mousing for me. Staff has recommended kicking this common lot down all the way to the south across the Fulcher's lot. As I mentioned, the Fulchers have plans to construct a single family home. They want to take access off Trenton and a 20 foot common lot there would prevent that. So, what we would propose is that the Commission tonight recommends approval with a landscape easement in lieu of the buffer lot. We are happy to take direction from you on that, but we need at least one curb cut to serve the Fulcher's future single family home. All right. This is in some sense a redevelopment. It's certainly a consolidation project and as you all well know with that comes some headaches of working around neighbors, making sure everyone's happy. We think we have gone above and beyond in this case to deal -- to deal with those issues. A few specific items I want to point out to you. Neighbors to the east, Holly and Kendall Rasmussen, they own this parcel right here. We have held three neighborhood meetings. I believe they participated in -- in all of them and they have communicated with the developer directly. They have asked for privacy fencing surrounding the southern portion of their lot, as well as the eastern portion. We are in agreement with that and we want to accommodate the privacy fencing there. The Rasmussens have also raised concerns about the Bott Lane curvature there and traffic, you know, directed towards the lot there. We have tried to address that with some additional landscaping. So, here's a revised fencing plan we put together to address the Rasmussen's concern. You see the fencing, the privacy fencing to the south and the east, and in addition to the -- to the standard berm that meets ACHD and city standards, we are willing to put in some large boulders and rocks to increase safety and provide more of a buffer to the Rasmussen's lot. Another couple of examples I want to point out before I -- before I rest here. Up to the north here right above our orchard lot -- originally we had single family homes planned there. We heard from Tim and Lisa Pitch -- I'm sorry if I mispronounced their last name -- but they own the lot just to the north. They wanted to reduce the number of single family units behind them, so we accommodated them there. Now, they are only having one -- one -- one lot bordering them. There is a privacy fence planned there. I think Sonya pointed out they wrote in and asked for a privacy fence that's planned and we will -- we will be built. Second -- or, I'm sorry, third -- the third issue we have dealt with to try to accommodate neighbors, in the center of the development here you have Jared and Jennifer Marsh, they have a home towards the southern edge of their property. In fact, the -- the folks they purchased it from built it in the ACHD right of way. So, again, to work around that the best we can, we have -- we have moved Bott Lane south to provide them some distance. Again, we have the 20 foot buffer, bike lane, everything. ACHD is on board with the alignment. Even Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 65 of 144 preliminarily liked some of the -- some of the curvature as a traffic calming measure and jumping back to the Rasmussens real quick, I'm sorry, the fence -- the privacy fence, we are trying to build that as quickly as possible. Contractors coming out at the end of the month to get that up, so that whatever construction is going on won't bother them. So, in conclusion, again, we think we have a great -- a great product. We meet the comp plan. We have given great amenities, quality housing product, and we know it's a need. So, with that I will stand with any -- stand for any questions. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question in the staff report under waterways, it talks about the Ten Mile feeder canal and Nine Mile Creek crossing the site. The canal is proposing to remain open and not piped. The creek is proposed to be piped. But the staff made her a note that says the UDC requires creeks to remain open and be improved as a natural amenity in all residential designs. Do you have any comments about the creek and the UDC requirements about keeping that open? Bower: We are in agreement with all of staff's comments, unless I call them out otherwise. Holland: Great. Thanks. Bower: Yeah. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Well, this the first time I have seen an orchard as an amenity. I'm curious how that will operate, who is responsible for planting, harvesting, how is that going to work. Bower: Absolutely. Madam Chair, Commissioner -- Perreault: Perreault. Bower: I'm sorry? Perreault: Perreault. Bower: No L. No L at all. You just take it off. Okay. The -- the orchard will be a common area, owned and operated, maintained by an HOA. So, again, similar to what you heard earlier. All the folks in the neighborhood will pay their -- pay their dues and that money will be used to maintain the common areas, including the orchard. Ideally in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 66 of 144 a perfect world what we would like to see is, you know, some community involvement and ownership and every fall, you know, that be some sort of event where they have their neighborhood potluck BBQ sort of thing and they pick the apples and distribute them accordingly. McCarvel: I have a question. On the lot with the garage or shed or whatever it is, how soon -- obviously, you have -- there is somebody in mind that wants that to build a house there. How soon is that house -- is that one of the first ones to go up or what's the plan on that? Bower: Madam Chair -- I'm sorry, I can't answer that. I have a feeling -- the Fulchers are here tonight and they could probably answer that. That is not a part of -- yeah. I'm going to leave it there. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Perhaps the name is wrong here, but did you mention the -- you mentioned several of the -- the neighbors and what you're doing to accommodate them. On our -- in the written testimony there is the Petchies. Did you address -- is that -- that's a lot? Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's the one with the orchard. Cassinelli: That's the one to the north of the orchard? Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Bower: And just to clarify, we reduced the number of lots bordering their property by two, so now it's just one. I -- I'm not in a position tonight to address -- so, there were two things in their written testimony, privacy fence, single family home. Can't commit to the single family home tonight, but I can tell you our development is going to be predominantly single family homes, so -- McCarvel: Single story. Bower: I'm sorry. Single story. Predominantly single story. So, a very good chance that that will -- that will be the case. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 67 of 144 Perreault: I noticed in one of the renderings that there was an RV garage. Are some of the homes going to have RV garages and, if so, is there a certain amount of lots that will allow for that or -- how will that work? Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, I do not believe we have any RV style garages, like oversized. In some cases we will have a three car garage, but all standard size bays. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And this may be a Sonya question or maybe to the applicant. In regards to building on Lot 6 -- or lot -- yes, Block 7, Lot 6, or lot -- whatever that -- that accessory dwelling that's on there, by code how long can they leave an accessory dwelling without building upon it? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, code really doesn't allow accessory buildings on a site, so it's -- it's -- as it's written it's in the development agreement as a provision to allow that. If you don't want to allow that you need to strike that at this point in time. I have -- I would love to hear from the Fulchers. I'm sure they will come and chat. I think there is a -- reasonable -- for the applicant, just from our point of view, probably that that's within a reasonable time frame. Allen: Yeah. Fitzgerald: We can't have accessory buildings just sitting there for -- it's just not a good -- good thing and as we are annexing this in and zoning it right now, it's the time when we get to have to make that decision, so we can control it. So, I'm not sure -- we will hear from the Fulchers, but I think we got to put a time frame on that sometime. McCarvel: And, then, Bott Lane going to the east, is that road -- that goes into technically Boise; right? Okay. Yeah. And so is that road done yet or is that -- Bower: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: What does that lead to or by the time you get there it will be -- Bower: Madam Chair, Bott Lane does connect to Cloverdale. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 68 of 144 Bower: It is currently a county road. No -- you know, no shoulder, no -- no bike lane, no nothing like that. Currently we are working with ACHD to discuss improvements to Bott Lane out to Cloverdale. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Bott Lane from your guys's project to Cloverdale, half mile? Is that -- quarter mile? What -- what's the length of that street? Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, I can't give you a precise length. We are right in the center of the mile -- you know, the mile block. So, you know, guestimating somewhere between a quarter mile and a half mile. Fitzgerald: Okay. Because there is sidewalk it looks like on portions of it that have been approved, but not the whole thing out there. Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, are you looking at a map I'm not? Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm just looking at the -- the overview -- because you have a church there, there is a neighborhood and, then, it goes into kind of county residents, some -- Bower: Yeah. Commissioner Fitzgerald, there are portions of Bott Lane further east towards Cloverdale that have been improved in connection with developments adjacent. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Yeah. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Bower: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. McCarvel: Do we have any public testimony, Chris? Johnson: Yes, Madam Chair. First is Lisa Esson. McCarvel: Okay. Esson: Hi. My name is Lisa Esson. I live at 4430 East Bott Lane, Meridian. As a 27 year resident of this home that we are in on Bott Lane, I would like to encourage the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 69 of 144 Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a few suggestions from a homeowner who has been and will be impacted by development and infrastructure decisions. My family and I live on a five acre parcel. We farm hay. We are not opposed to development, but we would like a well thought out development plan and to not deter from our neighborhood's quality of life. In fact, two of the parcels that have been talked about, one has a garage on it and the other has a home and those people have lived in our neighborhood -- some longer than us. We like where we live and can understand why people would want to live in the area. It's close to the freeway, St. Luke's Meridian, stores and more and we have already talked about it being a dead end road and over the years Cloverdale has become more difficult to get onto and quite dangerous. Traffic in the morning between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in the morning and around 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. in the evening is a real cluster. Adding a hundred plus homes to that area, even with access onto Eagle and Amity, is still going to be gridlock. There was a traffic study when Hayden Homes Subdivision was put in several years ago, they did their traffic study in July when there were no school buses or people traveling to school. Traffic can back up over a mile in both directions and I took a video yesterday and had to wait to get onto Cloverdale. It's not just vehicle traffic that I'm concerned about either. Children walk and wait at the bus stop at Bott Lane and Cloverdale. They wait in the dark half the year and in the afternoons they have to cross Cloverdale to get onto Bott Lane. There is also a little league ball field that's used for about three- quarters of the year in the southeast corner of Bott Lane and Cloverdale. Car and trip pedestrian traffic clogs Bott Lane on days of events and we are asking you to take care of the road infrastructure prior to granting plats on -- for the Shelburne Sub. When we talked to TO Engineering several months ago they said they weren't going to conduct a traffic study and, then, they said they would. With the recent addition of the 135 homes to the east of me -- and it's called Antler Ridge, we would like you to consider how that is going to impact our quality of life and the speed and traffic that comes down our street. McCarvel: Okay. Esson: Thanks. Johnson: Next is Earl Esson. E.Esson: Hi, I'm Earl Esson. You know, I had a great opportunity -- McCarvel: Please give your address for the record. E.Esson: Oh. 4430 Bott Lane. If you look at the maps up there, nothing shows my property, but there is 660 linear foot of my property line abutting the Fulcher's property that are going to be developed. Okay? So, my fence line that goes north-south is the annexation zone. So, I'm still in Ada county. That's where it turns into potentially Boise. Okay. But currently -- and for the last 28 years it's been Meridian -- Meridian zip code. So, what I would like to say is we have lived there -- there has been 80 people living there and currently with the addition of a hundred new homes, that's changed our street Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 70 of 144 from eight homes to now over 250 homes, if you count the subdivision that straddles Meridian and Boise. I was really hoping that they would show what ACHD is going to do to get all the way out to Cloverdale. To put this type of subdivision in and, then, trust five years later that someone's going to take that quarter mile street that will already have half of it with sidewalks and appropriately done and not finish it is a travesty in planning. You know, currently we have very few cars up and down that street and we are running right now typically maybe a quarter of them drive 25 miles an hour, okay? Most of them are speeding. It would be nice where the Fulchers and the Kingsleys property enters out into Bott Lane is if in the planning, since you haven't approved anything yet, to put a rotary in there, because people drive at 45 miles an hour and slam on their brakes to get over that bridge by the Marsh's property and currently, until somebody from ACHD comes out and shows what's going to happen to that road, I think that it ought of be suspended or put off changing the zoning until someone decides what they are going to do with that road, because to leave it as it is and expect people to use that as a corridor type road is I think irresponsible at this time. So, you know, go ahead and approve it, but do so with the thought that currently in talking to Dave, the deputy director, it appears that everybody's expecting tax paying people to provide the money to build that road, whereas right now I think that's something that should be taken care of by the developers and ACHD now, not five years from now. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Michael Kingsley. Kingsley: Good evening. I'm Michael Kingsley. I live at 4301 East Bott Lane. I'm going to retain my house. I have been telling my -- my -- my friends that I don't have to move into a nice neighbor. One is going to move into me. So, my wife and I are really looking forward to this. It's been something -- we have lived there for 32 years. All right? My wife was born in this cabin in the front corner here. Her grandmother homesteaded this land 70 some odd years ago. So, we have been here forever and we have watched all these other people move in around us and make up the rules and stuff. So, it just seems, you know, pertinent to me that, you know, we ought to have a little bit of a say on what's going to happen around our property and we have turned down Hayden Homes, told them, no, we didn't want to deal with them, because they are just -- it's just a nasty little development. It really is. And you look over here on the other side of this and you see what the Shelburne Division -- Subdivision is. These -- these lots are close to a third of an acre. They are nice lots. We got six acres. They are going to put, what, 16 houses on it, that's not very many houses for an R-4 development, so -- and as for Bott Lane I gave my 25 feet to ACHD when we paid off the county for -- from Arlene's grandmother. What they did over here at -- at Hayden Homes is incredibly ignorant, but the rest of it could be really nice if they would just go ahead and finish that out. There is not much there. It's only a quarter of a mile. We have people walking dogs up and down the road constantly. W e really need some barrels for dog doo and I think that that's what's going to happen when they start doing their road development here. So, thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 71 of 144 McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Next you have Jennifer Marsh. Marsh: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Marsh and I live on 4270 Bott Lane. We have been living here about going on 15 years and we have five acres. We are the acreage in between that is getting all surrounded by the new development that they are proposing tonight. I am against the annexation and the high density in this area. We have enjoyed raising four children -- still raising our family in the space that has allowed them to dirt bike, ride horses, grow hay, bale our hay, have a nice view of Bogus Basin and now that will be blocked by houses. I'm disappointed that the City of Meridian has not come by to consider and see all the acreage that is on Bott Lane, Zaldia, Selatir, Terri Lane and off of Victory Road and that has -- would have been a perfect opportunity to have an open neighborhood to fit into the surrounding acreage. Even Kingsbridge Subdivision has more space and lower density. And at this point, like we have all been saying, the roads can't handle the traffic and the schools are overcrowded. I would also like to express that we are not trying to make the rules. We did not find out that our house was granted to ACHD until this was all being proposed. This was not disclosed to us when we bought the house. Right now the ACHD has that little triangle that they are giving the right of way to ACHD and I would like that right of way that we did not know about originally deeded back to our property and back to us. So, then, we can be free and clear to sell our house and acreage down the road. I'm concerned about the road Bott Lane driving right in front of our house. Our house sits off of -- off of Bott Lane about seven to eight feet of the existing lane. I would hope that they would give us the courtesy they are giving the Rasmussens for safety and security and to build some sort of barrier, so that we do not have cars and all running into our son's bedroom. I would also like them to give us fencing along the Fulchers line on -- I guess that's east of us on our east property line. So, having this little oasis in the middle of the city has been nice and it's sad to see all the homes coming in and especially R-8 being proposed across from us and I would hope that we would have single level homes that would be adjacent to us on our -- on our land and that we could still enjoy our farm life and enjoy our horses and have the -- the life that we have been enjoying for the past 15 years. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Jared Marsh. J.Marsh: Jared Marsh. 4270 Bott Lane again with my wife getting surrounded by the development. I think if there is one thing I want to say I'm consistent. We have met with the developer multiple times and expressed concern over the density being proposed, in which they have responded in every case that it is this Council that is insisting on that density. So, I come before the Council today to ask and urge you to reconsider the density being proposed. I believe an R-4 designation is more consistent with the existing development already underway. It provides a buffer. As my wife has noted there are multiple -- multi-acre homes still in the area and, quite frankly, services that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 72 of 144 are under -- provided already as has been mentioned by several of my other neighbors. I want to clarify I'm not against the development, but I do feel like it can be done in a manner that does not overwhelm all the infrastructure. We have had four kids go through the Meridian school district and have dealt for 14 years with chronic over -- over subscription on those schools that has not relieved -- the new elementary already is at capacity. Adding more homes will only exaggerate this problem for years, if not decades to come. I would also like to address the fallacy that development pays for itself. We have seen bond resolution after bond resolution to keep up with the infrastructure requirements driven by the dense profiteering that's going on in the cities right now. I guess to reiterate what my wife said, we are not anti-development, but what we really want to see are the serenity, security and safety of our family preserved and we look to this Council to do that for us. We do want privacy. We want fencing along both the east, as well as the south. I mean I have heard it referred to as a collector road multiple times. It is not. It is a county road at this point and it's not being proposed to continue on as a -- as a collector. Absent that level of service and access, I don't think the R-8 designation is more warranted. I vote and urge the Council to again extend some of the same considerations to other neighbors in our area to ensure that our -- our home is protected from -- you know, I'm concerned about a jog in the road right -- eight feet from for my son's bedroom, honestly, and we have asked for retaining walls and other mechanisms to prevent cars from being able to collide with that house and our son's bedroom, but I don't see anything in the plat today or preliminary plat that indicates that's been considered or is being offered. I would also like to say, you know, the speed that was mentioned, we do see that quite frequently and my concern with that jog there and high speed is -- and slick roads when it snows, is, yes, we will -- it's not -- maybe not a question of if, but when it's going to happen. So, again, not anti- development, but, please, consider the density. Leave R-4. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Kevin Rasmussen. Rasmussen: Good evening. My name is Kevin Rasmussen. I live at 3868 East Zaldia Lane, which borders actually Shelburne -- two developments to the south of me and the new development that's going in. I was wondering if you could pull up the actual plat of the subdivision here to kind of look at it. It seems to me that Bott Lane as it connects over Cloverdale, it's going to be a straight shot that comes down and as it comes across that bridge it will come down around the corner and that's where all the traffic is going to exit, because Cloverdale is so congested that nobody can get out onto Cloverdale. In fact, when they are going from Cloverdale they will have an access to come across and hook them over to Eagle Road. So, they will come down Bott Lane and come and clip right on the corner of my property and with that banked curb -- or it should be banked I guess, but with that radius right there and, then, they -- they can just take on Peaceful Pond out to Eagle Road. So, that's going to be a thoroughfare for a lot of people, because Cloverdale is going to use that as a cut through. When they get off the freeway of Eagle they are going to come down, hit Peaceful Pond and use that to go over to access that. So, all that traffic is going to be coming along Bott Lane. It also Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 73 of 144 goes out to Amity, which is an egress for Century Farms, the YMCA, that's a straight shot from that corner all the way out to Amity. So, when Amity gets backed up, which it does constantly, and Legacy Farms, when they don't want to go over and fight Eagle Road, they are going to be coming straight down into there. There was one picture on here that showed yellow lines where Bott Lane and Peaceful Pond and Hillsdale Avenue -- where they all were connected. This is not going to be a collector road, it's going to be an arterial road. It's going to have lots and lots of traffic on it and so while I'm not really opposed to the development, I'm opposed to the development as it's designed and that I think there should be some T intersections or stop signs or something going on to try and limit the flow of traffic through these subdivisions. Thank you. Johnson: There are no additionals. McCarvel: With nobody else being signed up, was there anybody else in the room that wished to testify tonight? Okay. Stiles: My name is Bonnie Stiles and I live at 3822 East Zaldia Lane. Can you pull up the plat of the entire subdivision, please? Allen: Ma'am, this is the entire subdivision that's proposed. Did you want the -- Stiles: No, it's -- Allen: Did you want that? Stiles: Yeah. That one. Okay. So, we are one of these five acre lots here and you can see the -- the rural lots on this map. My question is where is the transition between all of these rural lots, Kingsbridge and Shelburne, even these lots down at the corner of Eagle and Amity, I don't see a transition. I don't know about you guys, but I see a lot of rural lots, five acre lots and some larger -- I don't see a transition. Why isn't there more of a transition. For those of us that bought these beautiful five acre lots in this beautiful part of Meridian, to have that feeling of -- of the country, to have horses, to have large gardens, to have pasture and now there -- we are just surrounded by these subdivisions with -- with small lots. There is no transition and I'm so disappointed that this has happened and it continues to happen. You have an opportunity now to have some transition, but it's -- again, it's just these little tiny lots. I even think R-4 is too small. I mean there are no half acre lots. There might be a couple in Kingsbridge, but really not. So, I would really like to see more of a transition with this part of Shelburne and one thing, you know, this gentleman says that the -- representing Shelburne, has said that they have tried so hard to work with the -- the neighbors. Well, I just have to say we live right next door to Rasmussens and we have had a beautiful line of pine trees lining our road right out in front of our home. A beautiful line in the one actual picture you can see them, because they are still there. Last December -- and -- and I have to say in the meeting that we came to like this for that first phase of Shelburne, it was agreed that those pine trees were all going to stay. Well, last December, the pine trees right in front Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 74 of 144 of our -- our home, these big beautiful, you know, 30, 40 foot pine trees that have been there for -- for years it was -- I'm hoping -- I was hoping that they would provide a buffer between us and Shelburne. Most of them came down across from our home. They cut all of those trees down. All of those beautiful trees. McCarvel: Okay. Stiles: I'm almost done. But, you know, I would like to say what are you going to do for us? All those beautiful trees were just -- were cut down. What are you going to do for us to help us have a buffer between us and -- and the first phase of Shelburne. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Stiles: Thank you. McCarvel: If there is no more public testimony, would the applicant like to come back? Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you. I will be brief. I will address Ms. Esson's comments first on traffic. First as to the traffic study comment, ACHD did not require a traffic study for this development. We are below the threshold one hundred lots and ACHD has also studied this area extensively and said they did not need any more information. What we did do was a traffic count analysis and provided that to ACHD. To reiterate, Bott Lane is currently in the county and it is a county road. However, ACHD has designated it as a collector road and we are building it to collector road standards. Conferred with the engineers from the edge of our property to the east to Cloverdale is approximately one quarter mile. As to density, I just want to reiterate we are in a medium density zone -- not zone, I'm sorry, designation under the -- under the future land use map and the project we are bringing is 3.1 units per acre, which is at the very bottom end of what the city has decided it would like there. So, we are at the -- at the bottom end of density. We don't believe this is a dense development and it is consistent with the future land use plan. A little bit more on -- on the Marsh's property and -- and the easement issue there. We hope -- and we are working with ACHD to return that land to the Marshes. ACHD has committed to vacating that portion of their easement. It's just a question of time and recording the correct instruments and I believe it will be returned to the Marshes. To address the -- the adjacency of the Marsh's home to Bott Lane, I have to reiterate this is going to be built as a collector street, so we have a minimum 20 foot buffer with landscaping. According to the engineers in that area we are looking at more like 25 feet of a buffer to -- to the right of way. On the Cloverdale traffic issues, again, we are working with ACHD to make improvements to Bott Lane that includes the intersection of Bott Lane and Cloverdale. Cloverdale is also on ACHD's short list for major improvement. They are expecting it widened and improved within the next five years. And unless the Commission has any more questions, I think I am -- I have given you all I have got. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 75 of 144 McCarvel: So, does that -- you said you're working with ACHD to improve the intersection out Bott to Cloverdale. Does that include Bott all the way into your subdivision then? Bower: Currently that is what is anticipated. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: To talk through the Marsh's request, whether retaining walls or rocks or some kind of a buffer for that street, is that something you guys would be willing to do, work with them on landscaping or something that would give them some -- some -- I guess -- thank you -- security for their -- that someone won't hit their house if there is an icy road and somebody takes the jog in that road and does not make the turn? Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, absolutely. We -- in my main presentation I showed you what we had kind of designed for the Rasmussens on that corner. We can do the same thing, you know, as long as ACHD is okay with, you know, obstructions along the collector road. We would set them back further, but assuming it's all up to speed with ACHD, we would be happy to work with the Marshes to put in some additional landscaping there as a buffer. McCarvel: I think a few boulders might do it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's -- McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: In regards to that Marsh -- Marsh home, currently their access is off Bott Road. Is that -- is that being relocated? Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm not sure where their access is currently. Might have to ask Shon, the engineer. Parks: Madam chair and Commissioners -- I don't know if you can -- McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Parks: Shon Parks. TO Engineers. 2471 Titanium Place in Meridian. It's my work address. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 76 of 144 McCarvel: Thank you. Park: Here on the mouse you can see approximately -- and the Marshes can -- can correct me if I'm -- if I'm wrong, but I believe their access is about in this location and it would be proposed to be extended through -- and remain in the location where it is and extended into -- into Bott and so that their access would remain, but in an extended format through this -- through this new portion, which we are hoping to be vacated back to them. McCarvel: Any other questions? Did we get a timeline on the house to be built with the -- Fitzgerald: No. We can hear from the Fulchers. Bower: Madam Chair, the Fulchers were not here. Okay. Fulcher: Good evening. My name is Jeff Fulcher. 4330 East Bott Lane. And we own the property there with the auxiliary structure and we currently have a home in design. It's been designed for several months. We have been waiting for it to be platted, because we can't build until it is platted. So, once it's platted our intention is to build a home as soon as possible on that property. McCarvel: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Move we close the public hearing an H-2018-0112. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0112. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I think they have gone through great lengths to make this fit and make accommodations and I think a lot of developers we see would not have done, so -- I do have concern about Bott Lane out there, but I guess -- I mean they don't have control over it, but I think ACHD would -- I mean it sounds like they are all in the process of getting that cleaned up, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 77 of 144 Perreault: Madam Chair, I thought I had heard on earlier application that they don't prefer to have driveways off a collector street, so I don't know if that's going to become a concern. I mean -- I don't know if we need to request ACHD clarify that or -- McCarvel: I think -- I mean -- Fitzgerald: It's still in the county, so it's one of those -- it's not being annexed in, still in the county. McCarvel: Yeah. I think that -- that little issue would have to be up to ACHD and leave that. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, to the neighbors who live out there, especially on the larger five acre parcels, I understand your -- the dilemma. The challenge I think is that you have had neighbors that decided they want to work together to bring a project and they have the right to do that and development is coming that direction and it's -- this is tough, because I understand you want to have your kind of solace area and that -- and that's the way it's been built, but the problem is that your neighbors have the right to do what they want to do as well that, hopefully, doesn't impact your life's too -- too much and I think densitywise it could be more -- significantly more. It could be the Hubble -- are not Hubble, that -- Hayden Home thing that's next door, which is not what they would like. McCarvel: Yeah. So, I guess thank your neighbors for choosing a developer that has put this together. I think as far as amenities and open space and the lot size is definitely one of the more favorable things we have seen for a while. Holland: Madam Chair, I would -- I would just echo some of the same comments you have made. Certainly it's a challenge when you have got to a -- a large acreage and when neighbors come together to kind of put together a plan. I think they have tried to do what they could to phase it by putting some of the R-4 on the west side and some of the R-8 on the east side to try and transition a little bit better. I think they did a nice job of giving more amenities than -- than code requires and a lot of green space and a lot of connectivity for people who are biking or walking, some unique amenities, too. I don't think I have ever seen an orchard as part of an amenity either, so a creative concept and interested to see how that works in the future. The only other thing I wanted to talk about as a Commission was there was the question of the applicant about the Fulcher's lot and making that a landscape easement, rather than a buffered common lot. I don't see any big concerns with that. I don't know if there is any other opinions on that. Fitzgerald: That makes sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 78 of 144 McCarvel: Yeah. No, I had made that note, too. I think the landscape easement is just fine and that the building can stay, especially since they are wanting a year to start the house, so -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, what do you have to say? Cassinelli: It's tough, too, because I feel for the -- the neighbors that have the large parcels out there, like you -- like you say, and, you know, I think when -- when most of them bought they never envisioned -- they never envisioned this growth happening down. But it is. You know, this is in keeping with the -- with the land use map and -- Sonya, I have got a question for you. The -- I know that -- this is on the low end of the density; is that correct -- Allen: Yes, it is. Cassinelli: -- that you -- did -- did the applicant come with the R-4 and R-8 or was it in conversation with staff to bring that density up a little bit to put the R-8 in there? Allen: As -- as I'm sure you remember, density isn't necessarily tied to zoning districts now, that simply governs the dimensional standards -- Cassinelli: Yeah. Allen: -- but the density is proposed at 3.1 units per acre. Medium density is three to eight units per acre. We did encourage the -- the lower density. I think it is a good mix. Obviously, it's not -- it's low enough for the large rural residential parcels. McCarvel: I think overall I'm in -- I would be supportive of it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I give the applicant a ton of credit for working with neighbors that are -- that are surrounding this, because it's a tough one, it's -- working with them to make sure you're trying to buffer as much as possible and give them security and safety concerns, I appreciate that, and I -- I think it will be a very nice subdivision and neighborhood in regards to the Ten Mile Creek running through it and using that as an amenity. So, I -- I would lean to be in favor as well. Parsons: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Parsons: -- I'm going to chime in on a couple things that you should probably take under consideration that -- that I didn't hear quite addressed by the applicant, but one of the homeowners had concerns about Bott Lane and the traffic cutting through there. Currently as proposed, looking at ACHD's staff report and our staff report, Bott Lane isn't proposed to be extended until phase three or least they will extend their portions as they go through their phasing, but the off site portion we don't know when that's going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 79 of 144 happen and that's not really -- that's addressed in ACHD's conditions, but I don't see where it's addressed in our development agreement and that's something that you -- with annexation that's certainly something that you could request as part of the annexation request is that the off site improvement for Bott Lane be done at a certain time frame, whether it's first phase, second phase, or third phase I will leave that under your purview tonight, but the other thing in looking at ACHD's condition is the applicant is not required to provide any curb, gutter, sidewalk along that roadway either and if you look farther out to Cloverdale, there is a church and ball fields that -- there is community gathering places there that we want to get people to, so from a planning perspective it makes sense to have sidewalk or at least on one side of the road to get people to those services and those facilities. Again, not addressed by ACHD. Their commission is going to take action on this application on December 5th based on their staff report and going back to the other comment about the curb cut, it looks like ACHD is requiring the applicant to reconstruct that -- that curb cut to that collector roadway. So, again, yes, it's not consistent with our code, but, again, given the circumstances that -- that they are dealing with, again, that -- that works for us, we don't really have any concerns as far as them continuing to use their existing driveway. But I just wanted you guys to take that under consideration as you deliberate on this application as well. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Bill, you're talking about off site curb, gutter, and sidewalk -- Parsons: Yes. Fitzgerald: -- not on site, because that's -- Parsons: Correct. Fitzgerald: -- there. Parsons: That off-site portion -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: -- needs to be part of your purview I believe. It's important. That's -- that's the critical piece, because right now if it's not improved, it will just remain as an emergency access and, then, we have all of these homes funneling back out -- McCarvel: Yeah. Parsons: -- through Zaldia. McCarvel: Yeah. I think that's a deal breaker is to have Bott Lane -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 80 of 144 Allen: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I mean I don't think -- uh-huh. Allen: Sorry. If I may clarify a couple additional items when you're done. McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead. Allen: To Commissioner Cassinelli's point on the density, the zoning districts don't govern the density. However, if -- if you're not wanting to approve the R-8 zoning district, which -- which does, essentially -- if you want just R-4 zoning they are going to have to drop a few lots to get there. So, it -- it does have something to do with density, although the zoning districts -- you know, that's not the purpose anymore. However, if you do that it's going to drop their gross density down below that desired in the medium density designated areas, which they can do if Council approves a step down in density. So, I just wanted to just clarify that a little further for you, if that's your desire and, then, also I heard a comment about doing a landscape easement on the Fulcher property. Our code doesn't allow for landscape easements on residential property, so if -- if you don't want to require the buffer, then, just don't require it. If -- if it's a buffer it's got to be in a common lot. McCarvel: You know, really, the only smaller lots I'm seeing is that northeast corner. I mean just glancing over it -- I mean even though that whole right side of the canal I think is requested R-8 -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Allen: R-4 is a minimum 8,000 square foot lots and everything -- everything -- Fitzgerald: But that one side. McCarvel: Yeah. Allen: -- but several lots east of the canal are -- are a little below that. McCarvel: Yeah. And they are just slightly -- it's just that northeast corner that's a little bit smaller. So, I think I'm -- I'm okay with the number of lots that are on there. Okay. Fitzgerald: Thoughts on off site? McCarvel: I think since we are annexing it in, I think it should require that that be done with the completion of phase three. Is that when Bott Lane itself is supposed to be done; right? Perreault: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 81 of 144 McCarvel: Uh-huh. Perreault: What specifically are you recommending be done? I missed that. I'm sorry. McCarvel: Oh. The -- the off site Bott Lane. So, the Bott Lane that's to the east of where their sub -- it's not finished. It's a gravel road. So, as part of the annexation requirement that before completion of phase three that they definitely work with ACHD to pave -- and I mean, yeah, get that street -- Perreault: Curb and gutter. McCarvel: -- curb, gutter, sidewalk. Perreault: On both sides? McCarvel: I think how -- the sidewalk at least on one side. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. All the way through to -- Perreault: I was under the impression it's currently -- McCarvel: It's just a rural lane. Yeah, it's no gutter, no -- I would be okay with that and just making sure that's done before phase three before both of the houses. Anymore thoughts? Are we ready for a motion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I think that having a buffer there is not necessary, if that's something you're -- I don't -- I don't think there is a need -- they are going to landscape it has required by HOA. McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: I'm fine removing that condition as well. Cassinelli: I'm fine with removing that. I'm just going to say for the record where I stand. I would like to see the whole thing at -- at an R-4, instead of splitting to an R-4 and R-8, but I don't think I'm in the -- in the majority there. But I just want -- I want to put that out, because it's -- it's -- it's still such a rural area that would help and I think that -- I don't think there would be a problem with -- with selling those lots. I mean two-thirds of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 82 of 144 it is -- is R-4 already. I think they can come back and do that and -- and everybody would be happy with that. So, I would like to see that. McCarvel: Okay. I could go either way on that, because I think it's just a couple of lots that will do it, but -- Fitzgerald: Just some having to request it from -- from Council. Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I don't know that I -- I see a need to change the designation from R-8 down to R-4. I think it would be just a matter of a couple of -- of lots really in change. I think they have done a pretty nice job of making a good flow there. The most dense part, again, is kind of that northeast corner of the development and as you're kind of transitioning over to the east side, I mean while there is certainly some nice rural lots still available in this kind of area, if you look at the kind of surrounding picture, it's not really a rural area as much anymore either, it's -- it's become more of a suburban area, unfortunately. There is just a lot of development on the east side of it and I think it -- it makes an okay transition to the east. McCarvel: Yeah. In the big picture I don't know that it's going to make that much difference. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I would -- my thing would be just to maintain the -- the way the application is -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- currently. McCarvel: Okay. Would you like to do the honors? Fitzgerald: Sure. Any other thoughts? Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15th, 2018, with the following modifications: That we remove the requirement for the landscape buffer on the Fulcher lot and the applicant work with -- I'm blank on the name. The Marshes to ensure they have appropriate I guess landscaping and security protection for their house as they look to vacate that right of way and that the Bott Lane improvements go along with phase three -- McCarvel: All the way out to Cloverdale. Fitzgerald: All the way out to Cloverdale. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 83 of 144 Holland: Did you mention removing the common lot or did we want to talk about that for that -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. I said that. Holland: Okay. McCarvel: Oh, yeah, I think he said landscape buffer. Fitzgerald: Oh, sorry. I mean the common lot on the Fulcher lot. Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: That be removed. McCarvel: Do I hear a second? Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify the motion before it's voted on? McCarvel: Yes. Allen: By improvements out on Bott Lane to the east to Cloverdale with the third phase, does that include sidewalk or no? McCarvel: Sidewalks on one side is what we had decided. Allen: Okay. I just wanted to clarify on the record your intention. McCarvel: Yeah. Allen: ACHD is only requiring 30 feet of pavement and gravel shoulders, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think sidewalk, curb and gutter -- sidewalk on one side I think is what we had discussed. Holland: I will second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2018-0112 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries and do we want roll call or did you get that, Chris? Johnson: I got that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 84 of 144 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. F. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate, Located at the SE corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.51 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning district (63.796 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (17.713 acres) in the city; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 2 common lots, and 2 other lots for future right-of-way dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R8 zoning districts; and 3. Request: Variance to the UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for 2 accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 McCarvel: Okay. Thanks. All right. Would anybody like to -- be happy about opening H-2017-0088, Linder Village, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Give me just a moment here, Chairman. All righty. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 78 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at the southeast corner of North Linder Road and West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are commercial uses. It's the Fred Meyer Center, retail, restaurant, carwash, fuel facility uses and single family residential uses in Reinhard Subdivision. To the east and south are single family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8, and vacant, undeveloped properties zones C-C. To the west is North Linder Road and commercial properties, zoned C-G and single family residential uses and Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. A little history on this project. The Commission previously heard this application last year. The Commission voted to recommend denial of the project to the City Council based on the design of the previous concept plan. The Council heard the application and voted to remand the application back to the Commission for review of a revised concept plan and that is what is before you tonight. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community, 54 acres of the site, as shown there on the map on the right, the brown area and the yellow area is medium density residential, which consists of approximately 24 acres of land. Annexation and zoning of 81.51 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada county to the C-C zoning district, which is 63.8 acres and the R-8 zoning district, which is 17.71 acres in the city. The proposed zoning and development is consistent with the future land use map designations for this property. A conceptual -- a revised conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts a mix of retail, office, civic and residential uses consisting of nine commercial pads, two restaurant pads and fuel station along the periphery of the development Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 85 of 144 adjacent to Chinden and Linder Roads. Four two story live-work residential office buildings. A library and two market buildings along the central north-south entry corridor by via Chinden, within a plaza area. Two multi-story office residential retail buildings along the collector street. One anchor, Winco, and a mid anchor to the west of the central north-south corridor, three mid anchors to the east of the north-south central corridor. Future office retail development planned at the northeast corner the site. A park and future single family residential development on the south side of the collector street and pedestrian walkways throughout the development providing interconnectivity between the residential and commercial portions of the site. Staff recommends traffic calming, for example, chokers, bulb outs, speed humps, et cetera, is provided in front of the plaza area in an effort to slow traffic for pedestrian safety. And this is the area we are talking about right here, if you can see my pointer. The conceptual plan accounts for ITD's CFI, continuous flow intersection, right of way needs, with a white dashed line at the southeast corner of Linder and Chinden and that is -- you can just kind of see it real lightly right there. However, improvements -- the multiple parking spaces and drive aisles around the front of building two are shown within that area that will be eliminated eventually with the construction of the CFI. Staff is recommending that the concept plan is revised prior to the Council hearing to remove the improvements from that area. The truck receiving area for the Winco store has been relocated from the rear of the building to the west side of the building facing Linder Road, with the loading docks facing north towards Chinden Boulevard away from the residential uses to the south and are proposed to be screened by a masonry wall and that is this area right here. The future medium density residential development which is this area right here, the green area, is planned for attached and detached single family homes on the south side of the collector street. They will assist in providing a transition to larger single family residential lots to the south and east in Paramount Subdivision and the collector street will provide a separation and boundary between the future residential and the commercial development and this is just a use area plan showing the uses that I mentioned previously. And this is the preliminary plat. They are requesting 16 commercial building lots, one residential building lot, two common lots and two other lots for future right of way dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R- 8 zoning districts. A variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 for two accesses via West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26, is also requested, which requires Council approval. No action is needed from the Commission. The residential lot on the south side of the collector street is included in the plat as one large lot and will be developed in the future under a subsequent preliminary plat, as well a future office and retail development on the eastern portion of the site and that is this area right here and this area here. A phasing plan was submitted for the proposed development as shown here. Staff recommends the following improvements are completed with the first phase and that is North Bergman Avenue, which is this blue line here, is extended to the east-west collector street, install the -- the entire 20 foot wide street buffer on both sides of the east-west collector street and complete the extension of the east-west collector street to North Fox Run Way and if you remember Fox Run Way is located just to the east of this project off site. So, staff is recommending the phasing plan be revised accordingly. The traffic impact study was updated based on the revised concept plan and submitted to ITD and ACHD and was taken into consideration in their revised report. Staff did just Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 86 of 144 receive the draft ACHD report today and the revised ITD report as well today. Access is proposed for the development via West Chinden Boulevard and State Highway 20-26 as follows: One right-in, right-out access is proposed nearest the Linder and Chinden Boulevard intersections and that is this one right here. One full access is proposed in alignment with Bergman Way on the north side of Chinden and that's this one right here. ITD has jurisdiction of access from State Highway 20-26. The UDC does prohibit new approaches directly accessing a state highway, State Highway 20-26. The applicant is requesting Council approval of a variance for these accesses. ITD submitted comments stating that they accept the right of way -- excuse me -- the right-in, right-out access with an eastbound right turn decel lane and the right-in, right-out, left-in approach via the state highway with right turn decel lanes for eastbound and westbound State Highway 20-26. Final approval will be determined once all documentation has been provided and the permit is signed. Improvements are required at the State Highway 20- 20 -- excuse me -- 20-26, Fox Run, Linder Road and Meridian Road intersections as identified in the TIS and State Highway 20-26 will be widened to a five lane section between Linder and Meridian Roads. The applicant has requested consideration to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD and ACHD to implement the aforementioned improvements, along with additional improvements required by ACHD, which are required to be complete prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancies within the development. Access is proposed via Linder Road as follows: A right-in, right-out access, which is right here nearest the Linder-Chinden intersection and two full accesses further to the south and that is one right here and one right here where the collector street is. The southernmost access via Linder is a collector street, as I mentioned, that stubs to the east property boundary that will eventually provide access from Linder to Fox Run Way and the signal at the Chinden-Fox Run intersection. A signal is proposed at the Linder collector street intersection, which is not supported by the fire department due to the belief that a signal will cause too much congestion with the operations of the engine company trying to leave the station and respond to calls. ACHD is trying to determine a solution to that. Haven't heard anything back yet, but it's something that maybe can help that. Three stub streets, North Arliss Avenue, North Bergman Avenue, and West Director Street, exist at the south and east boundaries of the site to the future residential area that will be extended with development and those - - if you can see my pointer right here, that's Arliss, Bergman, and Director here. Two accesses are proposed from the residential area to the collector street, which will provide internal access to the mixed use development from the adjacent residential area without residents having to go out onto Linder and Chinden to access the site. Staff recommends Bergman Avenue is extended to the collector street with the first phase of development, so that adjacent residences, like I said, can access the site. A cross- access ingress-egress easement is required to be provided to the commercial property to the south on Linder Road and that is this area right down here. A segment of the city's multi-use pathway is required along Linder Road per the pathways master plan. A ten foot wide pathway is also required within the street buffer along the highway. The concept plan also depicts a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the east and south perimeter boundaries of the site, with the internal sidewalks and pathways proposed throughout the development with connections to the multi-use pathways. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the main anchor Winco, the mid Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 87 of 144 anchors, and the retail shops and the residential units. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split faced CMU, metal panel siding and stone and brick veneer accents. Nonresidential building should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. All structures, except single family detached, are required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC and the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from many of the area residents. Please see the public record for a complete list of those. Staff is recommending approval. Staff feels the revised concept plan addresses the items that were previously noted as issues at the Commission and Council hearings and believes this will provide a nice mixed use development in the northern portion of the city. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you go back to the traffic plan? So, on the -- with the CFI -- it's not only impacting the building two on that, how -- but how close in proximity is it to that right-in, right-out. Allen: This -- Commissioner Fitzgerald, if you -- Fitzgerald: Yeah, I can see it. Allen: -- see that line there, it's -- it's up a ways. Fitzgerald: And there is a decel lane in there, too? I mean is that the concept? Allen: Yeah. I believe so. The applicant's traffic engineer is here and can speak to that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, where that proposed signal -- now the collector road there -- how close is it to the signal down there at Paramount and -- and Lochsa Falls? And has ACHD -- what were their comments on -- on the proximity to -- I mean we are talking a couple hundred feet. Allen: Yeah. I'm not sure. I don't have that in front of me, Commissioner Cassinelli. It's in the public record if you would like to pull it up. Fitzgerald: It's a quarter mile. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 88 of 144 Cassinelli: Quarter mile. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Howell: Good evening, Chairman McCarvel, Members of the Commission. My name is Ken Howell. I represent the applicant tonight. Lynx/DMG Development. My business address is 877 West Main, Suite 1000, in Boise, Idaho, and I'm a partner with the law firm Hawley, Troxell, Ennis and Hawley. As with prior presentations tonight, staff has done a fine job. Ms. Allen I think pretty fairly indicated some of the features that we are proposing in this redesign. I wanted to spend just a minute first before I get into the details talking kind of about what really tripped us back here from the City Council on remand. The access to the parcel from Chinden Boulevard previously we believe that access through the eastern portion of the site to Fox Run was unavailable to us. We had had previous discussions with Brighton Corporation and understood that that was not an option for this development, which is why when we were here before we were really addressing the access on Bergman as the primary access to the site. During the public hearing before the City Council it was revealed that Brighton Corporation had submitted a letter to the City Council at about -- sometime between 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock that evening that wasn't either discovered or certainly wasn't brought to the attention of everyone that was in attendance that night until about 11:00 or 11:30 that evening when we were really getting down to the issue of what's going to push this over the top or push it under the sod and the access issue was whether we could have access to Fox Run and the upshot of the letter from Brighton Corporation was, well, yeah, we can talk about having access on that side, I never intended to foreclose that access and that kind of brought everything to a screeching halt that night, because this was a significant component of where we were and that was the primary factor that brought us back to you on remand, because we said, well, if we have access through Fox Run we have got to totally redesign what we are doing with the site, with the collector road and the things that you see before you. So, that's how we -- we got back in front of you and what's that -- what that has done has allowed a fairly significant and fairly material redesign of the site and I -- before -- before I turn to some comparisons with what you saw before and what you saw here, what you see in front of you -- I want to point out a few features and I think my -- will my mouse -- yeah, there we go. I want to start here with the Winco store, because that's what really has attracted more comments than anything else on this development. The Winco store has been moved further to the north, further to the west. The loading dock in a previous version we will show you in a second and the whole store was canted at an angle facing kind of northeast, rather than this more parallel alignment. But what this redesign has done has allowed the loading docks for the Winco store to be moved entirely to face Linder and face north and the sound wall be constructed -- the sound wall that I'm circling with the pointer right now is actually a full height masonry wall that goes the full height of that building. It acts as a complete barrier between the loading docks and the adjacent residential uses to the southeast. There is a sound study which was prepared as a result of these changes. That sound study is in the record before you and what that sound study found is that with this change in the building location of Winco and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 89 of 144 installation of the sound barriers and the masonry walls, is that the noise -- the -- the sound impact to the residences in the southwest and Paramount is actually less than current ambient. It drops the decibel rating from about a 45 decimal rating at 4:00 a.m. in the morning, there is some transients, of course, but on average of 45 decibel rating to about a 28 decimal rating. So, it substantially reduces existing ambient noise to those -- to those parcels and that's -- that's in the record before you on that sound study. So, if, Sonya, we could load up the pdf that I provided to you, I just want to switch back and forth between a couple things here. That's not mine. We will get to that one I'm sure. Is this it? So, let me -- let me page -- nope, that's not it. Allen: I'm not sure I know where yours is at. Howell: Oh. Well, I think it got moved to the desktop. Nope. Looking at your desktop and I don't -- nope. Combined. Down here in the lower right, combine pdfs, the -- no. One below that. One below that. It's -- there you go. Right there. Okay. So, what we start off here is the site plan that was before you last and you can see the orientation of Winco, you can see the loading dock being more exposed and not covered by the masonry wall. The current concept plan, which I have now toggled to, you can see the reorientation of Winco, what we were looking at before, but I also want to point out some other things that change here. If you look straight below Winco you will see a grassy area that I'm circling with the pointer, this is about a -- it's 1.87 -- roughly a two acre park which has been added. This collector road has been added going all the way through to Fox Run and is an additional change from the former -- you can see here where the stub outs did have access here into the development. Now, we have changed that so from Arliss it goes clear over here to Bergman and connects up, which we think substantially reduces wild and wanton drive through for that -- that site and these are connections that ACHD is asking that we install. You will note there is a library building as one of the amenities to this project. We have had lengthy discussions with the Meridian Library District, they are very extremely interested in this site. Obviously, they have a few funding issues to take through for approval, but they are very, very interested in having this library site. So, the circulation plan we have also talked about -- and I've already addressed this -- this issue. Let's go back and talk about -- oops, why am I not -- there we go. Let's go back and talk about Winco and Winco's hour of -- hours of operation, because there are a number of things that -- that come up constantly. So, this -- this gets to the issue of 24 operate -- 24 hour per day operation of Winco and we have talked about this before and this has been a major issue, which is before -- has been before you. This is an allowed use in the C-C zone. This parcel will not be abutting any residential uses. So, with the collector roads it is a necessary feature of Winco stores. All stores -- all Winco operate 24/7. It's, of course, a locally owned company, started in 1967, six stores here in the Treasure Valley. Operates very successfully and you think, well, why is there a need to have 24 hour operation at this site or -- or any site for one of these stores and 24 hour operation these days is really the lifestyle that we have in this valley. We aren't dealing with a situation where we are extremely rural in nature anymore, we have diversified economy and what Winco finds is that during the evening and early morning hours, bless you, they serve many first responders who are otherwise occupied. They serve healthcare Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 90 of 144 workers. They serve police. They serve shift workers. So, there are many people that are out shopping at those hours that aren't working 9:00 to 5:00 jobs and I suspect that a lot of times when you have your Commission meetings you aren't working 9:00 -- you're not working 9:00 to 5:00 jobs either. Another important consideration is that this is a full feature grocery store and it has many supplies that are often required at off hours. Baby needs. Medicines. Things that you can't just go to the local convenience store and pick up, but you need a full service store that has the breadth of materials and the breadth of product that meets those needs for people that either need them on an emergency basis or need to acquire them during shopping hours, which are not from 9:00 to 5:00. The features of Winco are -- are very popular. We find, based on look this morning and, again, this afternoon of comments on the city's website for this project, 89 percent of the comments were favorable. There were 11 percent that were not. So, this is a very popular project. We ran some social media opportunities as well and we discovered that we had over 1,800 likes on social media for this project. So, there are certainly people that are opposed to the project and I think most of them live in fairly close proximity to it and have expressed concerns about this development for a variety of reasons. I think our application -- our changes that we have made have removed all of those considerations that were addressed before, such as the sound concern and with the evidence we have in the record before you sound is not a concern for this site based on the sound study. We have changed the access to the -- Arliss and Bergman in a manner that reduces wild drive through traffic, that mitigates that traffic and so what we have tried to do with this redesign and this opportunity, which was given to us by reason of having access to Fox Run, is make a substantially better project than even what it was before. The staff report, of course, recommends approval. We generally agree with that. There is some nits we could pick with it and I imagine some of those will come up in my time after the conclusion of other testimony. There is, though, a condition in Section 1.10 that the ITD has withdrawn and Sonya referenced it, but some of the ITD changes have come in fairly late and so this probably got dropped earlier. The ITD recommended that we do an additional traffic study when we go to the next phase. ITD has withdrawn that requirement for us and so we think that that staff condition here, which similar requires that, ought to be withdrawn. So, there are a couple other minor -- minor issues that I think we can address in further development going forward, but for the conditions of approval we are fine with those generally. ACHD we have the staff report in the record. ACHD staff report recommends to the ACHD staff approval. We have a hearing at ACHD on either December 5 or December 6, it now escapes me which day, but coming up very soon and ITD, of course, approves the development. They do have -- we do have some issues with ITD, which I think are going to get resolved in the STARS agreement, which include the continuous flow intersection, which include the width of the required easement from center line -- or dedication of right of way from Chinden Boulevard and, then, adjusting some easement. In the very last minute that I have before I conclude my opening comments, we do have a small video that I would like to show. It's about a minute long that shows kind of a walkthrough, fly through, which I hope will give you a little better idea of what we are hoping to accomplish with this development. So, Sonya, thank you. Maybe. There we go. If you go up to the upper right here, Sonya, and click the shrink button here. Let's try that. There we go. Technology. It's great when it works. Unmute -- you have got Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 91 of 144 unmute. Well, you won't get to hear the upbeat music that goes with this. This is coming into the central plaza. The library is directly to the right. There is the library ahead. (Video played.) Howell: Thank you. Stand for any questions now or -- McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sir, what -- if the Library District can't take that library down what's your guys' backup plan? Howell: Well, we are -- we are looking for some additional public space and additional public uses, so we would prefer it to be the library, but, in all honesty, I don't know that we have a definite backup plan. They are -- they are very interested in this site and so we are just hoping that -- that that's what works out. Of course, if -- if that drops out and we can't find some other use, I -- I don't know ultimately what we will try, but that's -- that's the preferred option. Fitzgerald: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: If by some chance the City Council does not approve the variance for access to Chinden, what are your thoughts on that? Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, I -- I think the application for the variance is unlikely to not be approved by city -- did I have enough double negatives in that? I think it will be likely that they will approve it if we don't have access through Fox Run. So, I'm not really concerned about that. We -- we can have -- we do have the right-in, right-out, which I don't think is an issue as far as the City Council is concerned and I think just as we have the issues with ACHD controlling our roads on the county roads, we have ITD controlling the decisions on access through the state highway. So, I'm -- I'm not concerned about that. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 92 of 144 Fitzgerald: In regard to the CFI if -- what is that going to look like if that has to be taken out of that section up front in your guys' mind? Howell: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, we -- we kind of had planned for a CFI intersection in through there. I think what we are really talking about now is more an issue of some of the relatively minor details. If that means that that building -- I think it's building one has to get slid down slightly in order to accommodate that, that we can make that work. But, really, the -- the issue of the CFI and how much space it's going to take and -- and even if it is required, is -- is not a certainty from ITD at this point. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Howell: Madam Chair, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. At this point we will take public testimony. Chris, who do you have signed up? Johnson: We do, Madam Chair. In the interest of time I'm going to call in multiple in order, so we can have them ready. McCarvel: Okay. Johnson: So, we have David Eastman, followed by Ben Larue, followed by Sally Reynolds. McCarvel: Okay. Eastman: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is David Eastman. I reside at 1192 West Bacall Street, Meridian. I would like to address some of the discussion that was had in City Council and Mr. Howell touched on that and why this was remanded back. Throughout the applicant's testimony to Planning and Zoning and City Council applicant was consistent in their position that Brighton was unwilling to discuss access off Fox Run. Unfortunately, as Mr. Howell clarified and as Brighton clarified in the City Council meeting -- Brighton actually was willing to discuss access off of Fox Run and that letter is in the record and applicant's position was -- was incorrect to that point. What we have is we have a revised concept plan that has access in a backage road access off Fox Run in a backage road. However, in the nine months since City Council and since this was remanded back to P&Z, applicant -- I had spoke with him at a meeting some months ago -- as of last month applicant had not reached out to Brighton and so in the time that applicant had testified for P&Z and testified to City Council and the nine months following applicant had not reached out to Brighton and come to a consensus on access off Fox Run. So, in essence, there is some work to be done here. City Council remanded this back to P&Z for this specific work to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 93 of 144 done and it hasn't been done. There is no agreement between applicant and Brighton to get access off of Fox Run and in light of prior developments and prior -- prior asymmetry in testimony between Brighton and their letter and the applicant and its testimony before P&Z and City Council, I would respectfully advise P&Z to obtain a letter from Brighton to make sure that they are in agreement with the applicant on this issue. There are a couple other issues that came forth in the City Council meeting where City Council was specific in remanding this back to P&Z. One of them they were very, very specific in advising applicant to work with the community in developing this plan and to date, in the nine months since applicant had the City Council meeting, they have not. They have not reached out to the community. One of the primary issues was touched on by Mr. Howell, which is the 24/7 issue and what we have as a primary concern is the operations and the square footage -- 80,000 square feet -- are consistent with Winco's operations when they are next to the freeway and it's not really conducive to operations within a community structure. This development is surrounded on three sides by residents and it's not next to the freeway, it's in a community, and so I think what would be prudent before sending this back to City Council would be to address the issues that caused this to be remanded back to P&Z to begin with and so at least we should, I think, respectfully request that a continuance be put in place until they can address these issues. Any questions? McCarvel: No. Thank you. Eastman: It's late and I'm tired. Johnson: Ben Larue. Sally Reynolds. Reynold: Before I begin I would like to state I am representing Smart Growth For Meridian. It was -- we started working on this over a year ago and there were over 500 people who signed the petition. So, I would respectfully ask for ten minutes, although I will only use about six. McCarvel: So, you have no show of hands here? Reynolds: Okay. Yeah. McCarvel: So -- and those people will not speak then? Okay. Reynolds: Yep. McCarvel: Okay. Reynolds: Okay. And so just to begin, I'm going to keep this really brief here. The modifications that we have requested that Winco limit their operating slash delivery hours. The staff report states that business hours are in the C-C zone are restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when abutting a residential district. This continuous piece of land does abut a residential district before it is annexed. When it subdivided the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 94 of 144 Winco parcel will still abut a live-work parcel. Therefore, it should not be allowed to operate 24/7. Even if you -- if you don't subscribe to either one of those, the city staff is very clear that because annexation provisions above and beyond the UDC standards may be implemented through the development agreement if deemed appropriate by City Council, this was strongly emphasized and highlighted in the report. Other companies, Walmart on Ten Mile, Walgreens and Costco, all changed their models to be good neighbors to the surrounding community. We would expect no less from an Idaho based company. The building shown behind Winco on Lot 16, which are these right here, which are the live-work, will not be constructed in phase one development, so noise will travel to nearby residents for 24/7. I hope you're able to review the submitted video with the Winco truck noises. Number two. Begin the collector road discussions, which you have already heard some about. This application was returned to P&Z after Mayor Tommy read a letter from Brighton stating they are willing to grant way for the collector road of Linder Village. Personally I'm going to say I was really surprised that that was a surprise to City Council or to anyone. If you go back and look in the very first staff report -- the very first one in the middle, it says that staff and Brighton and the applicant had a meeting where that was discussed and they were already aware that Brighton was going to give them that access. So, the fact that we were debating that for eight or nine months and it's in public testimony by residents, too, but it's there. So, I am surprised that that was a shock to them. As of this evening it is unclear if those talks have begun. Per the ITD report ACHD has offered to facilitate the right-of-way acquisition conversation. ITD and ACHD have offered to do this, because the collector road is the preferred scenario. The fact that Kittelson & Associates still included the two scenarios in their traffic report, even after Brighton has gone on record twice as being willing to grant access, shows that the applicant still wants that variance at Bergman. These talks should at the very minimum be started and a progress report - - a progress report given to the City Council at the time of the hearing. Three. Alter the connections with Paramount. So, here you have a greater overview of this area. If Bergman is required to connect before Chinden is improved from Meridian to Fox Run and from McMillan up to Cayuse Creek, which right now they are only requiring this little corner to be done with phase one, we would ask that Bergman at the very minimum be given traffic calming measures, whether that's a different road design or a traffic circle, something that will not create this to be a thoroughfare for not only the high school students who already speed through on their lunch break, but for the residents from the south who are looking to get a shortcut to avoid all of the construction that will be on Linder, Meridian and Chinden, the road, and that's including 375 apartments right here. So, with that what we would like is a very clear timeline of what road improvements are going to be done and when with the opening a Winco and I know that's a lot to ask, because it's ITD and ACHD and the city and it's a lot of people, but we need to get those moving parts worked out before we go to City Council. Four. Break up the mid anchor stores. So, this area is mixed use community. A huge exception has been given for Winco already. The staff report does not address the large retail store adjoining Winco or the large footprint of the mid anchor stores in phase two. We would like to have staff comments on that before the City Council meeting. Staff strongly encouraged that a development agreement be in place with this annexation ordinance. Their first item on that was, quote, future development of this site shall substantially Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 95 of 144 comply with a concept site plan, phasing plan, preliminary plan, et cetera. So, this conceptual plan should be as accurate as possible and right now those footprints violate mixed use community. Fifth. So, that will necessitate a redraft of the conceptual plan, which is already needed for the CFI to reflect the staff comments and also we are hoping the public input here tonight, as you've heard Mr. Eastman say, the only time that the residents have been able to have any changes made with the developer is when we come before the Commission or the Council and puts them on public record and the only time that they have been changed is when it's been remanded back. Lastly -- and these are just too small ones. The masonry wall behind Winco, we would like that really well described and included in the DA agreement and if the -- we would like a letter from the library stating where they are, if -- I mean I know that they are interested, but the last library bond didn't go so well, so we don't really know what would end up being there and if City Council is going to fall back on that to approve this we would like to make sure that that is in place. With that I will -- and actually -- oh. And -- oh, I would like to address just two things the applicant said. All the Wincos are not 24/7. There is one in California that does operate on limited hours and there are Waremarts in Oregon that are smaller footprints and also operate on different hours and also the amount of testimony they received, we just -- we felt like there wasn't a reason to get everybody together and do it this time, because the people who are sending in letters for this Linder Village, they are for Winco, they were for development and we are for that, too. We just want it to be a really good plan that Meridian can be proud of and we think that Winco can anchor a great mixed use community if it's done right. I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. Reynold: Oh. Sorry. So, we request a continuance until the 13th. Johnson: Next you -- next you have Andrea Carroll, followed by Nick Eller. Carroll: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Trying to fit a large scale, high footprint, big box commercial development like Winco into a mixed use community designation is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It could be done potentially, but the -- the types of concessions that would need to be made on Winco's part are concessions that so far even now they have not done and I do commend Winco for making the adjustments to the plan with regard to the loading dock, the masonry wall, they have really addressed the sound issue. That could have been addressed after the first neighborhood meeting and this could have been the -- the plan that you were looking at the very first time and we could have been making the additional improvements during the -- the subsequent process. This is the result of a developer that does not listen to the surrounding community and so there -- while I think there is a tendency potentially to say this is just so much better than the first plan, I would encourage you to really take a step back and ask is this what mixed use development looks like? Because if you look at the -- the middle of that development, that -- that is what mixed use should look like. There is some -- some pedestrian -- there is some pedestrian connections, but if -- as you look throughout the rest of the development, it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 96 of 144 looks a little bit like battleship, the old fashioned game board, with all of these individual buildings that don't really connect very well with each other. So, is this commercial or is this mixed use? Yes, there is residential, but how is that residential integrated into the rest of the development? It's not. It's not integrated. This is not mixed use, it's mixed -- it's use adjacent and the -- the Comprehensive Plan spends a lot of time talking about what really good -- what really good, innovative mixed use looks like and that's not what this is. There are parts of it that were certainly featured in the video that look great, but as you look throughout the entire development that's not what you're -- what you're -- what you're going to be receiving from this developer. Winco was given a chance to really go back to the drawing board and create something that epitomized what the City of Meridian should expect from an important location like this one and what they did is they -- they made some improvements, but, once again, we see the -- the direct access to Chinden, that's a traffic safety issue. Even -- the entire point of creating that access with Fox Run is to eliminate the slow down on Chinden. They are not listening to their community or city leaders. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Nick Eller, followed by Jim -- Jim Alexander. Eller: Good evening. Almost midnight. My name is Nick Eller and I live at 851 West Honker Drive in Meridian and, for the record, I just want to say that I support this development and I want to commend the developers, architects, civil engineers and everybody who has been involved with this project. I like to sit back and listen to the other party and -- and I have been going to these meetings for the past year or so and listening to both sides and a lot of the boxes that were of concern I believe have been checked off. They have -- they have been discussed, but one of the items that I wanted to reiterate being in the industry is the concept of -- or the truth of Rome wasn't built in a day. If we can go to -- if we have got Google Maps and we look at items such as The Village, The Village still isn't complete. It's still under -- it's still under development and it's going to take time. Chinden is going to take time. Linder is going to take time. Winco -- that's a definite. But it's not going to pop up in one day. There is -- there is still a lot of -- whether you pass this -- if you pass this on today you all know that it's going to take some additional review. Every building that's out there is going to take a permit and those big box stores that are of concern -- some of the -- some of the projects you reviewed today they were planned for commercial and now you're looking at doing multi-family housing. Things change over the years and those big box stores -- if big box does continue to die, maybe there will be smaller developments and shops. This isn't a -- the way I take this and my understanding is this is not a one and done, we accept it and everything pops up as planned. Nothing ever really goes to plan, but I believe the concept is there and I believe that, you know, that this would benefit the City of Meridian. In the past I have expressed that I see Meridian as having three different corridors. You have got the Eagle and -- North Eagle and Meridian corridor that we are in discussion with. W e have got Ten Mile, that that's a necessity, and you have got The Village. It's kind of the trifecta of how Meridian is being developed and currently everything is so focused on Eagle Road and those past concerns have too much traffic Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 97 of 144 on Chinden. All the traffic is already there going to The Village, because you don't have that trifecta and that -- that disbursement of traffic throughout the city. So, that's my thoughts about it. It's not one and done. It -- it's not going to be built in a day, but I highly support this project. Thank you. Johnson: Jim Alexander. Alexander: Good evening, everyone. My name is Jim Alexander and I work for Datum Construction in Meridian. I'm also a resident of Meridian. I can give an address if you would like. McCarvel: Please. For the record. Alexander: It's 1060 West State Street in Meridian is my residence and 280 East Corporate Drive is our business. I'm in favor of this development. I have been to a few meetings here and I -- I don't think anybody's ever mentioned -- and I believe the developer is planning on widening Chinden to five lanes. Is that still -- yeah. The reduction in traffic has been a huge issue and I see that that is a huge benefit. Earlier people trying to get zoning for residential have talked about the traffic being so difficult. This developer is stepping up to the plate and going to pay for the widening of Chinden. I think that's huge. They have also worked with the Paramount Subdivision to reduce the traffic through that neighborhood. I think that's really great. And with Winco, the way they turned the building and put up the full height brick wall to reduce decimal rating down to 28 from 45 I think it was, I think that's really big and I think it's a good project. So, thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Mike McCreary, followed by Chris Williams. McCreary: Good evening. My name is Mike McCreary. I resided at 5744 North Bergman Avenue with my wife Ruth Shane, who is in the audience this evening. Madam Chair and Commissioners and staff, I want to thank you for the hard work you do trying to square the circle in terms of these real thorny development issues. I'm not opposed to the development, nor am I necessarily in favor of the development. I would like to -- and part of that is because right across Chinden from this proposed development site we have Eagle Island and that's a pretty commercial rich space, but immediately adjacent to that development at Eagle Island is a great deal of residential housing. So, I'm looking at what's being proposed here. It's a similar setup. My wife and I shop at Winco. We go to the Meridian library, but for us it's traveling across town to get to Cherry Lane. If the library is an honest to goodness given, that would be super. I also saw a little building that had healthcare on it and I would hope that there would be some other civic space. I am concerned because I live on Bergman Way, I'm glad to see some changes in that. We don't have kids, we have grandkids, one of them works for NASA, but I would be concerned for the people in -- in my development who do have children. If there is an uptick in through traffic there are a lot of kids and they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 98 of 144 are on bicycles and scooters and -- and the rest and people -- and people running. So, if those safety concerns have been addressed and there are mitigating measures that have been put in place, that would be a very good thing. Once again I want to thank you for the work that you do. It's too bad we don't have an AI program, like modeled after Sim City, so you can put all the variables in, the traffic factors and find out in realtime what the knock on effects are going to be for these proposals. It seems to me that the only way you can do this is incrementally, but it's trying to do a mosaic and every time you get a piece in place somebody says, but, wait, we have got another piece to put in place and a couple of Commissioners talk about earlier projects where they were talking about separate parcels and the need to develop a comprehensive proposal. That would be nice. You're working with private developers. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Williams: Chris Williams. 1762 Canyon Ranch here in Meridian. I have been coming to these meetings since the very beginning, since -- excuse me -- the applicant started with this. You know, I have been a supporter all along. I will say that during the last meeting, the previous site concept it was an eye opener. I believe it might have been Ryan himself who said previously it looked like a big parking lot. That really stuck out with me. I could be wrong, so don't hold me to that, but I know somebody did up there. Could have been City Council as well. But, anyways, on that one, you know -- and I -- and I really think that they have done a good job of redesigning this and trying to address all the concerns. You know, I know there is some concerns about the hours of Winco being a 24/7 operation. I realize that and, you know, I will say I'm not super educated with Meridian as a whole, but I know in this area how Walmart, Walgreens have limited their hours, typically. Really, previous complaints of that, at least from what I have heard is, again, the noise. I think they have done a good job addressing that -- you know, addressing that. They have, you know, tried to change the loading dock around. I feel that they done a really, really good job of trying to address everybody's concerns on that. You know, I can't say as far as, you know, the neighborhood meetings, whether that happened or not. I know there is always some miscommunication in there it seems like. People say there is, other people say there hasn't, but, regardless, I have personally reached out to the developer, you know, their company I should say, kind of with questions and they have been very responsive through this process on that one through the redesign and even prior. So, really, where I stand -- I'm sure it's probably given that I am in support of this project and I asked you guys to recommend approval to City Council. So, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Next you have Joe Marshall, followed by Justin Carpenter and Keith Jones. Marshall: Chair, Commissioners, I will make this as quick as I can. I have little time. I first want to give them props -- the applicant props. They have come a long way with this. I have been working on this since 2007 when Fred Meyer wanted to go in there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 99 of 144 So, yeah, it's been through a lot of variations and a lot of -- nobody believed me when I tried to tell you about Brighton and allowing that, but, fortunately, David Turnbull wrote that letter. There are a couple things -- I taught land planning for 15 years. I have a leather bound copy of the Comprehensive Plan. You are to be reviewing this based on the Comprehensive Plan. I'd like to point a couple things out that I think are a little inconsistent. Walkability, strip malls, and access to Chinden. Walkability. What does it mean? You're going to have to answer that yourself, because I don't have time. Places to walk where pedestrians feel safe, minimize conflict with vehicles. How do you do it? They took the snow, watched where everybody walked and took photos of it and, then, put all their sidewalks in. Typically they were straight line, shortest distance from here to there. That is not what you're going to find in this. Typically you're going to see most of the residents down below trying to walk up through here. You're going to see them walking across parking lots. Kids -- junior high kids, grade school kids, sixth graders, fifth graders walking across here to get to these other places. It's not that walkable. Strip malls. What is a strip mall? Well, typically, they are buildings put together, several of them in a row. The Comprehensive Plan mentions 30, 40 times, we don't want them. Avoid them. So, what do we have here? Right here? Buildings stuck together. Buildings here stuck together. Now, the whole project as a whole is not a strip mall, but those buildings setup like that give a strip mall feel and that's exactly what our Comprehensive Plan says avoid that. Access to Chinden. I think it's been mentioned several times they could have a full signalized access at Fox Run Way. It will need to be widened. David Turnbull is willing to work with them. He has stated so. And I stated on the record over a year ago right here. Thank God he wrote a letter to the City Council. Nobody believed me. Number of accidents going into Fred Meyer. That's why ITD has come back and -- and tried to limit the access. Eagle approved it and it was asinine. Eagle, Meridian, COMPASS, ITD, everybody agreed access only at the half mile and Meridian is on record agreeing to that. Those access points should not be there. I surveyed in Eagle Road, the control survey, to go from a two lane to a five lane, I can tell you exactly why it doesn't work and we can't do the same thing to Chinden, because Chinden is supposed to be a higher level road than what Eagle Road is and every time I come here somebody says, well, how would you do it different? So, I took an hour and just threw something together. Right there. That's how I would do it different. Oh, sorry. There is how I would do it different. I actually give you more square footage, I just broke up the buildings and tried to add some walkability. I did not address the access points. McCarvel: Thank you. Johnson: Justin Carpenter. Carpenter: Hi. Hi, Justin Carpenter. 5991 North Arliss, Meridian, Idaho. I will try and be quick, because I know we are all tired and I don't have much of a voice. Madam Chair, Commissioners, you know, I also commend the developer. They addressed most of the concerns I had. The new one that I have pop up is, you know, that traffic light that they are putting in front of the -- the -- the fire station, you know, with my house positioned where it's at, you know, I see several accidents a week right there at Chinden Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 100 of 144 and Linder, you know, I just worry about what a light could do there to them trying to get out. My big concern is this 24 hour access. It was stated in earlier testimony that Winco is 24 hours always everywhere. Keizer, Oregon, Portland, Oregon, you have probably heard of at least Portland. They have limited hours of operations there, so I'm not going to beat that dead horse. I moved to Meridian for the community values, you know, that's what I hope to -- to maintain here. So, the other thing is -- I want to touch on is the library. I would like to see something more concrete. We really love the City of Meridian, the Library District here. Would love to see something more concrete in this agreement before something like this goes through any further. That's all I got. McCarvel: Thank you. Carpenter: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Chair, your last sign in is Keith Jones. McCarvel: Okay. Jones: Hello. My name is Keith Jones. 280 East Corporate Drive. I also live a couple blocks over off Locust Grove north of Chinden. I have been watching this project for ten years, actually, and it's a developer and a family -- and a family that's owned that property for many years. I hope it gets done, because I live there. It makes sense in my business. I am in construction. So, Datum -- I'm with Datum Construction as well. Now, some people have the wrong idea about why we are here. They think that maybe we have been promised a job or something like that and that's why we are here, but that's not the case. Going on four years ago -- four years ago we put in an irrigation line along this property line and they allowed us to put our signs up there and we know that it's a highly trafficked corridor due to the number of calls we get because our signs -- signs are up there. Now, they have given us advertising. Four years later our signs are still there. We appreciate it, frankly. We think it makes sense, though, that we do see the movement -- you know, I heard a lot of smart people again pushing against it of varying levels of whether or not the issues were even issues. For example, the dock doesn't even face a residential area, it faces the street. I heard that the fire department might have issue with that light right there. Well, the light won't be right there, there will be stop bars on every side and when the department signals emergency, all the other lights will be red and they will get access. As it moves forward you know it will go to design review or I mean City Council and -- and it will go through permitting process and it will evolve. Since I'm here is Joe Citizen, I mean I didn't coordinate with the owners, with the developers at any time before we have come, but -- so, since I'm here as Joe Citizen, I will say that it's gone a long way towards the mixed use and a small thing in this area -- I think it's a cool area. If you have seen the 3D rendering, you know the video of it, it's an excellent area, but possibly add a second story and put condos on there and, then, it literally checks every single box on the live-work-play with the park -- I mean this thing has been pulled left, pulled right, it can't be designed by committee and I don't think it's right to shame a developer into working with a competitor or whatever. I hope it goes through for Meridian. That's -- thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 101 of 144 McCarvel: Thank you. That being the last person signed up, was there anybody else in the room that wished to testify? Okay. Let's start with -- Arnold: I'm Michael Arnold. I live at 972 West Bacall Street here in Meridian. I'm not going to talk about the development itself. I think a lot has been said by everybody else around here. My biggest concern is ACHD's insistence on access to this development through the neighborhood. They are hell bent on making sure that people are able to go through the neighborhood to get there. I think putting this extension of Bergman where it is is a mistake. If you go from Cayuse Creek up to this connector road, it's a straight line. There is no curves, there is no bands, there is nothing to keep people from taking that road 30 or 40 or 50 miles an hour, except for one little stoplight on the first intersection as you turn north. Now, if you were to take that extension from this connect -- from this proposed new development, which happens to be right next to their clubhouse and their pool and move it west on their proposed neighborhood, so that the cars have to go up, take a left-hand turn and, then, go right again, you're going to cut down on the ability for people to travel at high -- high rates of speed through that neighborhood. Secondly, ACHD has said that this intersection is going to increase cars about 200 a day going into that area. You have got a road going with 200 cars a day right next to a clubhouse and community pool where kids in that proposed new neighborhood on the east are going to be coming that way and crossing that road. You're putting those kids right in harm's way and it's a trouble -- it's a trouble asking to happen. Now, moving that little connector that far west is not doing anything, except that the developer may have to add more of a proposed road for the future to move that over. It still gives the connectivity. It still allows the traffic to go through. It cuts down on the potential of injury to kids next to a pool and although we don't know the way that that development is a residential area is actually going to be developed in future, it makes sense if you have got that neighborhood and you're going to put a pool and a clubhouse that you put the clubhouse and pool towards the center where it's accessible by everybody. It doesn't make sense to put a high traffic road addition within 50 feet of a swimming pool. I think that, as a minimum, needs to get moved over. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. F.Reynolds: Frank Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. Had a bit of a marital miscommunication today, so I apologize that I didn't get signed up. Sally signed herself up and we didn't agree on who was signing who up. All right. So, I will just echo -- and we will just leave this slide here, I'm not going to address much else. Just echo the reasons for continuance here. There is still some work that needs to be done here. I will just, for instance, in the interest of time, highlight the three areas that are of most concerned to me. The first one is the -- the big areas -- and let's see if I can get back -- I lied, I'm going to go back up here. This is close enough. The big areas here that are all marked future development, future development, future development, we have been hearing all night, you know, just trust me, it will be okay, that everything will be done just fine. But history tells us a different story. The fact that as has been mentioned by many Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 102 of 144 residents, their unwillingness to work with anyone who has concerns, the lateness of all information that's been given to the city, all of these things just lead us to not be able to trust that everything will just turn out okay and I would hope that before this goes before the City Council there is a very specific, very detailed, very firm development agreement in place that does not allow for wiggle room in the future for suddenly those single family homes to be apartments, for suddenly that medical building to be another big box store, things like that. So, I would hope that that would be taken into consideration before this moves any further. My second area of concern is the roadway connectivity and I take a little bit stronger stance than maybe some of the other residents in the fact that I don't believe that that residential areas should connect directly to that collector road into the commercial area. The reason for that is that there is so much other access in this area. The most often quoted reason for having that access -- because nobody wants to say it's convenient, because that's not a good enough argument. They always cite safety concerns. But if you look at the plan, you know, for that road -- for Bergman to be the one place where emergency vehicles make it into the commercial area, you would have to have this entrance, this entrance, this entrance, this entrance, this entrance and this entrance all blocked. That's the only time that Bergman would make more sense than any of those others and have to be the only one. Now, that doesn't seem reasonable. The only way that would seem reasonable is if this development has such a huge impact on the traffic in the area that all those other roads are constantly blocked. So, we can't have it both ways; right? We can't say this isn't going to be a big impact to the area and we can't say that, you know, at the same time say, well, but we need all the emergency access in case things are all blocked. So, I take a little bit stronger stance on the connectivity in the neighborhood. All they did was take the connection they had last time and shoved it a little bit farther down. Still straight shot, still comes right off Cayuse Creek, still going to be rush hour madness from the high school every day at lunch. The final issue I have has been mentioned many times. Delivery hours for Winco. I don't -- I'm not going to try to fight business hours here, but I hate to bring it to the gentleman who spoke earlier, but 45 decibels does not come anywhere near the backup beeper for a truck. They are around a hundred decibels and remind you that decibels is a logarithmic scale, so we are talking about exponentially loud noises. So, limiting the delivery hours including unloading, because of forklifts and pallet jacks are noisy, I know from personal experience. Limiting those hours will go a long way in making our neighborhood better. Thank you. I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. F.Reynolds: Thank you. McCarvel: And, ma'am, did you want -- did you have your hand up before? Okay. All right. Okay. Shane: My name is Ruth Shane and I reside at 5744 North Bergman and my husband had some comments a little earlier for you today. I was surprised listening to the presenters earlier or the comments to hear that they felt that the builders had been unresponsive and there was no comment about the presentation that was made outside Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 103 of 144 to -- in the room that you have outside the main entry here where we were invited to come and I listened to many of the questions that were raised and issues that were raised and, then, a revised version of the plan came out and I was so pleased to note that they were responsive to the types of things that I was hearing that evening. So, I really had to -- I hope correct the fact that they have been somewhat responsive as far as I have been able to see and that they haven't totally ignored the residents in Paramount. So, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to express my feelings as well. McCarvel: Thank you. McCarvel: And one more? McKinney: My name is Wendy McKinney. I live at 1225 West Bacall Street and I'm on the HOA advisory board meeting for Paramount. The board. I have been with the HOA advisory board for over four years and have worked with Anne Marie and Brighton in that area and we appreciate all the work and time that you have put into it. If you would pull up this slide that actually shows the FLUM with the proposal side by side. I saw that earlier. So, I have a couple of concerns. I'm grateful that the applicant has made some adjustments. I know that we have been working -- I have met with residents at beginning of January 2016. We have met in different size groups and no one has like a complete agreement about this is what should happen, this is -- you can imagine with such a large neighborhood there is lots of opinions. I am not against Winco. I shop at Winco, but I am concerned that they have not taken any of your advice from when we were here last. I remember one of the comments that she said was that if you just take this plan and flip it 180 degrees, so that the large stores are out on Chinden that would be great and we were like, wonderful, maybe they will do that. Well, they didn't. They addressed ten percent of our concerns and we are grateful for the ten percent, but if you look at this plan here you will notice this yellow space right there. That whole yellow space should be a hundred percent residential. I would propose that this plan include that entire space as an R-8. This is not annexed into Meridian. You know that. There is no law until you make the law. The zoning law is up to you. If you require that to be R-8 right there and, then, you require that the rest of that brown is a C-C, then, if a proportion of that C-C also needs to be residential, up to 20 percent if I understand this correctly -- I almost appreciate them for helping me be bold enough to stand up in front of a body like this and learn all this law. I have been educated. But if you do that and you flip back to their plan, you will see you would pretty much just wipe out all of that strip mall and all you would have is residential all the way across there and, then, you would have a C-C exactly the way we wanted it. But however you decide I appreciate it. I respect your decisions. And I really appreciate the fact that you are not a political body and that you know the law. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. With -- oh. Sorry. D.McKinney: Sorry about that. I'm David McKinney. 1225 West Bacall Street. I have a handout. Sorry for the low tech approach. I just want to make a couple of points and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 104 of 144 my wife was sort of alluding to this. I have six points here. I will be really quick. Number one, I tried to make this point to the City Council and it was -- it was kind of hard for them to grasp. The -- the Comprehensive Plan as it now stands shows 54 acres of MUC and 24 acres as residential. If we are to develop this land in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as it now stands, that would suggest, then, that we should have at least 24 acres of residential property. The current proposal calls for only 18. But that also ignores the fact that the development code requires a C-C zone to have 20 percent residential. That's another 11 acres. So, my point one here is saying that the code requires about 35 acres of this property to be residential if it's developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. They are only showing 18. That's only about half of what's required. Item No. 2. The 20 -- the 24/7 operation of Winco has been addressed by others and I'm primarily in agreement with what they have said. I just have an option number C that we ought to consider. If none of the other options are acceptable to this body, at least the live-work units should be built in phase one to provide additional buffering between the south side of the Winco store and the adjacent residences. Number three. The site circulation -- I have attached a -- a sort of proposal of what I think could be an improvement to the site circulation. My biggest concern isn't the current site circulation plan doesn't adequately draw traffic off of that collector street into the development and instead is more -- because of the fact that the collector routes through the development are narrower and more difficult to traverse, drivers are I think more likely to stay on the collector road, which will be wider and cut through those back entrances. That would be a detriment not only to the residential area adjacent, but would also lessen the ability of the development itself to draw more traffic and -- and more business. Item number four, the signal on Chinden, that's already been addressed to a very large extent. Let me just say that the -- the access to Fox Run, that issue is still unclear it appears to me. That issue needs to be addressed and settled before this goes on and since the ACHD report only came out today, at the very least this item should be continued to give everyone a chance to review the findings of the Ada County Highway District before this is approved. Item number five. I don't understand why the fire department is concerned about a signal on Linder. They already have one that stops traffic. This will be another signal that will stop traffic for them. Their analysis and their -- their -- their statements that they don't like it just gives a conclusion, it doesn't really give reasons why, because I can't understand why a signal in place of a current signal would make a problem. And, finally, Joe Marshall addressed this, but, basically, there is a lot of just plain strip mall aspects to this. It's not really a Village. I wish it could be. That would make it a whole lot better. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. With no further public testimony, would the applicant like to come back. Howell: Madam Chair -- Chairman, Members of the Commission, I calculated based on the Alpina hearing of the number of -- amount of time per acre I think we have probably only got about another eight or ten hours to go here tonight, so -- I'm kidding of course. So, I want to address some of the comments that were raised and I think they all -- all boil down to a few categories and, first, they boil down to the category of those that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 105 of 144 would like to try their hand at their own design of the site and there is plenty of different options and plenty of different ways to go about developing a site and everybody's got their own opinion of what's right and what works. The developer and the owners, of course, have the interest and knowledge and understanding of all of the things that goes into the site, including not only those that impact the public, but those that impact the owners and the future owners of the parcels within the subdivision, the financing, what makes the project work and they are trying to do the best job they can to meet the business needs for the development and balance that against the entitlement requirements and, frankly, the -- the public need and public necessity and what the public wants for the site, because, ultimately, that's what it's going to involve, how the site performs is public adoption of what the site is doing. So, while we very much appreciate everybody's own idea of what maybe is the right way to do a particular component of the project or another, I think reasonable minds will certainly differ -- differ on what those are. The second is this minor issue of the signal on Linden -- Linder for the fire station. Frankly, we think the -- the fire department was a little confused about what we meant when we said a signal there. ACHD flagged it in their report and said we don't think it's an issue either. The signal is going to be timed to what the fire department currently has for their light there, they are going to be able to get in and out. Safety is very important to us, to our tenants, for the community. So, I just don't think that's -- that's an issue. David McKinney's comment on the connector -- the collector road -- the collector road serves multiple purposes. It's not just to funnel traffic into the site for access. That's one of its purposes, but it also functions as a way for residents to exit from the residential components of the development without having to go through the commercial site to make it over to Fox Run, to make the connection to Chinden without having to wind their way through a parking lot and that, of course, increases safety. One of the comments -- and I'm not going to -- I don't think I got the name down correctly on it -- was about the traffic that would be added, the 200 cars a day. The ACHD report tells you that existing traffic at that location is 467 cars a day. So, if we are worried about 200 cars a day causing problems for children accessing a site, well, we are already far, far above that. So, I just don't think that's much of a realistic concern. The -- the biggest component, frankly, is this concept of 24/7 operation of Winco and there have been a number of comments by individuals saying, well, I -- I know of a Winco in some other location that doesn't operate 24/7. There are six Winco stores in the entire system and there are 117 that do operate 24/7. The six that don't are very limited, specialized stores that are typically smaller community -- community stores, less than half the size of this facility. They were built for a very specific purpose in a very specific location and the limited hours of operation makes sense in those operations. It does not make sense for Winco in this facility at this size. And, again, the whole issue of the 24/7 operation and delivery and access gets down to the issue of well, what's the impact? If there is no impact on the neighbors of that 24 hour operation, what difference does it make if they are open or if they are closed or if they are accepting deliveries or not accepting deliveries and, again, the sound study that we have provided and it's in the record shows that this facility will actually reduce -- and I -- you know, even if you say, okay, well, how can that possibly be, does that make any sense, even -- even if you -- if you discard and say that it's going to reduce the ambient noise, certainly it has no adverse impact and that's the standard. It has no adverse Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 106 of 144 impact, no additional noise beyond ambient and we think that the sound study very clearly shows that it's less. Just a couple other comments. Strip mall. And so we have this concept that we don't want strip malls and -- and I certainly agree with that. I think my client certainly agrees with that. That's not what this project is. I think we know that. Unfortunately, I don't think we have a clear, nice definition of strip malls that kind of gets down to that, well, you know it when you see it and when you look at this project, sure, there is a couple of buildings that have adjacent walls. There is no definition that says a strip mall means anytime you have a building sharing an adjacent wall. This is distributed throughout the entire development that is proposed to be zoned C-C. I would point out also that if you look at -- and I don't know what color this is, because I'm colorblind, but the color right below this blue oval, how is that? These buildings are live- work buildings. There are residences on the second level of those buildings, so we do have residences scattered throughout the site. It is truly live-work. You know, whether - - whether someone's opinion is that you could do a better or different job of how you have walkability and access, when you look at the -- the video that we have provided you and the walk through and this beautiful plaza down the center, there is certainly, walkability not only through the site, but around the site and along the connector road and through the parks and the like. Anytime you have a parking lot, yeah, that's not going to be a great place to walk, but we have parking lots for all of our facilities and so I think that's probably more personal opinion and preference than anything else. The ACHD and this issue of Fox Run access, I want to make sure that's -- that's very clear and very plain and I thought that Mr. Eastman said that perhaps that's the nicest way that anyone has -- has ever said we don't believe that you were telling us the truth and the reality is we were telling you the absolute truth. We did have meetings with Mr. Turnbull and with Brighton and we very much wanted access to Fox Run and our -- my comments throughout the record are consistent with that. We want access at Fox Run, that's our preferred access to this parcel and we did not believe we could get it. I think it's probably immaterial to go into an analysis, which I couldn't even do on a item-by- item basis, of who said this and who said that, that caused us to come to that conclusion, but I will tell you from our side, it was very clear. We did not have access to Fox Run and, frankly, going Bergman -- or going the variance and the different access -- not at the half mile on Chinden is a pain and it's an expensive pain and it's not something we would want to do. We would prefer the access at Fox Run and to say that we were lying about that I think is -- well, I know it's not true and it's simply disingenuous. It's the best solution for this site. It looks like that's the site. We have had discussions with Brighton. We have had discussions with multiple people at Brighton and we are very, very confident that we will get that put together. Do we have that agreement signed today? No, we don't. Is that a requirement? No, it is not and it should not be. We think it will happen. That's -- if you look at the ITD comments, they indicate that the decision between Bergman full access -- full access at Bergman, right- in, right-out and -- and left turn is an option versus the Fox Run and what they are saying is if you get the Fox Run you aren't going to get the full access at Bergman, so -- but if you don't get Fox Run, then, the full access at Bergman is needed for this site and so that's why we are saying we still want to have that option. It's not because we are playing caddy and we want to have both, ITD is going to give us one or the other and I think that's what we really want. But -- but Fox Run is really the primary access. So, I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 107 of 144 think, really, what this boils down to are two or three main things. First, could you, might you design it differently? Sure, there is a bunch of different ways to design it. I think this design works well, it complies with all the requirements, it addresses most of the concerns that have been identified previously. 24/7 access, I think we have addressed that repeatedly. 24/7 operation without an impact what difference does it make whether it's 24/7 and the reality is that for this facility, for Winco, it needs to be 24/7. And, then, finally the access to Chinden I have talked about as much about that as I think I need to. So, thank you very much and I would stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. Howell, just for the record, is a light at Bergman in your -- being requested, just to make sure I'm clear. Howell: Madam Chair -- Fitzgerald: Full access versus a light being there, because I do have a challenge with that. Howell: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, if Bergman is to be full access, yes, it would be signalized. Fitzgerald: Okay. Okay. Howell: And, again, option two, but if -- yes. Fitzgerald: In my opinion option two is a nonstarter, but that's just me, because I think there is two lights -- there are too many lights there already. Howell: Yeah. Fitzgerald: So -- Howell: And I -- I would say what -- what we all know is, you know, that -- that is an ITD issue and -- but, you know, Fox Run is where we want to be. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Can you address the question or concern regarding constructing the buildings that are directly behind when Winco in phase one and, then, also there was a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 108 of 144 mention that maybe some of the mid anchor stores are larger than what would be acceptable in MUC designation. I don't know whether that's actually the case but those are a couple of concerns that were brought up I heard in testimony and I didn't -- I would like to know your thoughts on that. Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, on the first issue it is certainly possible to build those buildings as part of phase one. Since the conditions of approval indicate that there is to be no condition of occupancy until quite a ways down the road, I don't know how much sense that really makes. There is going to be construction going on for a fair amount of time, probably not open until 2020, and so we would be a lot further down the road on other construction in any event. So, is it possible? Sure. It's possible. And your second question was on the size of the buildings and whether they exceed the zoning for that area. No, we don't think they exceed and we think that based on the requirements as outlined by Meridian, that with the additional space that we are putting in for open space and for other mixed use, that we are allowed additional space sizing on some of those buildings and they all fall within that requirement. Perreault: One more question. What -- I mean help us understand from the developer's perspective, the -- the benefit of having the buildings attached versus -- is it purely a construction benefit or does it have to do with how -- how people use the structures? I mean help us -- help me understand that. Howell: Yeah. Commissioner -- Chairman -- Madam Chairman and Commissioner Perreault, I think that -- as I said, there -- there is a bunch of different ways you can design a project. Certainly the -- the cost of constructing a building with common walls is potentially less than constructing stand alone buildings. I think the biggest reason why we are proposing this configuration exactly is because of the overall design of the center core of this project, with the walkability that we have, the adjacency to the plaza and, frankly, moving those buildings apart I don't think adds much overall to the usability of the project, to the use of the building, so the walkability of the site, any of the decision factors that really make a difference. So, can we do it? Could you move them apart? Sure, there is a lot of different ways you can design the site, but -- but this is the way we put it together that we think makes the most sense for the project and makes the most sense to meet the requirements. McCarvel: In the video you had one building that you kept showing as health. Are you envisioning that as being a mid anchor three there? Howell: I can't -- McCarvel: I know you can't say who, but it would be some sort of health facility? Howell: I -- I honestly can't tell you as a commitment that it's going to be a health facility. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 109 of 144 Howell: That's -- that's a desirable feature. It's -- it, obviously, is of interest to the community and anything that would be of interest to the community, excuse me, is likely to make a successful development, but in terms of making a commitment to you that would be a condition of approval that one of them be health related, no. McCarvel: No. And that -- okay. Howell: Sorry, can't do it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And I know there is not -- this is just bubble -- bubbling out future residential development, but would there be a consideration to take your straight shot road and jogging it with a -- in the future residential development piece where -- I think -- it would probably end up with a stop sign I would guess onto the collector, but instead of having a straight shot into Paramount off that collector, would you be willing or have a possibility of putting a jog in that road? Howell: Chairman McCarvel, Commissioner Fitzgerald, I can't tell you that you would be -- we would be willing to put a jog in that road, but certainly, to the extent that traffic calming devices of some type would be appropriate and that ACHD would require as a condition of approval, sure. McCarvel: And you did -- it's been a long night, sorry. But this future residential, it's all -- it's single family, some attached and detached. Howell: Correct. McCarvel: But not huge three story, high density. Howell: No. No. No. They are single family. So, that -- that's correct. Single family. And we -- we did -- Madam Chair, we did address that. I, frankly, can't remember whether here at City Council on one of the meetings, but, yeah, they will -- they will look very residential, even the ones that are attached, you know, common wall. McCarvel: I thought -- I remember reading that or hearing that, so I just wanted to clear that -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? And, Sonya, is that in the DA or will that be in the DA? Allen: I'm sorry, what was the question? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 110 of 144 Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Single family attached or detached, but no -- we are not talking about multi-family. Allen: The development agreement requires the property to develop consistent with the conceptual development plan, which is attached and detached units. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Do you have a question for Sonya? Cassinelli: No. One for the applicant. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can you identify the other residential lot -- buildings I should say in the -- in the plan? Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yeah. First, obviously, you know, the -- the -- what's marked as future residential development of course. The buildings that are -- I'm circling here, these are residential and, you know, live-work -- work -- work below, residential above. These four here in the center -- and I think that's at least in -- in this area that's the commercial -- more commercial area than the -- the primary -- combination. Yeah. Yeah. So, those would be -- be the ones in the -- in the commercial area. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Just -- I don't know if this is going to be a question, but I think -- why not limit deliveries to a certain time frame that is not at night? And I know -- and in addition to that, backup alarms, can you speak to that? Because that was an issue that I think got brought up tonight. Was that part of your decimal sounds study? Howell: Yeah. Excuse me, Chairman and Commissioner Fitzgerald, the 24/7 delivery is an integral part of the Winco operation. They are -- that's the time that they have scheduled for their deliveries from their warehouses. It's the way their whole system is set up. It's the time in the store when you have got fewer individuals shopping. It makes restocking, it makes stocking the store work a lot better, so you need that incoming flow from the exterior at the same time that you have fewer people inside to be able to stock the stores. It's really just an integral part of the operation. Restricting delivery to a certain daytime number of hours just doesn't work for their operation. It just doesn't work for a store of this size to be able to stock it with the number of things that they need to be able to do. The -- the sound study and the backup alarms, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 111 of 144 sound study itself actually references that and talks about it. Those backup alarms are excluded by the requirements by the -- for sound impacts. Anytime you have got sound for backup alarms and other safety features, those are excluded from the requirements. So, I don't think he particularly modeled those, but, again, if you look at the overall concept site plan, any backup alarms -- you know, the trucks backup to the loading dock, they are connected to the loading dock. For the most part the -- any forklift operation is going to be within the loading dock, within the building and so there is very, very little external operation in any event and, then, if there is some you have got a full height masonry wall bouncing that sound a different direction, so -- but the precise answer to your question is addressed in the sound study that those are excluded. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for the applicant. Target at Chinden and Eagle, if you are -- if you have ever seen their loading dock, it's almost completely enclosed. Was that ever something that was looked at? Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, no, we did not explore a concept where you have got a completely enclosed loading dock, but, frankly, as I mentioned to Commissioner Fitzgerald, this is about as close to that as you could possibly get given the configuration and the trucks backing directly up to the loading bay doors. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Can you give any indication of what the phasing of the development would be for the major complex of phase one here? I don't know if you can help -- one of the questions was if some of those live-work units would be built before the Winco? Can you give any indication of how that complex would develop out and timeline? Howell: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I think the comment was that if -- and this is all, again -- nobody seems to be concerned about anything on this site other than Winco, right, for sound, the 24 hour operation, and I think that concept was for these facilities, the buildings directly behind Winco and so we discussed whether those could be built in phase one and I think the answer is certainly, yes, those could be built in phase one. In terms of phasing of the rest of the site, I think it's our expectation that Winco would be constructed earlier in the process before some of the other buildings, but at some point in that process we would begin to see other construction get built out, you know, more or less at the same time, but Winco is probably going to be -- in our current planning would be planning the first. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 112 of 144 Holland: One more follow-up question about the Fox Run potential connection. How long do you think it would be before you would have a conversation about kind of finalizing how that pathway could connect in? Howell: Chairman McCarvel, Commissioner Holland, those discussions are ongoing. So, if you're asking me when the ink will be signed on -- on the paper -- sooner than later, but in terms of a date I can't give you a date. Holland: Thank you. McCarvel: I had one more question. I don't know if it's one more, but -- so with ITD wanting more of an easement up there for future widening on the corner of Linder and Chinden, I'm really thinking -- I mean we want to build that out in anticipation of that I would say. I mean so how do you see that affecting the project overall up in that corner? And they said moving that one -- that one building back -- Howell: Yeah. Sure. Chairman McCarvel, no, I -- McCarvel: Or just making it smaller I would guess. Howell: Yeah. No. I think that's a relatively minor adjustment or change required as far as we are concerned. McCarvel: Yeah. Howell: It just addresses that -- that one corner and -- and, again, I would emphasize that -- that that's not a sure thing that ITD is going to absolutely require at this point in any event. McCarvel: I was trying to save a little money down the road if you can go ahead and apply for it. Howell: We understand -- yeah, we understand that. It's our money. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I swear it's -- I'm close to being done. Time frames for widening of Chinden and the -- where -- from what roads -- what road are we widening, just so we have it on the record, make sure we all understand that. Howell: The STARS agreement, we -- we are -- have exchanged multiple drafts of the STAR agreement to allow that work to proceed. It would -- now I'm going to forget. Is John -- do you want to come up and talk about the specific -- I'm going to defer these questions so you get good information. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 113 of 144 Fitzgerald: Thanks, Ken. Ringert: I will try. John Ringert with Kittelson & Associates. 101 South Capital Boulevard, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Madam Chair Person, Commissioner Fitzgerald, the - - the timing right now that's being -- that's part of the STAR agreement is -- essentially it will be two phase -- two phase construction and, essentially, from Linder through Meridian Road would be phase one and the -- that is set for 2020. Essentially that would match in with some other projects ITD is doing and, then, there is a connection that will be, essentially, between where this ends and their Eagle to Locust Grove project, there will be -- there will be less than a mile -- you know, half mile to -- to three- quarters of a mile in there and that will be 2021. So, essentially, there is also some phasing also to the west to -- from the Linder all the way to 16 that are on those same time frames. So, it's kind of a -- it's kind of an organized 20 -- 2020, 2021 shot all the way from Eagle essentially Highway 16. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, follow up real quick. So -- and I know there is Costco and other things -- Kittelson: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- that STARS is also negotiating with. I think the original agreement from 16 to Linder is before opening of doors for Costco, if I'm understanding. Is that your intention, too, or is -- Kittelson: Everything is before -- well, right now that's how ITD has done it, yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Kittelson: So, essentially, the -- the main section -- most of our STAR improvements, Meridian Road through Fox Run, Fox Run through Linder, all the intersection improvements, the collector road connections, all that would be -- 2020 would match in with -- with -- with when Winco opens and everything. And, then, while that's being constructed you would design the rest and the -- and the area between Locust Grove and Meridian is a little tighter when it comes to right of way, drainage issues. There is -- there is some complexities, so that's -- that's shifted out a year. So, you will -- when you're constructing one, you will be finishing up the complexities of that one -- of that little section where you have to tie in, which, you know, they also know that's pretty complex. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Kittelson: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. You're excused. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 114 of 144 Howell: Thank you. And -- and I would add my voice to all of those who have mentioned before, our thanks as citizens for how hard you all work. You know, I know you all get the very large paycheck for all of the hours that you're putting in here and, frankly, our system -- our system of government doesn't work without people like you. Thank you very much for your service. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we close the public hearing of this application. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0088. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Well, welcome to the November 16th meeting -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. No kidding. McCarvel: -- of Planning and Zoning. Fitzgerald: Are we restarting? Thanks, Madam Chair. McCarvel: I actually -- I mean I literally kept my copy of last year's version for this moment. I think it's night and day difference. I think for the most part they really listened to a lot of things we as a Commission, the Council, and the public had to say. I definitely like the loading being in the front part of the building and even having that development to the south that was supposed to be residential is no longer residential and I think a comment -- he said it well, you -- a strip mall, you know it when you see it and -- I mean all the buildings -- the buildings in The Village are all connected. I mean - - but they don't look -- I mean you can make stuff look really nice and still be connected. I think this keeps people from trying to go between the buildings and I just -- I like the overall appearance of it. I think there is some -- definitely some things to still work out. I think the Fox Run access is number one. I think it -- it doesn't -- it's a huge difference if that's not available, so -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I absolutely agree with you. I -- I give the applicant a ton of credit for working with -- we have a much less full room than we did the first time that this thing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 115 of 144 came through and I think that's giving credit to them for, hopefully, working through a lot of those issues and I'm -- I'm still waiting -- waiting for someone to put buildings up on the front of -- of a major street, but I also wait for those. I do think the Fox Run issue is paramount in this thing and that no pun intended or unintended. I don't -- the light at Bergman doesn't make any sense to me. We have enough traffic on Chinden right now -- I live right near there and that is a -- Locust Grove is the one bottleneck and you have three lights in a row -- that is crazy and so I don't understand how we -- I mean I -- I don't want to ask for continuance, but I don't understand how -- either impress upon them the need to do this -- to get that agreement signed before they go to Council I think is a -- has got to be some part of this conversation, because I -- I don't see how they take this and have the light at Bergman and make it -- make it make sense. I do appreciate the -- the live-work. I do think that adds to The Village component of it. I hope we include the fly through video as part of their DA. I'm not sure how you do that electronically, Sonya, but -- because I think that looked good and I think it -- it does go to the -- the livability and the walkability of the community. I hope as we develop this thing out a little bit more there is some discussion about how to deal with that future residential development, so there is not a -- a straight run into Paramount, but I don't want it to be cut off from the development, because I don't want people to have to go out onto the main arterials to get to the -- to the actual community or the services that are there for them, so they don't have to go out onto the roads. That's the whole point of having connection and I think there is a balance here that -- they have struck, so I appreciate the effort. Palmer: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: One of the things that I had heard a couple of the other neighbors mention was -- was installing calming measures on Bergman as they are coming out of the subdivision and there being a straight shot. Is there -- I don't know how we begin that conversation. I was wondering if staff had a thought on that, because I don't know -- since that's an existing development how that works. Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Perreault, we can definitely discuss that with ACHD. Perreault: Okay. Yeah, I definitely -- McCarvel: I think being a little proactive on that -- Perreault: Absolutely. McCarvel: -- instead of waiting for the accidents to happen is -- Perreault: I understand their concerns and I think they are very valid. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 116 of 144 Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: My comments overall I think -- you know, I didn't sit on this commission when they came before us the first time, but I have gone back and reviewed the previous materials and -- and some of the minutes from the last meeting and it's -- it's night and day difference from what the initial application looked like and I think the developer has done a good job of listening to a lot of the concerns and trying to mitigate those. Again, whenever you get a developer that wants to help enhance the roadways I think that's very generous and really important to help encourage a highway that's getting busier and busier every day. I think, you know, Winco is a great company, it's -- it's probably the most conversational of this meeting, because it's one of the only named tenants that's on the site map, so people are focusing on that, but they typically are very good -- good neighbors, they are good -- a good Idaho company. They treat their employees well. As far as having the limited hours of operation, I think they have tried to do what they could to mitigate where its location was in proximity to residential so it wouldn't be as big of a concern. I think having the big retaining wall, helping reduce the noise and traffic. I don't have a huge concern with needing to limit their hours, because it -- certainly they have got their business model that is set up the way that they do. So, I don't have any concerns with needing to -- to limit those hours because of how they have kind of set up that site plan. I agree that I think the signal and the connection into Fox Run would be critical for the project and something that probably should be agreed upon before it goes to City Council. I also agree about the note about having some sort of calming measure in Bergman and that the ACHD would work closely with the applicant on that. We have talked about a lot of the other things, but in -- in general I'm, I'm -- I'm pretty supportive of the development. I agree that, you know, when you look at the -- the buildings that are kind of lumped together, I think they actually did it to have more walkability between the site. They have got that nice plaza in the middle. Because of the proximity of those other buildings, even though they are kind of set back, if you look at the way that you can kind of walk through -- they have got a couple of extra sidewalks, one in the middle of the parking lot that goes straight out from the Winco towards Pad A and they have got another kind of sidewalk in that future office retail, too. I think they were trying to do what they could to make sure they have got some -- some good walkability on that corridor. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mrs. Perreault. Perreault: Just a couple more thoughts. I have some significant concerns about the library getting the funding to go there. I would really like to see something there that is civically related. I think that's -- I think it's necessary, in my opinion, to balance out the different uses and so how do we go about acquiring -- that's -- that's something -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 117 of 144 know, that there is a civic use there without having any -- they don't have any specific commitments at the moment. McCarvel: I would say just the word you just used, tie it to -- I mean I don't think we -- I wouldn't want to have to tie it to the library per se, but definitely a civic use instead of retail. Perreault: And do we -- do we give a requirement for when that needs to happen in relationship to the other -- McCarvel: No, I don't -- Fitzgerald: So, just clarification. What are we defining as a civic use? Because that -- I mean -- Perreault: That includes a lot of things. I know. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I mean if they -- and living out there I -- if they were -- I would love to have a library there, but I would also take a theater or -- you know. I mean -- so, there -- how we define that a little bit -- I don't want to put handcuffs on the developer to find a good tenant, even though I think the library is awesome, but there could be another anchor that would be cool that would go there. So, I -- I understand like that would be our -- we would highly recommend or what -- I don't -- I don't want to put a requirement there that would be significantly stifling for that development to be successful. Perreault: And one more comment I wanted to make is most of our conversation surrounded this specific development, but as a commission we are also looking at the community and the valley as a whole and one -- one gentleman mentioned something that's -- that's been on my mind the entire time is that we have -- we have to move some of -- of the traffic to different areas of Meridian. We have got to -- we have got to get it off of Eagle Road. We have got -- you know. So, that being said, if we are going to develop a commercial area, it's got to be somewhere where people are -- are doing their daily living. The Village is great and I love to go there on Friday night for dinner and go to a movie, but it's not where I'm going to go to do my -- my necessities, my shopping, you know, my -- you know, go to the dentist or whatever. So, just thinking about that city wide, what kind of development are we creating? Are we going to create another mixed use that is more about entertainment or we can create one that's more about functionality and I think that that whole area needs a development that is more functional, as much as I would like to -- like to see it be more aesthetically pleasing, like The Village, because that was something that's been brought up and mentioned is -- is the comparisons between the two. So, I just wanted to comment on that. McCarvel: Yeah. I just think this whole area of town needs -- I mean it's good that it's getting some sort of anchor type hold for things. Just with the size of the city it needs -- I would say this development looks -- I do think it's night and day from what was proposed last year, so -- although similar. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 118 of 144 Cassinelli: I'm going to jump in now if I can. McCarvel: You bet. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: To kind of dovetail off what Commissioner Perreault was just talking about, there is -- I think the -- the functionality, it's an Eagle, but across the street you have Fred Meyer. A mile down the road we are to have Costco. So, we are going to have a functionality there. This is an opportunity to have much more in this -- in this area. I want this to go through. I still think it's a long way off is my personal opinion. I think if you look around -- look around the country, you can look, there is probably hundreds of developments that have the wow factor, have the cool factor. This is a lot more than what we first saw, I will give it that, but I look at it, there is still a whole lot of pavement smack dab in the middle of this. I think where Winco is at now is -- I think it's good. I think with that park down there I think it's far enough away from the residences that I don't think it's going to be an issue with -- with -- with the moving of the -- of the loading docks, the plaza, and all that. I think -- I think that's a good add, but it -- it's a good step, but to me it -- I look at this and it looks like -- it looks like something on Eagle Road and it looks like where -- where Dick's and Kohl's is with a little plaza in the middle. That is my opinion of it. That's -- that's -- that's -- you know, when I look at it, I see still a strip mall and, again, there is -- it doesn't have to be The Village. But there is some other cool lifestyle centers where you get a lot more walkability in them than what you have here and I'm not just talking walkability being -- going from point A to point B, but you're walking through the stores, you're walking through the areas with the -- with the shops. I think -- I just think probably the last -- this is one of the last few large parcels like this. It's a gateway into Meridian and I think a lot more can be done with it. It is different, but when I look at it I just don't see it's that much different than what we saw the first time around. So, I would like to see, in addition to the other comments -- I mean the -- the -- the collector road going out to Fox Run, that's a -- that's a half, too, I think and we have to do -- there has got to be some mitigation on the traffic going down into Paramount, but I think that -- I think this project could -- can be great and we are sitting at good and why settle for good when we can have great. McCarvel: Any additional thoughts? Yes. Cassinelli: Based on that -- and some of the ACHD findings, I think -- I think we need to continue this. We have got -- we have got to get a solution on -- on a couple of these issues, Fox Run being one of them. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: And I always appreciate Commissioner Cassinelli's comments, because they are usually -- they usually make us all think; right? I wanted to address just a couple things that you had mentioned and that is that I appreciate where you're coming from Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 119 of 144 completely and I would like to see -- I would like to see it be as absolutely beautiful as possible and so I wanted to -- well, I guess I want to get some clarification, too. Are you suggesting that we wait until we can both marry tenants that are willing to go in that location and something that is more aesthetically pleasing or -- I mean because we can -- the truth is is that we could wait for years until we get tenants that are willing to go in there and I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not arguing for it one way or the other, I'm just talking this out loud. We can wait for years until we can get tenants that are willing to go in that location, because that -- that's -- that's a factor, too, is -- and I have some reservations about this plan still, so I'm not saying I completely don't, but we can wait for a very long time until we get tenants that are willing to go in there. Some of this has come because of the -- or the way they have done the design is because of what the tenants need or want and so I don't know how much of that has gone into play with the -- with the development and what the tenants had to say about locations versus what we have said and how that balances, because I don't -- I'm not intimately involved in that side of it. But I just wanted to understand are you saying that -- that as a community we wait to put something there until we can make it more aesthetically pleasing or more -- I understand what you're saying about it can be made more walkable, it can be made more functional, livable, but I just wanted to understand what you -- what -- if -- understand what you're not seeing and what you would like to see in more detail. Because we can send this applicant away and say we are not seeing what we want to see, but I feel like we need to give them more understanding what that means. Or we can ask them to continue, but let's give them some more clarification. Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think -- to rephrase what Perreault is asking, if -- and not to put words in your mouth, but -- Perreault: If you can say it better -- it's 12:30. Holland: I think one thing that would be helpful to understand is what specific elements do you think we are missing that makes it go from good to great? Is there something specific you're looking at that could be done better on the site plan or something specific that they could go back and bring us a revised concept on? Obviously, the -- the Fox Run element is something that's critical to all of us and we could certainly continue it until they have that conversation if we felt like we needed to have that done before it went to Council or we could put a condition that they need to have that conversation taken care of before it goes to Council and we may or may not need to have that come back to us. But is there anything else specific that we need to condition for a continuance? Cassinelli: I don't know that there is anything specific to -- I think that's critical, the Fox Run piece. I mean I could throw out names of -- of a few places that I have seen around the country that to me would be awesome right there. You know, I'm not the architect, I'm not the designer, I'm not -- I think if you -- if you had something that was -- like I said, great, you would have tenants knocking down the door to be in there and that wouldn't be an issue. Whether or not the library would make it or not. I don't -- I would - - I have doubts as much as they want to be there -- to go in there, it's going to require a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 120 of 144 bond and -- and a -- and an election for that to happen. I know there was -- there was talk early on about -- I think there was talk in the original one about a -- about a theater, if I'm -- if I'm not mistaken, but just the -- the overall design it's -- I'm still seeing -- other than the plaza in the middle, I'm still seeing big parking lots. Looking at it from Chinden it's still going to have a feel of -- of -- of something that's on Eagle Road. I don't think it's going to look that different than if you're looking north into Fred Meyer. Perreault: So, explain some elements of what would look different. More -- more green space? Less asphalt? I mean give some -- help us have a vision here. Cassinelli: More -- what -- what is going on in that plaza, more of that. Bringing things more into the center. McCarvel: I -- you know, sitting here looking at this and we are arguing about -- not arguing, but discussing, okay, we don't want this big parking lot. Quite honestly when I pull into a Winco I want a parking spot. I mean let's -- let's remember what this is. This is -- I want to go get my groceries and I want to get out. I mean some of this is going to be -- yes, you're drawn into other things for -- but we still I think -- you still want the effectiveness of going to get your groceries, because you go to get your groceries, you don't -- you got a car load of groceries, you got to go home or you come and do a few other things and, then, you still -- you got to get your car over there. I mean there has got to be some element of not -- but, honestly, I wouldn't -- if this was all Village like I don't think the Winco part of it works. Perreault: That's -- that's basically what I was trying to say earlier. I'm just so tired. McCarvel: We want all these people walking around and I'm like -- I want a parking spot. Yes. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair. McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: So, I -- I love what you're saying and I understand where you're going, because it's a lifestyle center and it's -- it's -- you know, stores on the front with parking hidden behind you -- and I like that idea. I don't know if we are ready for it, to be totally frank and honest. I think the plaza is a great center point. We need more services out there right now. I don't know -- I mean I think Winco, Fred Meyer, whatever, but I -- I'm cool with either one, but I -- I know that we need services out there. I love the live-work above, which is going to be a center focal point and that is the lifestyle center piece of this. I think it's trying to strike a balance between the two, of having a giant -- and you and I always disagree on parking, so I think it's funny that this is coming up now, but -- because I am the anti -- I am the anti-asphalt guy, but in this situation I think that focal point and the -- the planter strips that are throughout the area, I think you're -- you're going to have a nice curb appeal. It's the balance. I don't know if a lifestyle center in that location works yet or -- or at all. So, I understand that the possibility of it, but I don't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 121 of 144 know if you have enough rooftops -- or they -- it isn't Virginia and it isn't California. Even, then, that's where those places are. So, I think we are -- it's tough. Holland: Madam Chair and Commissioners, I -- I think I agree that, you know, if -- if this was a -- if you didn't have the -- the big parking lot it probably wouldn't -- if you had it be more of a lifestyle center, like The Village, Winco probably wouldn't be the right fit. I agree with that comment. Fitzgerald: Yes. Holland: Having the fly over I think helped visualize what it would look like and I don't think it does look like an Eagle Road from the way that they showed it. I think having the -- the live-work units, add some of those residential components, it really does make it more of a mixed use product and that's something that we are missing in Meridian. We don't have a lot of those live-work units and I think it's really valuable to have that -- that mix where people can live above where they work and go get groceries and you really do have a nice -- nice plaza there. Certainly we could continue going back and forth, but the -- the one benefit I think this development brings us -- the roadway improvements as well is something huge to consider, because if we continue delaying it and, you know, they decide to change some things majorly and it ends up not working for certain tenants, then, we have got to go back to the drawing board again and I -- I think they have done a pretty good job of putting together a mixed use product that certainly may not be The Village model, but I think it's definitely incorporating elements of The Village type model into a complex that has services. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: The truth is is that it's just going to continue to -- to grow out that western way and, you know, it is a huge benefit I feel to our community to be able to go to the grocery store and the bank and your child's school and be able to do that within two miles of your home or three of your home. I just really feel like we are almost at a place of -- I mean we are really at a place of necessity. McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: We are really there. McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: So -- in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean I -- again, that I'm in total agreement with how -- with exactly how every small piece of this looks, but -- yeah. McCarvel: I think we are all in agreement on the Fox Run access -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 122 of 144 Perreault: Absolutely. McCarvel: -- is -- Fitzgerald: It's got to be -- Perreault: Absolutely. McCarvel: -- an absolute necessity as part of this, so -- I don't know if you're ready to move it forward pending that or if you want to hold it up until we get ink on paper for it. Holland: Okay. I'm going to attempt to throw out a motion and see where it goes. Madam Chair, Commissioners, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0088 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15th slash 16th, 2018, with the following modifications: That the applicant would work closely with Brighton on that Fox Run exit onto Chinden and, then, that would be established and understood before it goes to City Council and the applicant would also work closely with ACHD on the intersection that connects with the fire department where that signal is presented, as well as the Bergman and traffic measures that would slow and calm traffic. Fitzgerald: I'm going to second it, I think, but let me ask you a question. Are you going to require the agreement be signed and done before that goes to Council or -- I just want to understand where you're going, because I -- and maybe that's a qualification from Sonya. Can we require that be done before it goes to Council? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, you can require anything you would like. Fitzgerald: Sweet. Allen: But I don't know that it will happen or how long it will happen or -- McCarvel: Our recommendation of approval is based on that they will have the issue of Fox Run worked out -- Fitzgerald: Worked out before it goes to City Council. That -- if that's where you're going -- if that's where your motion is, then, I -- Allen: What does work out -- McCarvel: Be approved. Fitzgerald: Finalized and signed. McCarvel: And that if the second alternative happens. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 123 of 144 Holland: So -- oh. And, then, the motion to just say that Brighton, the developer, and ACHD would come to some sort of agreement prior to City Council, whether that's a formalized document or at least a letter of intent to indicate that that will be something that moves forward. That's -- now hold on. Fitzgerald: Can we say that Bergman is not an option in that motion? Because I -- because that's -- that's my thought is I -- it's either Fox Run is there or we need to go back to the drawing board. In my opinion. But that's -- McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: That's my thought. Holland: I agree. McCarvel: I agree. Fitzgerald: So, I would -- whatever your motion is -- if you want to revise that I would revise my second. Holland: I'm making this really messy now for you. Perreault: Lisa, before you start that motion again, does anyone feel the need to discuss what of the -- the buildings on the south side of Winco -- when those are built? What phase they should be in? Do we need to address that? The applicant didn't seem to think it was necessary for us to address that, because of requirements by ITD to have everything complete before the certificate of occupancy, but -- if we don't address it it stays in phase three. This is a recommendation to City Council. Holland: We could add the recommendation that the applicant would consider building some of the live-work units south of Winco prior to -- Fitzgerald: In phase one? Holland: Phase one. Fitzgerald: Okay. Are you revising your motion? Holland: I'm revising the motion. Okay. Do I need to restate the whole thing? Fitzgerald: Sure. That would be awesome. Cassinelli: Consider it or make a -- make it a condition. Holland: That we would strongly encourage or do I need to make it conditional? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 124 of 144 Fitzgerald: I think you need to make it a requirement. McCarvel: Make it a condition. They can do it if they -- Holland: All right. So, revising my modifications -- I'm not going to read the whole thing again. Modifying that the applicant would work closely with Brighton, ACHD, to establish an agreement before this goes to City Council about the Fox Run access and if that Fox Run access is not available, it would need to come back to Planning and Zoning for further review. And, second, that ACHD would work closely with the applicant on the firehouse access, that they would add traffic calming measures to Bergman, that we would put a request that the applicant -- or a condition that the applicant would include some of this multi-story office live-work space as part of phase one in the development process. What else am I missing? Fitzgerald: I second your motion. That's all you're missing. I think. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2017-0088 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: And, believe it or not, we are not done yet. Anybody want to stand up and move around? Fitzgerald: Stretch. (Recess: 12:49 p.m. to 12:52 p.m.) G. Public Hearing Continued from September 6, October 18, 2018 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 McCarvel: All right. At this time I would like to open Public Hearing Item H-2018-0059 and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 125 of 144 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Good morning. So, this item was continued from the November hearing and the main reason for it is you gave the applicant and myself some homework to come back and bring forward to you. The applicant did provide an update to you and that is included as part of your application packet. But I did want to mention that the applicant has withdrawn their request to go forward with the residential naming convention change at this time. So, really, the only thing that he wants you to take under advisement this evening -- or this morning is the changes to the R-15 zoning district. So, what I will do is -- as part of my presentation the Commission wanted me to look at other jurisdictions in the valley and through the country to see are there other places that are -- that use these types of setbacks in their jurisdictions and so I had a new planner that came to us, thought it was a good exercise for him to go through some of the zoning codes, so I thought I would share some of that information with you. What I can tell you is a lot of it is -- there -- what we are doing as part of this change isn't what I found in other areas. What I have found is similar lot sizes, similar setbacks, like zero setbacks and five foot setbacks, but nothing specifically to having setbacks off a private street and/or a common driveway. So, I will quickly go through these. I won't spend too much time, but you asked for it, so what we did is we looked at the valley in general and, then, we went to -- out to Portland and those areas to see what some -- some of the larger cities, more progressive cities are doing out there as far as setbacks. So, this is the city of Boise here before you. You can see they have an R-1M zone. You can see their -- what their lot sizes are. Pretty typical. And, then, again, side yard setbacks, zero to five feet. I mean that's -- that's pretty typical in most of these scenarios. Eagle. Similar. For the head lot coverage. So, minimum lot sizes here you can see and, then, we went to Caldwell. Some of their zones are a little bit different than ours, but you get the gist of it. There is heights, setbacks, minimum lot sizes. They don't even go down to the lot sizes that we go in some of our zones, which you get an R-15 zone the minimum lot sizes is 2,000 square feet, but you can see their setbacks here. They have six and 15. It's not a good example for you there. Kuna is a little different, too. So, here they have an R-12 and an R-20. The minimum street frontage is here. Some setbacks. Garden City. Again, R- 20. As your interior setback zero. Five feet from the side and, then, five and five for the front and rear. So, there is probably the best example that I could find in the valley for you as far as getting down to that zero and three foot setbacks and you can see here it's an R-20 zone. So, it would be quite dense. And that's explained here, you know, they are looking at a minimum density in those zones. That is a multi-family zone. Nampa the same thing. Five foot setback, but nothing down toward the lot sizes that we currently have. So, then, we went out to Portland to see what they did. You can see there are 2.5 zone -- they have a different -- I think 2.5 you're actually probably going up less dense, but in their case it's -- it's more dance. So, you can see here -- here there is maximal heights of 35 feet setbacks or ten feet from the front. The side is five or zero to five. The rear and, then, garage 18 feet. And then same -- same situation here. I don't think anything that the applicant -- here is kind of their RM zone, 2,500 square feet here. Their lot lines. Pretty typical. Kind of explains what -- what it is, what you can do. I know that was -- that was a concern. You wanted to kind of see that in practice. You can see here many other jurisdictions are using a zero or five foot setback. Again, none of them explain what the setbacks are off a common drive and/or a private street and I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 126 of 144 will -- I will go ahead and just stand there for any questions and, then, maybe have the applicant come in and discuss some of their changes. I did want to point out to the Commission, as a side note or one -- one other -- an agreement. The applicant is in agreement with one of staff's recommended changes I think, if you remember right, they were proposing a one and a half foot setback from the common driveway for 50 percent of the facade or 40 percent of facade. In the applicant's narrative to you -- letter they indicated that they are fine with staff's recommended three foot change along -- along the common driveway. So, with that I will stand for questions and turn it over to the applicant. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like -- oh, sorry. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, for clarification for this evening, are we making a decision on this, but we are not addressing the name change? Is that right? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- that's accurate. They have withdrawn -- they want you to act on their request to withdraw that -- the name change and, then, move forward the R-15 dimensional standard change. But it's still one application. Perreault: So, they want -- they want to add a section to the code that specifies the common driveways and the -- Parsons: They want to add a section. They have that already. That was part of what we discussed at the previous hearing. All they are doing is -- you asked for further clarification where that -- where other jurisdictions are -- Perreault: Okay. Parsons: -- using those setbacks. That's what I'm reporting to you now and, then, you wanted some additional information from the applicant on the drainage and how that would be addressed with these setbacks. Perreault: Uh-huh. Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Bailey: Do you have our presentation, Bill? Parsons: I can see if I have it here. Bailey: Okay. Parsons: See if we got it open. Did you give it to anyone, Laren? Bailey: What was that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 127 of 144 Parsons: I said did you give it to anyone to upload for you? Bailey: Yes, I did. Parsons: All right. Is that UDC text changes? Is that yours? Bailey: Yes. Parsons: There you go. Bailey: Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Laren Bailey. My address is 4024 West Fairview Avenue and as -- as Bill stated, we are back in front of you because there were a few questions that were asked last time. I apologize that -- and I don't mean this negatively, but a few of you weren't here then, so if you have questions, if I'm not answering the whole thing, let me -- let me know and we can go back and start over on some of it. As Bill indicated, we decided to pull the portion of the application that had to do with the renaming of the residential zoning districts. After hearing, you know, questions from the Commission, also testimony from the public, it became apparent that there was -- there was even more confusion than we had anticipated in what we were trying to do and so in our trying to fix some confusion, we were just making it worse. So, we are not going to move forward with that at this time. The second part of our request, though, for the additional setback requirements to the R-15 zone for properties on private streets and, more specifically, within -- you know, these private streets are usually within a gated area and so -- so, the issue is that the current code does not address some of the dimensional standards and so it became difficult for staff to review plans and say that if it met the standard or not, because there weren't any standards for them to -- to focus on. So, at the last meeting there were a couple of concerns and questions that came up. The first one had to do with drainage and how it's handled within developments of this type in and around the individual buildings. I will cover that in a moment. And the second one was, you know, how would the city be able to control the outcome of future developments using -- using the code and so I will talk about those issues. First, I would like to reiterate that we are in complete agreement with staff and the staff report and the recommendations for approval. I also want to state again for the record that we are not proposing to change the existing setbacks, we are adding new requirements here and these -- these are items that were just not addressed in your current code. So, now we will discuss the drainage. So, there is -- there is a three step approach to drainage in -- in the City of Meridian. First we have got the International Building Code, which lays out the requirements for -- for the residential structures. It talks about, you know, sloping away from foundations and that -- that all the residents need to have positive drainage away from the foundation. The second one is you have got the city engineering review, which this is a little different on a private street than it would be on an ACHD street. ACHD would review the drainage in a -- in an ACHD roadway, whereas on a private street the city is reviewing that, we get comments back from them on our drainage design and they have standards that we need to meet and, then, the third portion of it is going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 128 of 144 your building permit and inspection process. The city inspects every home as part of the building permit inspection process, including drainage, to ensure that water flows away from the homes and is disposed of properly. Through this process the city already has all of the processes and procedures in place to require review and inspect projects that utilize private streets. Where did my -- here we go. So, as you can see in this illustration, this shows how a lot drainage works in a typical lot in a subdivision. You have got water flowing -- see the blue water here, it's flowing away from the home down property lines. It comes out to the street and down here and hits -- hits a storage drainage facility. As you can see, all the -- the lot is graded away from the building and water is directed to the street. The typical R-15 project is designed in the same way. In -- let's see. We need to go to my next slide. In this illustration you can see the arrows here are -- are how the water is all directed away from the buildings. Hits these common drives or areas in between buildings and it comes out to this -- to the private street and, again, then, it is disposed of properly. It goes to seepage bed, a pond, or a swale, whatever the -- the system might be to -- to deal with the storm drainage. So, with that being said on the -- on the drainage, I just also wanted to emphasize that the three foot setbacks are already approved setback in the R-15 zone. Staff has reviewed and recommended approval of these additional setbacks that we are discussing tonight. The one last thing is you're going to hear from some residents tonight that feel that where -- how the city's currently moving through a comp plan amendment and update that -- that this might be putting the cart before the horse or ahead of -- ahead of the game. These are really requirements that have not been there in the past. We are not changing anything, you know, huge in the code, these are detailed portions of the code that wouldn't be updated in a comp plan amendment or a comp plan change. You know, the comp plan may direct things in the future, but -- but these are fairly detail oriented issues that are strictly in the code. So with that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Bailey: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Do we have any public testimony, Chris? Johnson: We do. First we have Susan Karnes. Karnes: Good morning. My name is Susan Karnes and I live at 5556 South Graphite Way and I'm very sensitive to wildfire smoke, so I apologize for my voice. I haven't had it since July. Yes, the Meridian Southern Rim is concerned about the optics of, you know, code changes being made when we are in the midst of a new Comprehensive Plan review, because the comp plans drives the code. That's one concern. But there are other things that we think are a little problematic and this is feedback we are getting from our members, this would be citywide and there are so many distinct scenarios with each and every development and application -- I don't need to tell you. We feel that in some cases these kinds of changes are best reviewed on a case-by-case basis and we -- it's our understanding that this would affect R-15 applications that have already been approved. We have one by the applicant, Eastridge Estates, that was bitterly opposed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 129 of 144 by nearly every single neighbor and City Council approved one thing and this applicant would have the ability to come in with these new code dimensions under R-15 and -- and so our concern is the appearance of that to residents when they have understood one thing was approved and another gets built. I have to say that I'm going to just wax philosophical about this and I guess this evening's proceedings. I have lived in a lot of communities and I have been involved in a lot of development and -- and one thing that has always been prominent in those discussions and deliberations is what compelling reason do we have to approve something? What kind of value does it bring to the community and to the future homeowners and, in general, I think the city is trying to discourage private streets and developments with private streets. This evening we had an application where there was the possibility of a private street connecting with a public street leaving a burden on, you know, those future property owners and so one of the concerns that was expressed to -- to us at the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition is that they didn't want to see more code changes that might encourage more private street developments, that they wanted to see these types of dimensions carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because there is a process for that and where it might be a good fit in one area of the city in terms of, you know, fit, transition, appropriate use, it may not be appropriate elsewhere in an R-15 setting. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Karnes: Thank you. McCarvel: Any others, Chris? Johnson: Yes. More than are in the room I believe. Wendy McKinney. McCarvel: Okay. Who is here that wants to testify? LaFever: Hello. Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way, Meridian, Idaho. And, first, before we even start, I really like the changes in the staff report, Bill. It's looking really good. So, back to business here. Yes, we are in the middle of a comp plan change and, yes, I realized this is not a comp plan change, but we are also in the middle of a UDC change and I -- I submitted my changes that I would like to see in the UDC plan to Cameron, who I'm sure has passed it on to Bill. To me this is not necessary. We are already dealing with two of the biggest things going on right now, the comp plan change and the UDC change or smack dab in the middle of reviewing those. This to me feels like an end run around these two processes that are going on right now. I think we should deny this process and refund Jim Conger's money and take his ideas and address them through the UDC. As far as modeling that we have brought up, our best example is Garden City. We don't want to model ourselves after Garden City. I think we -- I think we deserve better than that. Not the Garden City is bad, but I think we are - - I think we should have approach it more like an Eagle or other areas. As far as many, as Bill stated in there, that was not many. You know, we can go back through and look at other areas as far as examples and -- and what brought -- was brought up in the testimonies that three feet setbacks already exist in the code. Then why are we even Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 130 of 144 here? I just think this is really unnecessary. The citizens -- I'm on -- on part of the steering committee and I'm out talking to people and listening to people and what they want to see. One of the -- some of the driving factors when you set aside infrastructure, one of the things they don't like seeing is they feel that places are being built too close together and there is a lack of open space. The too close together, this gives that illusion that we are not listening. I would really like us to see this be denied now, have it addressed in a UDC change and have our comp plan go forward. That's all I have to say. McCarvel: Good morning. Reynolds: Good morning. Sally Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. So, I was here the first time that this came before the Commission and I guess I'm just mostly confused as to why we are allowing one applicant to redefine setbacks for the entire city. So, one of the concerns that I heard voiced by this Commission was that -- that they have the product and they know how to do the drainage and how to build these facilities with zero, you know, setbacks very well, but if we implement it city wide, then, what's going to be the implication for other builders who don't have that product or know how to use those drainage systems. So, I think that we are kind of putting the cart before the horse to implement this city wide. There is already a process in place, as you know, for this developer to ask for an exception if they need zero percent setbacks, but to do that for everyone has far reaching implications and I don't believe that this should be enacted and go retroactively, because that does give a signal to the citizens that things are allowed to come in through -- through other areas and just be -- as one resident put it last time -- sneaky. A time to change -- a time to ask for a change in the code is not now when we are in the middle of the comp plan process, which that does drive the code and I completely agree with Denise that she submitted her changes in a way that would be considered and the developers should do the same. So, please, consider the comp plan process right now and the signal that this would send to the citizens, especially when they are asking for more open space and more green space and less density in Meridian. I think it's great you're looking at other areas for inspiration, but, ultimately, I think that we need to decide how we really want Meridian to look. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like come back forward? Oh, did you want to speak? Okay. There being no one else left in the room, we will take the applicant. Bailey: Thank you, Chairman. Again, Laren Bailey. Just wanted to comment on two items there. One, this is not changing any plans that have been approved, at least that that we are working on. This is not a change that's going to change the lot layout or the number of units or the density or the open space or any of those items. What this is is as we got the project approved and -- and started to build buildings and staff started to review the building permits, it became difficult under the current code, even though everybody felt like we were on the same page when it was approved, it became difficult for staff to make the current pieces of the code fit and so it became confusing and so we have worked with staff for months trying to figure out how do we make this work, so staff Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 131 of 144 has a game plan, they know what they are supposed to do, we know what we are supposed to do and everybody gets what was approved at the end of the day. It's not changing anything. And this was -- this is what was come up with, us working alongside staff and that's why -- that's why you have a staff report that recommends approval. So -- so, again, yeah, that's -- that's why we are here. We are -- we are not changing anything that's happened before. We are not changing the density, we are not changing the buildings. None of that's happening. We are just trying to clarify some areas of code and provide some detail that wasn't there previously. So, with that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I apologize, my memory isn't -- I was at the meeting, but -- but my memory is pretty poor at the moment. What process have you had to go through in the past to get approval for that? Can you specifically tell me the process that you -- isn't there a specific special process that you have to apply for? I don't know why that's sitting in my brain. Do you know what I'm referring to? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- yeah. Process for what? The UDC change or their entitlement? Perreault: The entitlement. Parsons: You mean what process that we go through when they went through Movado? Perreault: So, I guess what I'm asking here is when -- when you have made the request in the past -- or what exactly is it -- is it -- what exactly is it that you have to request, outside of -- okay. So -- so, like Movado, for example, you just came in and, basically, requested the three foot setbacks as -- and since those are not in the UDC code -- do you understand what I'm asking? I guess I -- it's so late. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- if I'm -- if I'm understanding you correctly, Movado -- sorry. The Movado development was mixed residential community. It had multi- family. It had single family. Perreault: I'm talking about the one we just heard. Parsons: You're talking about the -- Perreault: Verado. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 132 of 144 Parsons: -- Movado Village. Perreault: On the corner of Locust Grove and Ustick. Parsons: Oh, that was Verado. That's -- that's not the same product. Perreault: But we had that discussion. No. No. We had that discussion -- Parsons: Yes. Perreault: -- about the -- Parsons: No. Yeah. When they come in with an R-15 zone their minimum setbacks are what we have on code, so they can take advantage of the three foot setbacks. That's already been established and we went through this exercise with this same developer five years ago. Perreault: Those kind of developments are the reason that you're bringing this request forward; is that right? Parsons: Not necessarily, no. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: What -- what's driving this request is the 55 and older component that they have gotten approved with Eastridge and Movado Village and in those particular cases those are gated communities, they are common drives off of private streets and when the applicant wants a certain product type and it's not fitting on the lots that they just -- they have platted, that's what's driving this and so our typical R-15 setbacks don't fit in with that product type and so the applicant is trying to work with staff to say we -- we encourage diversity in our city, but we need to have a game plan and we need to have a code that can support that. If you -- the last time that I brought this forward I said there is -- there is different ways you can skin this cat. If you don't want to do a code change, you can go to a PUD -- Perreault: PUD. Parsons: -- and do something -- you can do -- do something different than change the code. Those were options that were presented to the applicant. It was their opinion that this was the process they wanted to go through, because it -- for them it seemed to be a less cumbersome process to do and work with staff to try to find a solution. What we didn't count on was the amount of public comment we would receive on this because a UDC -- a text amendment is processed different than a PUD process. A PUD process is parcel specific. So, the applicant would have to go through that neighborhood -- neighborhood meeting process, notify the property owners within 300 foot radius. When a person goes through a code change it's city wide, you can't notify all those parcel Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 133 of 144 owners. So, code doesn't require them to have a neighborhood meeting or -- but we have to still put it in the paper and notify the public, but we don't send out notices that way. So, it's a different process and that's why it worked well for them five years ago and we said, well, if that's the way you want to go -- they already had the name change in process, so they said they wanted to amend their application, so that's why we are here. Now, there is a -- there is a couple of distinctions here that I -- I don't want the neighbors or those in the audience thinking that this is -- yes, it's city wide, it is still case by case basis. Not every project has private streets. I don't think staff is going to support every privacy project that comes through. It's going to depend. There is a lot of variable -- private streets aren't a given; right? There is an application, there is a process you have to -- the director has to approve a private street. But what's unique about this product is that common driveways aren't even supposed to be off private streets and code prohibits it, unless you get an alternative compliance request. Again, another director's approval. So, the instance of this -- they receive director's approval of the private street and they received alternative compliance approval. So, they are doing -- it is a case-by-case basis. It's not an ongoing -- it's not someone could come in -- now, I don't totally disagree with the homeowners. If someone had a common driveway -- if -- if this gets approved and a Brighton comes in and they have a common driveway with a plat, yeah, they could take advantage of these setbacks. They could go retroactive and use these setbacks. But in their particular cases we have got certain easements already approved for that development that would restrict them from taking advantage of that. So, there is a couple things that we look at when we approve house plans. One we look at setbacks, but we also have to look at platted easements to see if they are structured -- the structure can encourage an easement and typically on an R-8 and an R-4 lot that takes advantage of a common driveway, they are bigger lots and there is typically a five foot public utility easement along the interior lot line, a 15 foot on the front in a ten or 12 on the rear, so even if these setbacks were in place it would be prohibited from encroaching that setback -- or in those easements and can't take advantage of those setbacks because of the easement. So, by default the easements would control the placement of that building on that lot. So, again, yes, it's city wide, but at the same time there is -- there is a whole bunch of variables that go into applying the setbacks. They are not just -- someone could come in tomorrow and say I have common driveways, I want to take advantage of a three foot setback all the way around. Yeah, but you could vacate the easement and change that, but there is a process to do that. So, it is -- it is -- it is difficult, it does get messy for us and if you recall when I presented to you about a month ago, I told you this would require more staff time to review these things, because as part of this -- as part of this amendment we are trading open space, yard area, for patio space or some other yard space on the lot. So, the developer is trying to get a hybrid, kind of -- just some of the multi-family standards, require a porch or a patio, a certain square footage -- 120 square feet is what they propose and we -- we think that's a good number. A ten by 12 patio on the front of the home. But we have to verify that during the building permit review. Building isn't going to do that. Planning is going to have to do that. So, yes, there is risk and reward here I guess is what I'm getting here and there are different processes you can go through to obtain these setbacks. But this is what the applicant proposes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 134 of 144 Holland: Madam Chair, a couple follow up questions for Bill. So, just to kind of rephrase what -- what you have said and what Commissioner Perreault asked, if this change doesn't go through, the process an applicant would have to go through, if they wanted to have a private street or a common driveway as part of their development, would be to go through a PUD process if they -- this is so they wouldn't have to do the PUD? Parsons: No. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the question is entitled with their subdivision. They could go back through a PUD process, but not to get approval for the private street and a common drive. That's already done. A PUD process would be to -- again, this is what I kind of alluded to about a month ago is -- we are too far down the road to really go through a PUD, because there is so many findings you have to make and we have already approved a project and to unravel that -- it gets pretty messy for us sometimes. But typically to approve a PUD you have to make findings that meet certain criteria. You have to have a minimum two different product types. They didn't have that. You got to have a certain amount of open space. They have that. It's not -- a PUD process isn't to primarily get you out of dimensional standards. That's one option, but we would have to make sure if we went through that process that the project as approved would still meet all the criteria in order to -- for staff to support a PUD for the site. That's where it gets in that -- that's -- that's the risk to the applicant and the time and money that, you know, would be well spent for them, because a PUD process is more expensive than a text amendment. Holland: So, one follow-up question then. In the research that you did and you presented to us, I didn't see a lot of language in there about private streets and common driveways. Is it fair to say that many other cities don't have that specific language in there -- in the UDC? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I didn't do that. Again, I didn't do the research, I had one of the assistant planners do that for me, but I asked him specifically to look for that, just a random sample. We didn't go through every community out there, but we didn't have any -- I didn't see anything from what he presented to me and what I shared with you tonight that showed setbacks off of private streets. But in my experience a street is a street; right? Whether it's private or public it's a street. So, those setbacks are going to apply regardless. What we are trying to do here is to be very specific that when you have a private street these setbacks apply. When you have a common driveway these setbacks apply. I think the cities interpret their code -- codes differently and that's where we kind of got sideways with the applicant. They were seeing our code one way, we were seeing it the other, and, again, they proposed some of these changes to try to make -- get rid of that gray and provide some black and white. McCarvel: So, is -- the staff report I know it was written with all the other verbiage in there and so, in general, then, what's before us tonight wanting to be considered -- is staff in agreement with that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 135 of 144 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, that's my understanding. The applicant's in agreement. We are in agreement. We can strike the rest out or remove it as we go to Council. Or we can strike it all out if you don't approve it and, then, Council can make a decision. McCarvel: I'm just thinking forward to a motion one way or the other. I don't know where it's going, but is the staff report written in a manner that it could be approved or not as is? Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. McCarvel: Can I get a motion to close the hearing on H-2018-0059? Holland: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to closed the public hearing on H-2018- 0059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I think I'm going to defer comments to the people who were involved in this in the first place. They seem to have a little more teeth in the game in this one. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I will go first. I wasn't sure if you were ready or not. You know, first of all, I want to thank all of those of you that have stayed with the early morning hour here with us. We appreciate your -- your commitment to -- to being here and being involved. I also want to thank the applicant for trying to go through and make the process easier for -- for development. I do have a couple of concerns with the way that this application is coming through. You know, a couple of comments that came through from the last hearing and also from this hearing is, one, that we are going through a public comp plan process right now and that these conversations really should be part of that conversation and since this specific change outside of a text amendment request that was originally put forward, should be something that technically could go through UDC process and be submitted to staff separately. So, there is -- there has been some concerns voiced about having a developer bring that change -- or staff bring that change. Having it come from a private sector development versus coming from staff and a committee and having multiple thoughts that kind of look -- look through it. The only other concern I have is that, you know, if -- if this is -- the setbacks are already pretty much -- sorry, words are escaping me this early in the morning. It's already allowed to have the zero or three foot setbacks or the 12 foot setbacks, they just want to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 136 of 144 have more specific language that adds private streets and common driveways. The concern with adding that language is that it might encourage future developments to include more options of private driveways and common -- or private streets and common driveways, which was my understanding that the city doesn't tend to like as much. Hopefully that will make sense. But those are a few thoughts to start. McCarvel: I think -- I mean that -- they just said that those two issues have to get special approval in the first place. It's not like every developer is going to be knocking down the door to -- okay, I won't -- I'm guessing. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I appreciate your comments. I think the challenge is that you're trying to build a product that's already been approved and there is no functional way to go forward without having a change and so that's -- I think you have -- and that's why you have text amendments, that's why -- you're dealing with an issue that's out in the field, they don't have a specific standard that they -- the developer can work with, so instead of cobbling together a solution that doesn't -- isn't in coded, they are bringing something to us to allow them to find a solution and so I tend to -- I mean I don't think there is going to be a massive like line at their counter to go see -- I'm going to go build private streets and common driveways. I mean we see common driveways and projects all the time. I think it's -- it's a tool that's used by -- by planners. I don't think they are that common, but I think they have to get approved on a case-by-case basis by the staff and I mean if -- Bill is sitting here saying, hey, we are -- I want -- I don't think this is a good idea. I'd be a little bit more concerned in who was bringing. But I think it -- trying to find a solution for a project that's already been approved, I -- I'm not sure how -- why that's a problem or if there is going be a process to go through after a project has already been approved. Again, I find the solution that -- that doesn't have to send them back through a complete approval process. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for Bill. So, if staff -- you have chose this, what does that look like for you to get approval? Is it just bringing it to us and Council or is there a public process that you go through as well? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it would be the same process, whether the city does it or -- but what we typically deal with are larger text amendments is we meet with our UDC focus group, so we do roll it out to the design professionals and developers and see if they are on board. So, it does get scrutinized a little bit more from that standpoint. But, yes, the citizens still don't have the level of input, unless they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 137 of 144 know what -- they are aware of what's going on. There isn't that level of transparency with -- with this process, unfortunately. Probably something we should work on. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for Bill. If -- if we were to approve this with upcoming changes to -- and review the UDC and whatnot, could that be stripped out and refined at a later -- so, that the problems that they are having now can be addressed in -- in that. Does that make sense at this hour? What I'm trying to say -- so, I mean we could -- if we were to approve it as it is now, but, then, to discourage a rush on private driveways or private -- private streets with -- with common driveways, could that be stripped out later, but yet the -- yet what the problem is -- and I think specifically is the drainage, is that what -- what really is the issue here is how to deal with drainage? Fitzgerald: My understanding is -- Parsons: That was one of the concerns that -- there is -- there is multiple concerns that I raised in the staff report. One was more staff time to review it -- drainage and how that would be handled. Cassinelli: But as far as the -- as far as the applicant, is that their -- is that their issue with getting -- Fitzgerald: Envelope and drainage -- Cassinelli: -- is -- is the drainage issue of them getting -- Parsons: No. Their issue is setbacks, but -- Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: Anything can be solved with money, but their issues are setbacks. They -- what they are -- they are struggling with is our 12 foot rear setback specifically. They -- their -- their product can meet our parking standards or driveway widths. Our street setbacks. It's just when you have a cluster of internal -- a cluster of lots that are surrounded by other lots that have street frontage, but the interior lots don't have street frontage, then, you don't really have a front or side yard. So, how do you apply rear yard and it gets a little convoluted. I don't want to get into the weeds with you, but we have gone -- like the applicant said, we have been back and forth I don't know how many staff has been part of this. We waste a lot of manpower on this trying to get it right for everyone. It's like anything, we don't -- it's -- it's -- code can be changed. I mean if it doesn't work, yes, we can change the code. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 138 of 144 Fitzgerald: Well, it helps to be put in the review process that's going on right now. Find a solution and, then, if it needs to be changed we can change it. Cassinelli: Yeah. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Bill will love this one. It also creates parking issues and I can -- I mean I'm only going based off of examples of -- of applications we have -- we have done. So, I can get it in visually in my mind, but if they are allowing for private a street to only have a ten foot setback instead of a 20 foot, so now the structure is a lot closer to the -- to the street and, then, the structures are a lot closer to each other, now all of a sudden we have got driveway, driveway, driveway, driveway, driveway and, then, that -- but -- but because it's a private street they are not required to have parking on either side. So -- so, it's -- it's more -- it's not just -- at least in our conversations with -- on one of the last applications it's not just a drainage issue, there is a spacing issue, too. Parsons: Yeah. Homes -- homes will certainly be closer. Private streets are typically 24 or 26 feet wide and don't -- are supposed to be striped no parking. So, you know, we try to encourage the applicants to provide that overflow parking. I think we had that townhome development that came through recently and we added -- had them add some more overflow parking for guests parking. So, those are -- those are the types of projects that need to be scrutinized more that come through our department and before you, because those are the ones that we have to make sure we get right, because we don't want to get in the situation where we are in front of you now trying to solve the problem with a code change. If we do that exercise up front, we recognize that issue, we can get it resolved before we get to this point is the goal. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I will try and make this quick, Bill. This applies to private streets with common driveways or -- common driveways can be separate from the -- okay. Parsons: Right. Cassinelli: The other -- the other question is with -- with properties -- homes closer together, has this -- does this need to be reviewed by police or fire? Is that an issue with them? Parsons: We have discussed all this with them. They don't -- they don't have any concerns with it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 139 of 144 Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: Yeah. They were part of the conversation, along with the building department, just to make sure we were all on the same page as we go forward. I don't - - if the applicant didn't have support from city departments, they wouldn't even have gone forward. Holland: Madam Chair. Bill, one more question for you. The UDC committee that you mentioned, how often does that meet and who sits on that committee? Is that an internal staff committee? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, they meet -- we typically -- I keep a running tab of UDC changes throughout the year and, then, sometime in the spring we convene the committee and say hey -- the applicant is part of that committee. We have a representative for Brighton Corporation. We have architects sit on it. Staff members, of course. Legal. It's about 20 people or so giving feedback and input on the process. Holland: One follow-up question. Once something comes through to that committee and you review changes, is that something that staff, then, would bring back to a Council -- Commission meeting first and, then, go to Council or does it just get changed through -- through that Commission meeting or that committee? Parsons: No. That -- that's just to go over some changes in proposed language and, then, at that point we go to BCA as well, which is the Building Association of Southwest Idaho and, then, we put together an application and submit and, then, come before you -- you and -- and City Council for -- Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: You know, with a -- with a city wide change I really -- I really feel like that that would be beneficial for it to -- I mean I don't want to delay the applicant. I know you guys have been doing this for a long time. I don't know how many people you have talked to that are members of the -- of that committee already, but I would like to see -- I would like to have it reviewed by -- by that committee. Say the name of it again. Parsons: UDC focus group. Perreault: Focus group. Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 140 of 144 Cassinelli: Maybe this is a legal question. Can we approve it with a sunset clause so it, essentially, expires after this is approved -- after their projects? Fitzgerald: This isn't legislation, man. Cassinelli: Hey, I am trying. Holland: Madam Chair. Bill, one more question for you. So, if we decided to go the route where we would prefer that this goes through the UDC focus -- or UDC focus group, would we make a motion to continue it or would we make a motion to deny it and have it go -- with a note that it would go through UDC focus group instead? Does it make sense what I'm asking? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of -- interesting question. I'm tasked to putting together the next changes, which I have -- I have done that, I just haven't finalized that process to recirculate that back to the UDC focus group. So, what would have to happen is you would have to deny the application. The applicant could go before City Council. If it gets denied, then, certainly we can take that under -- under advisement. But you can't move it forward -- I guess you can move it forward to City Council with a denial saying that you think it should be further vetted with staff and the UDC focus group before Council approves it, but at this point -- at this point you got to make a decision tonight. I think that's what the applicant is looking forward to. And if it gets denied -- I guess that's my question for Legal. If it gets denied can we take it under advisement again, because -- or do we hold ourselves to the same standard of what -- that one year sunset clause. Holland: That's what I was asking really. Parsons: There won't be anything different. Fitzgerald: Is that something they can make modifications? Perreault: Sorry, I missed that. What was that? Fitzgerald: It's a test. Pogue: It was a test. Yeah. I was tracking with what Bill was advising, which is recommend denial, if that's what you want to do, with the recommendation that it go that -- that it be directed by Council to the UDC committee. So, they would deny as well. But at least you would be giving them direction as to what the concern is here. Fitzgerald: Isn't it a year -- that puts a year clock on it or would that -- I mean it's a project. They are not a project, but do you have a clock after a denial of this type of application? Pogue: Oh. Got you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 141 of 144 McCarvel: Well, didn't -- I mean Bill can bring it back through the regular text amendments; right? Pogue: He would -- yeah. Fitzgerald: It's not like a normal project. Pogue: No. Correct. Holland: So, one more follow-up question. So, if we decided to -- just thinking about how we can make this motion. If we decided to continue the application with a note that we would prefer that this goes through the UDC focus group to a point in time after that UDC focus group meets and, then, we carry it forward, that could be a way we do it? Perreault: That would be bringing it back to us. Is that what you want to do? Holland: I think it would ultimately come back to us anyway if it was to go through the UDC commission -- or committee. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would table this application until it caught up with staff's UDC changes and, then, hear it at that same night and, then, we could add it as a side discussion with the UDC focus group with the changes that I'm preparing to bring forward to you with a future application. Holland: I'm not sure which -- which way would be better, but whether we recommend denial and recommend that they go through the UDC process or recommend continuance and -- until the point where it's been heard by that UDC focus group. Perreault: Before we make a motion, I'm still struggling with this idea that -- that developers may use this as a way to bring more dense applications. Does staff really anticipate that? I'm getting the impression that -- that staff's in agreement with this and that this would be helpful to you and so I want to very much keep that in mind. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, staff is supportive -- supportive of the changes, but there -- there is risk. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: And that's what I stated in my staff report. It's going to take more review time for staff. Going to have to look and scrutinize drainage a little bit more. Perreault: So, what is the best way for us to mitigate that risk? Is it to just get this looked at further with the focus group and the BCA? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 142 of 144 Parsons: There is no way to mitigate it, just requires more work, so -- Perreault: To educate -- Parsons: Let me -- let me -- let me explain the process to you. So, whenever there is a common driveway our code requires the applicant to provide us an exhibit. On that exhibit they are supposed to show us the building footprint and show us how the home sits on the lot, so we can verify all of those setbacks. That typically happens -- that can happen into two -- two stages. It can happen at the preliminary plat or it can happen at final plat. Most of the time it happens at -- at final plat. That's when we start scrutinizing that a little bit more, make sure that they can comply with those standards. That -- that exhibit we attach to a building restriction form so that when building permits come in we verify the setbacks meet what we have approved with the final plat. Well, in this particular proposal we still have to verify that. They will give us that exhibit, but, then, we have to look at the floor plan to verify that it -- and scale out the patio that it's -- there is 120 square foot patio on there and that takes time. I mean I'm not opposed to doing the work, I'm just letting you know there is a level of work there. Do we have a lot of common driveways? No. I can tell you a handful. A majority of our permits aren't off of common driveways, but we -- you see them on a regular basis. If someone wants to get three lots and the common driveway you don't need street frontage, so someone throws in a 20 foot wide common driveway and now they can get two more lots on there, rather than having 30 feet of frontage on the street. So, I mean it's -- it's becoming more and more of a common practice. Again, this particular instance we have got common driveways off a private street that were -- was -- was approved on a case-by-case basis. And when I say someone wouldn't take advantage of these setbacks if they had common driveways? I can't say that with certainty that someone wouldn't do that. But what I can tell you is we go through the subdivision process, there is requirement for them to establish easements along those property boundaries and so 99 percent of the time you can have a bigger easement than the setback requirements that you see before you and that's why we are -- we are confident -- that's why we can support the application and don't -- don't see it being an issue, but there is always going to be somebody out there that tries -- tries to test you. It's just the way it is. Pogue: Madam Chair? Could I ask a question to Bill. I'm still wondering what other options the applicant may have with regard to the -- to approve -- is it to approve projects? Parsons: The other options are a variance. Pogue: A variance. Parsons: Yeah. Pogue: And were they tied to DA's? Could they come back with an MDA? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 143 of 144 Parsons: The developments are tied to -- their density is tied to a -- to a DA. Setbacks, again -- Pogue: It wouldn't have come into that, but -- Parsons: You got to change setbacks. Pogue: A variance is a possibility? Parsons: Variance is -- yeah. We talked about three options. PUD, a variance, or this process. Pogue: Uh-huh. Parsons: Pros and cons; right? You do an analysis, what's the pros and cons for each process. A variance goes straight to City Council. Then, you know, how do you make the findings that it's a hardship when it's a vacant piece of ground and it's bare dirt. It -- it's like anything, we are sitting here -- it's semantics and we can't support a variance because there is no hardship to prove. There is -- there is no reason why we have to support a variance. We already gave them two. We gave them -- we gave them the alternative compliance for the common driveway. So, basically, that's a staff level variance. So, they have already gotten that. So, that's not the preferred way to go through that process. But it is an option. And that, again, parcel specific. Your neighborhood meeting. Get -- get input from your neighbors within 300 feet of your -- of your project boundary. Certainly that's the other option, you know. Now, you can go through a variance. I mean there is -- we could spend this -- many different ways for you -- you just have to decide what's best for the community. Pogue: And I have one more question. When would you be convening the UDC committee with your -- with your list -- Parsons: It's done -- yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we -- we have met once already and kind of talked about what we were going to bring forth with our next changes. What I have done is I have prepared a table with some strikeout, underlying changes. We realize we don't have this -- the resources at this time to cover all of those items, so we are going to pair back that table a little bit more, so I would like to get something in the near future, at least have something before this body at least January I would probably guess. So, get something to the UDC focus group for comments December and an application for January is where I'm targeting at this point, but no guarantees. McCarvel: It's not that far out and if that makes everybody feel comfortable let's do it. I don't know that we would have this much reservation if this was brought forth by staff, but there is -- Perreault: Sorry, I have one more question. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 144 of 144 McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: So, do you -- is -- are all -- is everything that goes through the focus group also ran by the BCA or is it just specific things as needed? Or how does that process work? Parsons: Yeah. Once the UDC focus group as -- have the changes and they -- no, we don't always get a hundred percent consensus on the changes. Perreault: Sure. Parsons: We agree to disagree on some of those changes. But, then, I schedule a meeting with BCA and just let them know, hey, this is scheduled for the hearing. I welcome your comments on it and then -- Perreault: Okay. So, you don't meet with them and -- Parsons: I take all the tables to them and share everything. Perreault: Okay. Great. Parsons: I don't go over every item, but just the ones that affect the building community. Perreault: Right. Okay. Parsons: Typically they have been supportive of setback changes. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioners. McCarvel: Yes. Holland: I -- if -- unless anybody else has more comments to make on -- and I would make a motion that we reopen the public hearing, so that we could make a motion to continue the application. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Unless anyone else has anything else they would like to add to that. McCarvel: Okay. Do we have a second to open the public -- Cassinelli: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 145 of 144 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing for H-2018- 0059 by DevCo Development for the change in the UDC code, that we would continue that application to a point in time after the UDC focus group has had the opportunity to review the text changes and come back with a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the other UDC code changes at the same time. McCarvel: And do we leave it at that or do we need a date? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would say leave it open for now. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Because that way I will make sure to coordinate that when we get -- when I get my stuff in. McCarvel: I just thought the -- I thought we had tried to do something like that before and we had to have a date on it, so -- okay. Perfect. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: Second? It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we call it a night and adjourn. Holland: Second. McCarvel: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 146 of 144 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:53 A.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED RHO DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN ATTEST: — A,"-- - - CITY CLERK 2 i 1 i 1 �-3 DATE APPROVED Gp�PpRATEO �'L .. � I W m SE DIANA Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of November 1, 2018 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 November 1, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Cover Memo 11/5/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 4 of 255 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2018 Page 43 of 43 Cassinelli: I will second it then. Fitzgerald; Oh. Oh. Yearsley: And also to add a request that the DA be modified that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner to come up with a cost share agreement for the piping across -- the pipe culvert across the Kennedy Lateral prior to City Council. Cassinelli: I will revise my second and second that one. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Oppose same. Motion passes and thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: I think we have una mas motion. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we close to the public hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of November 1 st, 2018. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Good night. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate it. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:56 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED �/ AN FITZGERALD - ACTIN IRMAN DATE APPROVED ��'(ED AUGUS.. ATTES �Qo r� � o city of 0 d'—TA* ES - CITY CLERK EIDIAN+�- IDAHO r-,� SEAL Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 B Project File Number: H-2018-0106 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Del Taco By Tom Lennon, Located at 1617 W. Island Green Dr. 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 onclusion of L aw for D el Taco (H-2018-0106) by Tom L ennon, L ocated at 1617 W. Island Green Dr. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 11/11/2018 E xhibit A E xhibit 11/11/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 48 of 255 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0106 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 Drive-Through Establishment within Three Hundred Feet (300’) of a Residential District and Existing Residences in a C-C Zoning District for Del Taco, Located at 1617 W. Island Green Dr., by Tom Lennon. Case No(s). H-2018-0106 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 18 and November 1, 2018 (Findings on November 15, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 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 November 15, 2018 – Page 49 of 255 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0106 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 November 1, 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 approval in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1, 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 November 1, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 50 of 255 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of oaMb d/ , 2018. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED Ayp COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTEDA�_ COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED A7 e COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED ,L G Rh nda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: C.Jay les, City 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: Dated: I� L City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0106 Page 3 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: November 1, 2018 (Continued from: October 18, 2018) TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Del Taco – CUP – H-2018-0106 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Tom Lennon, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and existing residences in a C-C zoning district. See Section VII, VIII & IX for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on November 1, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Tom Lennon, Erstad Architects ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Andrew Lawrence iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. Concern from the adjacent residential neighbor to the north regarding lights into his property from vehicles exiting the drive-through. c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. The requirement for mitigation measures to address the headlight issue identified by the neighbor; ii. Limitation on the business hours of operation because of the adjacent residential use. d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Require the business hours of operation to be limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm (see condition #1.14). ii. Require the Applicant to work with the adjacent property owner (Parcel #R1065270201, Lawrence) at 1685 W. Brandt Ln. to come to a mutual agreeable solution to provide screening for the residential property from the headlights from vehicles exiting the drive-through (preferably a fence) (see condition #1.15). EXHIBIT A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 52 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 2 III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018- 0106 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1, 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-2018-0106 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0106 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at 1617 W. Island Green Drive, in the SE ¼ of Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. B. Applicant/Representative: Tom Lennon 310 N. 5th Street Boise, ID 83702 C. Owner: Rocky Mountain Companies 350 N. 9th Street, Suite 200 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 and Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: September 28, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 21, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 22, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The property consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-C. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County 2. East: N. Linder Rd., and mixed use commercial development, zoned C-3-DA in the City of Eagle Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 53 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 3 3. South: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-C 4. West: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-C C. History of Previous Actions:  In 2006, this property was annexed (AZ-06-005) with the requirement of a development agreement (DA) (Inst. #106122365) and included in the preliminary plat for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision.  In 2009, a modification to the previous DA was approved (Inst. #109082037, 1st Amendment).  In 2011, this property was rezoned to C-C (RZ-11-006, Ord. #12-1511); a DA was recorded as a provision of the rezone (Inst. #112040233, 2nd Amendment).  In 2014, a preliminary plat was approved that included this property (PP-14-011); and a DA modification (MDA-14-008, Inst. #2014-088001) was approved to terminate the three previous DA’s and enter into a new agreement. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject property currently exists near the SW corner of the subject site. b. Location of water: Water service to the subject site is from Suez North America. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no irrigation ditches on this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is unaware of any hazards that exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This property is not within the flood plain. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS This property is designated “Mixed Use – Community” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use – Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The site is proposed to develop with a drive-through restaurant which will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and provide another fast food option to area residents within close proximity to nearby residential developments. The proposed use will also provide employment opportunities to nearby residents. 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 new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 54 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 4 All parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 8C.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City water and sewer service stubs have been provided to this site with development of the subdivision.  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) The proposed drive-through restaurant will contribute to the variety of uses and fast food options in the northern portion of the City.  “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B) Street buffer landscaping was installed with the subdivision along W. Island Green Dr. and N. Linder Rd. on this site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Internal parking lot landscaping is required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.  “Locate industrial and commercial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection.” (3.04.02A) There is adequate water supply and pressure available to the site for fire protection. For the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zone(s): The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Six Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. Allowed uses in the C-C district (i.e. Community Business District) consist of larger scale and broader mix of retail, office and service uses with access to arterials or nonresidential collectors per UDC Table 11-2B-1. B. Schedule of Use: Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the C-C zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. Restaurants are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-C district; however, drive-through establishments require conditional use approval when they are within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, a residential district, or an existing residence. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. D. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC 11-3C-6B for the properties in commercial districts. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 55 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 5 F. Structure and Site Design Standards: The proposed development must comply with the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and existing residences in the C-C zoning district as required by UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment. Specific Use Standards: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment. A Site Plan is required to be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum, the plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right of way by patrons. Staff is of the opinion the proposed stacking lane provides sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of drive-aisles within the site. 2. The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The proposed stacking lane is separate from the circulation lanes internal to the site needed for access parking. 3. The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence. The proposed stacking lane is approximately 130’ away from the nearest residential district. 4. Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. An escape lane is depicted on the site plan. 5. The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The proposed drive-through is visible from two public streets (i.e. W. Island Green Dr. and N. Linder Rd.). The applicant is required to provide a six foot (6') sight obscuring fence where a stacking lane or window location adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. The proposed stacking lane and window location do not adjoin a residential district or existing residence. Access: Access is provided to this site via W. Island Green Dr., a local street. A cross-access easement exists between all lots in this subdivision as depicted on the plat for Chinden and Linder Crossing Subdivision. Direct access via N. Linder Rd. is prohibited. 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. 2,418 square feet), a minimum of 4 parking spaces are required; a total of 14 spaces are proposed in accord with 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: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the southern perimeter boundary of the site landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1b; the proposed landscape plan does not depict landscaping in this area. Additionally, all Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 56 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 6 interior planters are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 8C.2d. The landscape plan should be revised in accord with these standards. To reduce traffic conflicts with vehicles exiting the drive-through and vehicles entering and exiting the parking area from W. Island Green Dr., staff recommends some revisions to the site plan, as follows: 1) add a landscaped planter strip on the west side of the center row of parking; 2) restrict the two spaces on the west side of the parking lot to employee parking; 3) consider extending the curb (where vehicles exit the drive-through) across the first drive aisle to funnel traffic from the drive-through through the western-most drive aisle. Street buffers along W. Island Green Dr. and N. Linder Rd. were constructed with the subdivision improvements in accord with UDC standards. Pathways: 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. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed building included in Exhibit A.4. Building materials consist of stucco 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. 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. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Zoning/Aerial Map 2. Site Plan (dated: August 21, 2018) 3. Landscape Plan (dated: September 6, 2018 4. Building Elevation (dated: August 2, 2018) B. Conditions of Approval C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 57 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 7 Exhibit A.1: Zoning/Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 58 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 8 Exhibit A.2: Site Plan (dated: August 21, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 59 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 60 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 10 Exhibit A.3: Landscape Plan (dated: September 6, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 61 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.4: Building Elevations (dated: August 21, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 62 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 63 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 13 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-06-005, RZ-11-006 and Development Agreement Instrument No. 112040234). 1.2 The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive- Through Establishment. 1.3 The site plan, included in Exhibit A.2, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the site. b. 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. c. Depict a bicycle rack on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. d. Add a landscaped planter strip on the west side of the center row of parking. e. Restrict the two spaces on the west side of the parking lot to employee parking only; install sign accordingly. f. Consider extending the curb (where vehicles exit the drive-through) across the first drive aisle to funnel traffic from the drive-through through the western-most drive aisle. 1.4 The landscape plan, included in Exhibit A.3, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide perimeter buffer along the southern boundary of the site landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1b. b. Depict landscaping in interior planters in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 8C.2d. 1.5 Development of this site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval in this report. 1.6 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. 1.7 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). 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 The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the drive-through use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 1.10 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. 1.11 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 64 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 14 1.12 All signage for the property is subject to the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D. 1.13 With the certificate of zoning application, the applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded cross access agreement with the property owner to the south (parcel #R2399370010). 1.14 The business hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. 1.15 The Applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner (Parcel #R1065270201, Lawrence) at 1685 W. Brandt Ln. to come to a mutual agreeable solution to provide screening for the residential property from the headlights from vehicles exiting the drive-through (preferably a fence). 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 The Public Works Department has no comments related to this application. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no comments related to this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Fire Department has no comments related to this application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no comments related to this application. 6. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=155580 7. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/155934/Page1.aspx 8. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156162/Page1.aspx 9. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157762 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 65 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 15 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: In consideration of a conditional use permit, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed drive-through use and development regulations of the C-C 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. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of MU-C for this site. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use 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. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission 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. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will 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 November 15, 2018 – Page 66 of 255 Del Taco – CUP H-2018-0106 PAGE 13 h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 67 of 255 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 C Project File Number: H-2018-0110 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sulamita Church by Matthey Garner, Located at 4973 W. Cherry Ln 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 Sulamita Church (H-2018-0110) by M atthew Garner, Located at 4973 W. Cherry L n. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 11/11/2018 E xhibit A E xhibit 11/11/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 68 of 255 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0110 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 Church on 8.49 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District, Located at 4973 W. Cherry Ln., by Matthew Garner. Case No(s). H-2018-0110 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: November 1, 2018 (Findings on November 15, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 1, 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 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 69 of 255 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0110 Page 2 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of November 1, 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 November 1, 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 November 1, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 70 of 255 By ot_ * n of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the r rj day of �� , 2018. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED 7 YC COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTEDY COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED Attest: Ja oles, I Clerk r , Rho da McCarvel, Chairman Go�PORATEI,gGCG ID o rn ' I,qN w Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning an doe Topment�� ices divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Departm City Attorney. By:('kdmWq�d Dated: Ci y Clerk's Office (11 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0110 Page 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 11/1/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0110 Sulamita Church PROPERTY LOCATION: 4973 W. Cherry Ln. (Southwest corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Cherry Ln.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A conditional use permit is requested for a 28,457 square foot church on 8.49 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2A-2. The proposed church facility will consist of an administrative office, centralized foyer and main worship space, nursery room, meeting rooms, and fellowship gathering room; an unfinished gymnasium, kitchen and meeting room are also proposed to be finished at a later date. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 8.49 Future Land Use Designation MDR Existing Land Use Vacant (formerly SFR – 1 home that still exists on site) Proposed Land Use(s) Church Current Zoning R-8 Proposed Zoning NA Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Ten Mile Creek runs along south boundary Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 9/10/18; 3 people attended History (previous approvals) AZ-14-014 (DA #2015-023708); CUP-14-019 EXHIBIT A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 72 of 255 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) 1 existing access via N. Black Cat Rd. (arterial); 1 access proposed via N. Black Cat Rd., (arterial), and 1 access proposed via W. Cherry Ln. (arterial) Traffic Level of Service NA Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access No stub street exist to this site and no public streets are proposed; a cross-access easement should be provided to the property to the west (#S1209110307)for access via Cherry Ln. Existing Road Network None Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers None Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1.6 miles  Fire Response Time 3 minutes (LOS expectation = 5 minutes)  Resource Reliability 80% (expectation should be 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 4 (1=residential, 2=residential with hazards, 3=commercial, 4=commercial with hazards, 5=industrial)  Accessibility Project will meet all required road widths & turnarounds  Special/resource needs  Aerial device required; Closest truck company is 10 minutes travel time (under ideal conditions) to the site – FD can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required.  Large grouping of people in one location In the event of a fire or other event, additional units will need to be brought in, which will require additional time delays as they are not available within the City.  Water Supply 2,250 gal./minute for 2 hours (approx.) Police Service No comment West Ada School District No comments received COMPASS (Communities in Motion 2040) No comments received Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 73 of 255 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Matthew Garner 224 16th Ave. South Nampa, ID 83651 B. Owner: Sulamita Church 1021 N.W. 8th St. Meridian, ID 83642 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 74 of 255 Page 4 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/12/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/9/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 9/29/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/9/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan Policies:  “Permit schools, churches, and other public and civic uses in rural areas, that are compatible with adjacent uses.” (3.05.02E)  “Require appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.) (3.06.02F)  “Limit canal tiling and piping of ditches, creeks, and drains where public safety issues are not of concern.” (5.01.01D)  “Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas.” (5.01.01E)  “Coordinate with irrigation districts to implement the proposed pathway network along irrigation canals, ditches, creeks, and easements.” (6.02.02C)  “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)  “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) B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing (vacant) residential dwelling and accessory structures on the site. The applicant requests approval to use the existing dwelling as a job shack and remove it and the accessory structures prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Staff is amenable to the Applicant’s request. C. Dimensional Standards: See UDC Table 11-2A-6 (http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=306) D. Specific Use Standards: UDC 11-4-3-6: Church or Place of Religious Worship Schools, child daycare services, meeting facilities for clubs and organizations, and other similar uses not operated primarily for the purpose of religious instruction, worship, government of the church, or the fellowship of its congregation may be permitted to the extent the activity is otherwise permitted in the district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 75 of 255 Page 5 E. Access: One (1) access is proposed via N. Black Cat Rd. and one (1) access is proposed via W. Cherry Ln. at the west boundary of the site in accord with the concept site plan included in the Development Agreement. The access via Black Cat should align with W. Thorn Creek St. across the street to the east as required by ACHD; the existing driveway via Black Cat should be removed upon construction of the new driveway. The Development Agreement requires a cross-access easement to be recorded granting access to the property to the west (#S1209110307, currently under the same ownership) to the driveway access via Cherry Ln.; the easement is required to be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. F. Parking: Per UDC Table 11-3C-6B.1, a minimum of 57 off-street parking spaces are required to be provided; a total of 191 spaces are proposed. Parking spaces and associated drive-aisles are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. G. Sidewalks/Parkways: Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along the entire frontage of the site adjacent to N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Cherry Ln., both arterial streets, in accord with UDC 11- 3A-17C. H. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system on this site along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek; therefore, a 10-foot wide pathway is required to be constructed along the entire southern boundary of the site and a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be recorded for the pathway. I. Landscaping A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along the entire frontage of W. Cherry Ln. and N. Black Cat Rd., both arterial streets, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-6, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. J. Waterways: The Ten Mile Creek runs along the southern boundary on this site and is required to be protected during development and left open and not be piped. K. Fencing: No fencing is proposed. Per UDC 11-3A-6C, fencing along natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing. Although all waterways can present a public safety hazard, Staff is of the opinion the Ten Mile Creek is not a large facility and should not be required to be fenced. L. Utilities: Street lighting is required to be installed within and adjacent to the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 76 of 255 Page 6 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP with the conditions in Section VIII. B. Commission: The Commission approved the CUP as requested by the Applicant. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on November 1, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Matt Garner; Anton Boyarchuk; Sergey Kazimir ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Jesse Bennett iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. Congregation members in favor of church; ii. Concern pertaining to the provision of a safe pedestrian pathway adjacent to the creek because a lot of children use the sidewalks in the area. c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. The Commission liked the design of the site, the proposed green space and pathway connection to the adjacent neighborhoods. d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 77 of 255 Page 7 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 78 of 255 Page 8 B. Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 79 of 255 Page 9 C. Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 80 of 255 Page 10 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. A recorded cross-access easement shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application granting access to the property to the west (#S1209110307, currently under the same ownership) to the driveway access via Cherry Ln. as set forth in the Development Agreement. 2. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the church. Until such time, the existing structure may be used as a job shack during construction of the church. 3. The site and landscape plans included in Exhibits A & B shall be revised as follows (as applicable): a. Align the access via Black Cat Rd. with W. Thorn Creek St. across the street to the east as required by ACHD; the existing driveway via Black Cat shall be removed upon construction of the new driveway. b. Parking spaces and associated drive-aisles are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. c. Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along the entire frontage of the site adjacent to N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Cherry Ln., in accord with UDC 11-3A- 17C. d. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk along W. Cherry Ln. and N. Black Cat Rd. to the main building entrance in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. e. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan; and landscaping adjacent to the pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Note: The Development Agreement requires the site to develop in substantial compliance with the site plan, landscape plan and elevations included in the agreement. Therefore, Staff does not recommend the site design is reconfigured to comply with UDC 11-3A- 19B.2. 4. Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathway as set forth in the Pathways Master Plan with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 5. Prior to any development occurring on the site within the Overlay District, a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6. 6. The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6, Church or Place of Religious Worship. 7. All fencing constructed on the site shall be consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B. Any existing barbed wire fencing on the site is prohibited and shall be removed. 8. The future structure and site design shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 81 of 255 Page 11 B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of water and sewer mains from their current points of connection to and through the proposed development, this may entail looping a water main through the site from W. Cherry Lane to N. Black Cat Road. Determination of this requirement will be made by means of computer modeling during the review of the civil design plans submitted as part of the building package. 2. A portion of this project lies within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6. General Conditions of Approval 3. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 82 of 255 Page 12 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. 9. 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. 10. The domestic water system shall be approved and activated, and at a minimum a compacted gravel road base capable of supporting a fire truck shall be place prior to applying for building permits. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 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. 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. 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. 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. 21. 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. C. Fire Department http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157210/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 83 of 255 Page 13 D. Central District Health Department http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=156407 E. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156136/Page1.aspx F. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156509/Page1.aspx G. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156915/Page1.aspx H. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157383 9. FINDINGS The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 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 the proposed 8.49 acre site is large enough to accommodate the proposed church and meet all the dimensional standards and development regulations of the R-8 zoning district. 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 the proposed church will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 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 the proposed design, construction, operation and maintenance of the church will be compatible with adjacent residential uses and the intended character of the area and will not adversely affect the same. 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 the proposed church will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if the Applicant complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 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 the proposed church will be adequately served by the public facilities and services noted. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 84 of 255 Page 14 The Commission finds the proposed church will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 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 the proposed church use will not detrimentally affect any persons, property or the general welfare by the excessive production of traffic or emissions generated from the site. 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. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site of major importance that will be destroyed or damaged by the proposed development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 85 of 255 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 15, 2018 Previously Approved Site Plan Proposed Site/Landscape Plan Site Plan/ Conceptual Elevations Landscape Plan Site Plan Landscape Plan Existing Concept Plan Conceptual Elevations Conceptual Elevations Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Open Space Exhibit Zoning Map FLUM Preliminary Plat Phasing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Number: H-2018-0120 Item Title: Public Hearing for Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120) by B&A Engineers, Located at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd. Request: A Conditional Use Permit Modification to reduce the amount of open space approved with a previous PUD (CUP -05-016) to construct additional parking on the site adjacent to Locust Grove Rd. Meeting Notes: c✓i APHOW I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for F erguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120) by B &A Engineers, L ocated at 586 N. L ocust Grove 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 11/9/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 86 of 255 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/15/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-A Project Name: Ferguson Parking Addition Project No.: H-2018-0120 Active: ❑./ Page 1 of 1 Signature City- I Wish To Sign In Name Address State -Zip For Against Neutral Testify Date/Time Ted 5730S. 11/15/2018 Bohlman Graphite Way Idaho X 4:29:00 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=102 11/15/2018 Changes to Agenda: • None Item #4A: Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120) Application(s): ➢ Modification to Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 7 acres of land, zoned I -L, located at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Trucking company (Oak Harbor Freight Lines), zoned I -L South: Union Pacific Railroad and City owned property (Parks Dept.), zoned I -L East: N. Nola Rd and Construction supply company (Concrete Construction Supplies), zoned I -L West: N. Locust Grove Rd. and Industrial supply company (Fastenal), zoned I -L History: In 2005 a CUP was approved to allow for two buildings to be constructed on one lot. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial Summary of Request: Previous code required a CUP/PUD to allow for 2 buildings to be constructed on the same lot, At that time 2 amenities were required to be provided with the CUP, one of which was 10% open space. The applicant is requesting to reduce the amount of open space from 34,550 SF to 12,050 SF in order to construct 58 additional parking spaces on the site adjacent to N. Locust Grove. The second amenity required with the original CUP was a seating area for employees and customers. Current code no longer requires a CUP/PUD to construct two buildings on one lot, however the amenities required with the original approval are still applicable. Staff is amendable to the loss of open space because additional parking will help with growth experienced by the applicant and will aid them in complying with UDC parking standards. Staff does recommend that the applicant mitigate the loss of open space by adding 3 trees to the existing 25 -foot landscape buffer along N. Locust Grove and a five-foot landscape buffer between the proposed parking addition and the existing parking area and building on the east portion of the site. Additionally, staff recommends that a seating area for employees and customers be constructed. Written Testimony: David Crawford, B& A Engineers, applicant representative — In agreement with conditions in the staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval with the conditions in the report 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- 2018-0120, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 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- 0120, as presented during the hearing on November 15, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0120 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Changes to Agenda: • None Item #4A: Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018.0120) Application(s): Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of [#] acres of land, zoned [district], located at [address/general location]. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: History: [if applicable] Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: [details] Summary of Request: [details] Written Testimony: [name(s)] - [issue(s)] Staff Recommendation: [Approval/Denial] Why? [i.e. what is unique/premier (Comp. Plan policies/goals), meets minimum requirements or not, process comments/story] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number [#], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of [date], 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 [#], as presented during the hearing on [date], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number [#] to the hearing date of (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: 11/15/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0120 Ferguson Parking Addition MCU PROPERTY LOCATION: 586 N. Locust Grove Rd., in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 8, Township 3N, Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit modification to reduce the amount of open space approved with a previous PUD (CUP-05-016) to construct additional parking on the site adjacent to N. Locust Grove Rd. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 6.865 Future Land Use Designation Industrial Existing Land Use Building material warehouse and retail space Proposed Land Use(s) Same Current Zoning I-L Proposed Zoning N/A Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 9/26/2018; 1 attendee (applicant representative) History (previous approvals) CUP-05-016; CZC-05-013 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Existing access is from N. Locust Grove Rd. and N. Nola Rd. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 87 of 255 Page 2 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: David Crawford, B&A Engineers, Inc. B. Owner: Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. C. Representative: David Crawford, B&A Engineers, Inc. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 88 of 255 Page 3 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/26/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/24/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/2/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/23/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a modification to the previously approved planned development/ conditional use permit (CUP-05-016) to reduce the amount of open space from 34,550 square- feet to 12,050 square-feet in order to construct 58 additional parking spaces on the site adjacent to N. Locust Grove Rd. The previous code in effect at the time of the original CUP approval required that two amenities be provided to allow for two buildings to be constructed on the same lot. At the time, a minimum of 10% open space/landscaping was one of the two required amenities. The second site amenity was a seating area for employee and customer use. The applicant provided 34,550 square feet (10.5%) open space in accord with the approved CUP; that approved site plan is included in Exhibit A. The current proposal will replace a portion of the 34,550 square-feet open space with a 22,500 square-foot parking area including 58 parking stalls along N. Locust Grove Rd.; the proposed site and landscape plans are included in Exhibits VII.B & VII.C. Although current code in effect no longer requires a PD/CUP to build two buildings on one lot, the amenities required for the development per the original approval are still applicable. Since Ferguson Enterprises has experienced growth and requires more space to accommodate its growing employee and clientele base, the parking area installed in place of once required open space is sensible. The installation of an additional parking area will aid the applicant in maintaining compliance with parking standards in UDC 11-3C-5. In order to mitigate the loss of open space and to meet the intent of the original CUP approval, staff recommends that the applicant comply with the original condition to construct a seating area for customer and employee use and install a five-foot landscape buffer. The five-foot landscape buffer shall be provided to the east of the parking addition adjacent to an existing interior parking area and the southernmost building. The easterly five-foot landscape buffer and the westerly 25-foot landscape buffer along N. Locust Grove Rd. shall be landscaped in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3B-8C. These landscape buffers would provide for additional screening for the storage yard adjacent to N. Locust Grove Rd. The site/landscape plan submitted for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review shall depict the seating area and landscape buffers. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies This property is designated as Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. This designation allows a range of industrial uses to support industrial and commercial activities and to develop areas with sufficient urban services. Light industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, and incidental retail and office uses. Heavy industrial uses may include processing, manufacturing, warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. In all cases, screening, landscaping, and adequate access should be provided. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 89 of 255 Page 4 “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.” (2.01.04B) B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements Three existing buildings used for retail, warehousing, and offices; parking areas; and storage yard. C. Dimensional Standards See UDC Table 11-2C-3 http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=306&chapter_id=20921#s1230404 D. Access Current access points via N. Locust Grove Rd. and N. Nola Rd. will remain. No new access points are proposed. E. Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC 11-3C-6B-2 for industrial uses. Based on the square-footage of the existing buildings (56,600 sq. ft.), a minimum of 28 parking spaces are required to be provided. The current proposal will add 58 parking spaces; with the addition there will be 129 parking spaces in total, exceeding UDC requirements. The proposed drive aisle connecting the parking lot addition to existing interior parking is currently depicted as 24-feet wide. In accord with UDC Table 11-3C-5 the drive aisle shall be expanded to 25-foot width to allow for ingress/egress of two-way traffic. F. Sidewalks/Parkways: A five-foot wide attached sidewalk exists along N. Locust Grove Rd. G. Landscaping: A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2C-3. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the required landscape buffer width, but shall be modified to comply with the landscaping standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. Staff is recommending that 3 trees be added to the current proposal of 8 trees, for 11 trees total in the southwestern landscape buffer along N. Locust Grove. Staff is also recommending that a five-foot landscape buffer be added between the parking addition and the existing interior parking area and building. Parking lot landscaping shall be installed in accord with UDC 11-3B- 8C-2a. The current site plan depicts the removal of five existing trees. The applicant shall 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. H. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. New fencing is depicted on the site plan. A detail of the fence should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 90 of 255 Page 5 I. Utilities and drainage: This area of the site currently functions as a drainage swale for the site. Because the drainage is being affected to make way for parking on the site, staff recommends the applicant submit a drainage plan to Land Development for review and approval to ensure adequate drainage can be maintained on site in accord with UDC 11- 3A-18. J. Lighting: A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 Type 1 streetlights are required on N. Locust Grove Road every 300'. Type 2 streetlights are required on Nola Rd every 220'. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit modification application in accord with the Findings in Section IX per the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 91 of 255 Page 6 VII. EXHIBITS A. Previously Approved Site Plan B. Proposed Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 92 of 255 Page 7 C. Landscape Plan VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site/landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibits VII.B & VII.C, and the conditions of approval listed herein. 2. The applicant shall meet all terms of the previously approved conditional use permit (CUP-05-016) and Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-05-013). 3. The site and landscape plans, dated 8/13/18, included in Exhibits VII.B & VII.C shall be revised as follows (as applicable): a. Add three trees to westerly landscape buffer adjacent to N. Locust Grove Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C-3a. b. Construct a five-foot landscape buffer between proposed parking addition and existing parking and building on east portion of the site. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffer as set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C. Interior parking lot landscaping shall comply with UDC 11-3B-8C-2a. c. Increase drive aisle width to 25’ to accommodate two-way traffic in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-5. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 93 of 255 Page 8 d. The applicant shall 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. e. Depict and construct seating area for employee and customer use as approved with CUP-05-016. 4. The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications for approval of the proposed use and site layout from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. 5. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan to Meridian Land Development for review and approval to ensure adequate drainage can be maintained on site in accord with UDC 11-3A-18. 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. 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. 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. B. Public Works Department No Comment C. Transportation Plan Review: A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 Type 1 streetlights are required on N. Locust Grove Road every 300'. Type 2 streetlights are required on Nola Rd every 220'. D. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157257/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 94 of 255 Page 9 IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E): The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L district as required by the UDC (see Analysis Section V 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 I-L 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 the proposed use will provide additional parking for the facility and eliminate the need for employees to park throughout the site. The additional parking area should be compatible with other existing and future uses in the general area and with the existing and intended character of the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that 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. 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 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. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005). Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 95 of 255 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from November 1, 2018 for B uyrite L L C Apartments (H-2018-0096) by neUdesign Architecture, L L C, L ocated at at the NW corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. L inder 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 11/14/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 96 of 255 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Number: H-2018-0096 Item Title: Public Hearing for Buyrite LLC Apartments Continued from November 1, 2018-(H-2018-0096) by neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located at at the NW corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. Request: Rezone property from C -C (5.90 acres) to R-40; and Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi -family development consisting of 96 multi -family residential units within 4 multi -family structures on 4.772 acres of land in a proposed R-40 zoning district; and Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to allow for R-40 zoning and to change certain other provisions of the agreement Meeting Notes: j�(PsC ,f,u� ,n J_ Jr.\'e ��L�� >�� C�— C6 \"')C1 I '�u,�11'i�Jc 7 Item #413: Buyrite Apartments (H-2018-0096) Application(s): ➢ Rezone ➢ Conditional Use Permit ➢ Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.90 acres of land, zoned C -C, located at on the NWC of N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads. History: This property was nnexed with C -C zoning into the city in 2009 as JJA Land (AZ -09-005) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -C Summary of Request: The applicant requests a rezone, a conditional use permit and a development agreement modification to develop the proposed multi -family lots with ninety-six (96) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units to the acre. Access is proposed via W. Island Green Dr.; a cross -access easement exists between all lots in the subdivision. Access: Access to the site is proposed from W. Ustick Road, N. Linder Road and from W. Crosswind Street to the west. ACHD has limited the access to N. Linder and W. Ustick to a right-in/right-out only. Staff also has concerns that a majority of the traffic from the Windsong Subdivision will access either N. Linder Road through the site and create an unsafe condition for the residents of the proposed multi -family development. The applicant shall continue W. Crosswind Street to the east and connect to E. Linder Road as required by the existing development agreement. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, parking for commercial, (or in this case, the leasing office) is based on gross floor area of office space. A 450 square foot office is proposed, therefore, a minimum of one (1) parking space is required. The applicant is proposing 200 parking spaces for the development with 181 spaces required. Landscaping A 25 -foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along both N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads, both arterial roadways, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11 -3B -7C. The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the aforementioned standards. Fencing All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Preliminary Plat The requirement to extend W. Crosswind Street through the site will require the applicant to subdivide the property. Additionally, the creation of a public street in this area will split off an area of land where the applicant is proposing to construct a dog park. This will require the applicant to place the dog park area in the northwest corner of the site into a common lot. Staff finds that the proposed development is not consistent with the MU -C land use designation for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density for the development is above the density range of 6.15 units/acre set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The development does not provide a mix of land use types as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On November 13, staff received a revised site plan from the applicant showing a number of changes. Neither staff nor ACHD has had the opportunity to review the revised site plan to ensure compliance with the specific policies of each agency. Written Testimony: Beth Lucas, Brian, Noah, Carl and Carla Wibel, Carol Davis, David and Gail Foster, Dyan and George Loya, Edward and Teresa Tucker, Geoff and Megan Latshaw, Heather Farley, Kim Moss, Michelle Mattson, Mitch and Sue Davis, Robert Shepard, Steve and Benita Harper, Tami Kruger, Trish Dildine Staff Recommendation: Denial m W U .Q O LL. U) N C CD C N m W 0 W O N Lf) N cu 0 on m 4 a) z a) U) c 0 c� Q Q JCO J M a) O 00 O N 0 OC) 0 0 0 CD �- o o n o a o a N It N M N N -L-0 N (O N O E Lo M �Lo M (N L N LO r r (p r CD r (o r T r Lf) d v. N r M T a C T r r T r (V r Ln r LO N 0 I-- =-:, =_- � x x x x N :p L � x z U) m x x x x a L 0 LL Q. N o o m ❑ +; M _0c c c CU 00 aiin aS o (D .7 C) r 't m 00 W co w 0M0 �V ca o E a) o � c n , � cu o cm cru o 0 n Ln m C) CY 0) (n U)) Q 3 (n Z i O Q N j C) 01 LO ❑ ❑ T co a)i u Q d a M o N LL L 0 (D E�_E o a) � N z U Q U) U 00 O N M 4-� O N N (C a Al 00 00 OC) 00 � O 00 00 00 � 00 00 00 � 00 00 r O r O r a O r a O r O r O r O r m O r O r O r a O r O r O N 00 N O N It N 00 N LO N r N r N O N 00 N 00 N r N O L N OO LO L(� N LO �. L() LI) r LO N Lo r Lf) �? Lo �? Ln LC) N LO r ti r 0 r 0 r ('7 r CD (3) r r r N r M Lf) r' (O r i` r 0 Lo rLo rLo r Lo r 0 r O r. O r O r O r 0 r, (D r L() r' Ln r L() r Lr) r- LO r LO r (O r (D r' (O r' (. r (O r O r (O x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x C) oo (D c ti U m c _0c c c c co c 00 c (o c 00 M — (g (o (v (a (_v m C°� � o � o� o a� .= a a o L N� L L (6 (0 L N m � p M L N M L N M L N co L O� L L O (B L N M 00 (7 .2 00 m 00 00 00 �E 00 2 00 2 :2 2 00 (0 Y N N N O Uc E U) U)N E O (D () U O U N �_ .L O •� c C N (n Q E O U +- + a) > O L O > Q iE (D > (0 t3 U) cD 5 z U E Z z 3 z O O O f— LO (0 N U N r LO Lf) co (D >, 0) (0 O O 00 O) (o r O r r O I� (� O LO i- M (O P N r I- tiO) , O N O m M r M Q r N Mm a co Q r (n co 07 c s- a) 0 O) C a) O O > W +� O O 7 p c (v � � U _c Q C (7 > :5O `- a- O U C > a � >cn a U U -(° m cn U o 00 O N N U x w O H O OM CL _0 X W c M �L s U` J 4— O O ) x U U (6 m 00T O O (� N 0 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 11/15/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 BRUCE FRECKLETON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER, 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0096 BUYRITE APARTMENTS PROPERTY LOCATION: The site is located on the northwest corner of W. Ustick and N. Linder Roads. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, neUdesign Architecture, LLC, has submitted an application for the following: 1) a rezone of 5.90 acres of land from C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district to the R-40 (High-Density Residential) zoning district; 2) a conditional use permit to develop a multi-family development consisting of ninety six (96) dwelling units in four (4) structures; and 3) a development agreement modification to allow for R-40 zoning and to change certain other provisions of the existing development agreement. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 5.90 Future Land Use Designation MU-C (Mixed Use Community) Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family dwellings Current Zoning C-C (Community Commercial) Proposed Zoning R-40 (High-Density Residential) Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 1 (existing) Phasing plan (# of phases) Single Phase Number of Residential Units (type of units) 96 multi-family units Density (gross & net) 20.1 net density Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 1.75 acres/36% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 97 of 255 Page 2 Description Details Page Amenities Tot Lot, BBQ area, dog park, and 50X100 grass area 6 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Creason Lateral crosses the southwest corner of the property Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: July 5, 2018 with 4 people in attendance History (previous approvals) Annexed with C-C zoning into the city in 2009 as JJA Land (AZ-09-005) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes 8  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One access to N. Linder, one to W. Ustick, One to W. Crosswind Street and a stub street to the north. There are currently two access points to N. Linder and one to W. Ustick. One access point to N. Linder will be removed as part of this development. 7 Traffic Level of Service Linder Road – F, Ustick Road – better than E Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Stub street to the north and connection to an existing stub street from the west (Crosswind Street) are proposed 7 Existing Road Network NA Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Existing sidewalk along W. Ustick and a partial sidewalk along N. Linder. Proposed Road Improvements ACHD plans to widen Linder Road, between McMillan and Ustick in 2019. 8 Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station Not provided 8  Fire Response Time 5 minutes 8  Resource Reliability 80%, does not meet the target of 85% 8  Risk Identification 2, meaning current resources would be adequate to supply service. 8  Accessibility Roadway access, traffic 8  Special/resource needs An aerial device will be required and one is available within 8 minutes which meets the target of 10 minutes or less. 8  Water Supply 1500 gallons per minute 8  Other Resources Police Service  Distance to Police Station 5 miles 8  Police Response Time 4 minutes 8  Calls for Service 625 8  % of calls for service split by priority P3 1.1%; P2 62.1%; P1 34.6%; P0 2.2% 8  Accessibility Accessibility is good 8  Specialty/resource needs None 8  Crimes 93 8  Crashes 21 8  Other Reports None 8 Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Tully Park is approximately ½ mile south of the site West Ada School District Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 98 of 255 Page 3 Description Details Page  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Hunter Elementary – 1 mile; Sawtooth Middle – ¼ mile; Rocky Mtn High – 1 and ½ miles  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Distance to other key services C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Pam Gaines, neUdesign Architecture Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 99 of 255 Page 4 B. Owner: Russ Hunemiller, Buyrite, LLC C. Representative: Richard Evans, Pride, LLC IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/12/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/9/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/2/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/9/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is designated Mixed Use Community (MU-C) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community- serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type uses. Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre, and shall consist of at least three land use types. The applicant requests a rezone, a conditional use permit and a development agreement modification to develop the proposed multi-family lots with ninety-six (96) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units to the acre. Staff finds that the proposed development is not consistent with the MU-C land use designation for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density for the development is above the density range of 6-15 units/acre set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The development does not provide a mix of land use types as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On November 13, staff received a revised site plan from the applicant showing a number of changes. Neither staff nor ACHD has had the opportunity to review the revised site plan to ensure compliance with the specific policies of each agency. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (Staff’s comments 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) The development of multi-family homes on this site will contribute to the variety of housing types available in this part of the City; however the density is greater than anticipated by the comprehensive plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 100 of 255 Page 5  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) Instead of the current C-C zoning on the site, Staff could envision some of this property being rezoned to residential. However, if all of the property is zoned to R-40, as proposed, the mix of uses envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan cannot be obtained.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The applicant is proposing to have one access to N. Linder and one to W. Ustick.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) The extension of W. Crosswind Street through the development to the north does not meet the requirements of ACHD and cannot be approved as proposed by the applicant.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) Landscaping is proposed within planter islands in the parking areas on this site as shown on the landscape plan attached in Exhibit B.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors, or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L) The proposed multi-family development is located in close proximity to major access thoroughfares (i.e. I-84 and Ten Mile Road Road) within the City.  “Elevate quality of design for houses and apartments; evaluate the need for design review guidelines for single-family homes.” (3.07.02O) The multi-family structures within the proposed development will be subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines in the Architectural Standards Manual. Further refinement to the design of these structures is required in order for the project to meet the design review requirements. In pre-application meetings we had discussed screening the parking along both W. Ustick and N. Linder with garages. It appears that the garage structures have been largely omitted from the site.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Because of its location in close proximity to the Ten Mile Interchange (which is rapidly developing), as well as major transportation corridors (I-84 and Ten Mile Road), this property is ideal for providing higher density housing options. B. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 101 of 255 Page 6 C. Concept Plan: A concept plan was submitted that depicts the four residential structures, leasing office and site amenities. D. Specific Use Standards: Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. The floor plans submitted with this application depict 80+ s.f. patios for each unit in compliance with this requirement.  Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.  At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units are between 500 and 1,200 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 24,000 square feet or 0.55 of an acre of common open space is required for this development. The applicant is proposing 28,078 square feet of qualified open space, or 0.64 of an acre.  For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4 site amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27D. For developments with more than 100 units, the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. The applicant proposes a 50’ x 100’ open grassy area, a dog park, a tot lot and a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system as amenities in compliance with UDC standards. The applicant is required to provide one amenity from each of the three sections as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. The applicant is missing an amenity from the quality of life section as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. Additionally, staff has concerns about the location and accessibility of the proposed dog park in relation to the extension of W. Crosswind Street and the dwellings.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-E. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. This requirement is not currently being met on the submitted plans.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 102 of 255 Page 7 development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. E. Access: Access to the site is proposed from W. Ustick Road, N. Linder Road and from W. Crosswind Street to the west. ACHD has limited the access to N. Linder and W. Ustick to a right-in/right-out only. Staff also has concerns that a majority of the traffic from the Windsong Subdivision will access either N. Linder Road through the site and create an unsafe condition for the residents of the proposed multi-family development. The applicant shall continue W. Crosswind Street to the east and connect to E. Linder Road as required by the existing development agreement. F. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, parking for commercial, (or in this case, the leasing office) is based on gross floor area of office space. A 450 square foot office is proposed, therefore, a minimum of one (1) parking space is required. The applicant is proposing 200 parking spaces for the development with 181 spaces required. G. Landscaping A 25-foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along both N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads, both arterial roadways, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the aforementioned standards. H. Fencing All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. I. Preliminary Plat The requirement to extend W. Crosswind Street through the site will require the applicant to subdivide the property. Additionally, the creation of a public street in this area will split off an area of land where the applicant is proposing to construct a dog park. This will require the applicant to place the dog park area in the northwest corner of the site into a common lot. J. Certificate of Zoning Compliance If approved, the applicant will be required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. K. Design Review: If approved, the applicant will be required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and building design is required to be generally consistent with the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 103 of 255 Page 8 elevations and site plan submitted with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. L. Utilities: Enter Utilities Analysis. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the subject MDA and consequently the RZ and CUP requests for the following reasons:  The proposed density for the development is above the density range of 6 -15 units/acre set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.  The development does not provide a mix of land use types as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.  On November 13, staff received a revised site plan from the applicant showing a number of changes. Neither staff nor ACHD has had the opportunity to review the revised site plan to ensure compliance with the specific policies of each agency.  The requirement to extend W. Crosswind Street through the site will require the applicant to subdivide the property. Additionally, the creation of a public street in this area will split off an area of land where the applicant is proposing to construct a dog park. This will require the applicant to place the dog park area in the northwest corner of the site into a common lot.  The current development agreement for the site requires a public street to be extended from the Windsong Subdivision out to N. Linder Road. The applicant is proposing to provide a cross-access to N. Linder and staff is of the opinion that the public street is needed at this location.  For these reasons, Staff does not believe it’s in the best interest of the City to modify the existing development agreement to accommodate the development proposal. B. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157136 C. Meridian Fire Department: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157164/Page1.aspx D. Meridian Police Department: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157197/Page1.aspx E. Central District Health Department (CDHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/155574/Page1.aspx F. COMPASS: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156118/Page1.aspx G. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156137/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 104 of 255 Page 9 H. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156914/Page1.aspx I. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156360/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 105 of 255 Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan/Conceptual Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 106 of 255 Page 11 B. Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 107 of 255 Page 12 VIII. FINDINGS Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from C-C to the R-40 zoning district. This property is currently designated Mixed Use-Community on the Future Land Use Map. Staff finds the amendment is not consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is above the range allowed by the comprehensive plan, and there is not a mixture of uses (see section VII above). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-40 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities already exist to this site. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). This finding is not applicable as the request is for a rezone. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission and Council shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the existing C-C as well as the proposed R-40 district. 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, however the proposed density is above the allowed range and the lack of three distinct land use types Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 108 of 255 Page 13 within the MU-C Comprehensive Plan designation are not harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of MU-C 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 the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of multi-family could be compatible with existing residential and uses in the vicinity. However, staff finds that the proposed project is not compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and may adversely change the character thereof. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect other properties in the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If approved, conditions of approval will be included in Exhibit B of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not 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. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. However, the Commission and Council should rely on public testimony from adjacent neighbors to determine if the proposed lighted fields and outdoor speaker system and large volume of traffic generated by the proposed use will be detrimental to their welfare in determining this finding. h. That the proposed use will not result in the dest ruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 109 of 255 Page 14 proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 110 of 255 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Project File Number: H-2018-0090 Item Title: Alpina Townhouse Subdivision Public Hearing for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018-0090) by A Team Consultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 multi -family building lots and 7 common lots on 3.99 acres; and Request: Conditional Use Permit For a multi -family development consisting of 60 multi -family residential units within 15 multi -family structures on 3.99 acres of land in an existing C -C zoning district; and Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to change an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan 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 Alpina Townhouse S ubdivision (H-2018-0090) by A Team C onsultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd. and N. L inder 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 11/13/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 111 of 255 % " " ( o » n ƒ ® ? D ° w ( 7' k 0 a / M. / G)/ 2 E G c (n $ ) / -n m W W r / ) (Dl > # _ 0 C/) / d k 2 2 0 CL D 2 C) \ \ § O m w w / t % k / % / \ -n % / f & / R / / ? g e 2 G - $ ƒ @ ƒ CL � k E �_ \• Q e' y M.j• c $ G 0 ] co a k 0 2 ƒ @ / j m n f f / f f q/ / -0 / ¢ / / / 7 k / 3 FT 5 w 0 D � k w x R k M.2 x x � Q m k � a k x k g w 0 v @ 9�_ 7 �_ 9 9 9 © £ k ± / / / % / d Q® 6 c Q@ 6@ S® 2® 3 G» e» a 6 0» u@ w A m 2& & 2 2 -u3 2 2 2 3 e@ < m G « e 2 c < 2 " " ( ƒ ƒ 0 0. /. D ° w ( <' ) 0 a 2 M. 2 2 E G c (n ) / -0 m � � > # C/) / d k ::3 2 0 & C) \ o c (D o » C: -n $ o C � E �_ \• Ln. 0 § 2 @ m \ (a M m x O O m x n m c n n = -u v C- c(D N c 3 O N 3 O O O CD �' O 7 7C C v m O CO 3 O O W ('f"S �� :3 O) =r N m K O W � r 1- � W z D z h C < w � m - z o m W c (n' D n o <° m —� CD 00 m 00 cn cu 00 m w cu 7 O 7 CD Z3 r1i 7 Q 0 x x x x x X x C d7 0).1 O -4N M OO -� ())1 O � 3 N -� O O O O -D O 00 00 00 00 00 r-� b � U�4 O N p O �-h 00 N Item #4C: Alpina Townhome Subdivision (H-2018-0107) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Conditional Use Permit ➢ Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.99 acres of land, zoned C -C, located at the northeast corner of N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads. History: This property received annexation and short plat approval in 2014 as Sugarman Subdivision (AZ -14-007) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -C Summary of Request: The applicant requests a preliminary plat, a development agreement modification and conditional use permit application to develop the proposed multi -family lots with sixty (60) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units to the acre. Access: Access to the site is proposed from W. Ustick Road, and N. Linder Road. ACHD has limited the access to N. Linder and W. Ustick to right-in/right-out only. Staff also has concerns that the applicant is not providing cross -access to either the parcel to the north or the east. Additionally, in order to provide access to the parcels to the east and north a public street will likely be required on the eastern property line. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, parking for multi -family uses is based on the number of bedrooms. In this case, each unit contains 2-3 bedrooms, which requires 2 parking spaces per unit and one in a covered space. Based on the number of units (60), the applicant is required to provide 120 parking spaces with 60 covered. The applicant is proposing 143 parking spaces for the development with 120 spaces required. Landscaping A 25 -foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along both N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads, both arterial roadways, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11 -3B -7C. With the exception of the double sidewalk in certain section of the landscape buffer, the proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the aforementioned standards, Staff recommends denial of the subject MDA and consequently the PP and CUP requests based on the following reasons: • The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Mixed Use -Community designation because the proposed density is greater than the range proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. • The proposal does not provide a mix land use type in order to comply with the Mixed Use—Community designation. • The project doesn't integrate with the surrounding area. There is no pedestrian or vehicle connectivity between the proposed project and the properties to the north or to the east. • Staff feels that the current approvals for the site are superior to the proposal and should remain in place. Written Testimony: Dave Manning Staff Recommendation: Denial Notes: Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 11/15/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 BRUCE FRECKLETON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER, 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0107 ALPINA TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PROPERTY LOCATION: The project is located on the northeast corner of W. Ustick and N. Linder Roads I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, A Team Land Consultants, has submitted the following applications: 1. An application for a preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 3.99 acres of land in the C-C zoning district; 2. An application for a conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of sixty (60) multi-family residential units within fifteen (15) multi-family structures; 3. An application to modify an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 3.99 Future Land Use Designation MDR (Medium-Density Residential) Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) 60 multi-family units in 15 structures Current Zoning C-C (Community Commercial) Proposed Zoning C-C (Community Commercial) Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 15 multi-family, 7 common Phasing plan (# of phases) Single Phase Number of Residential Units (type of units) 60 multi-family units Density (gross & net) 20 net density Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 112 of 255 Page 2 Description Details Page Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 0.42 of an acre proposed at 11% including ½ of the buffers along W. Ustick and N. Linder as well as dog park and putting green 6 Amenities Dog park, putting green, gazebo 6 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: June 13, 2018 with 3 people in attendance History (previous approvals) Received annexation and short plat approval in 2014 as Sugarman Subdivision (AZ-14-007) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes 7  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One access to W. Ustick and one Access to N. Linder, both arterial roadways 7 Traffic Level of Service Ustick Road – better than E, Linder Road – better than E 7 Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access None 7 Existing Road Network NA Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers NA Proposed Road Improvements ACHD plans to widen Linder Road, between McMillan and Ustick in 2019. Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station Not provided 7  Fire Response Time 3 minutes 7  Resource Reliability 80%, does not meet the target of 85% 7  Risk Identification 1, meaning current resources would be adequate to supply service. 7  Accessibility Roadway access, traffic 7  Special/resource needs An aerial device will not be required. 7  Water Supply 1000 gallons per minute, fire sprinklers in the units will be required 7  Other Resources West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) River Valley Elementary – 1 mile; Heritage Middle – 3 mile; Centennial High – 1 and ½ miles 8  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Distance to other key services Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 113 of 255 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Steve Arnold, A Team Land Consultants B. Owner: Columbia Trust C. Representative: Steve Arnold, A Team Land Consultants Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 114 of 255 Page 4 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/26/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/24/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/2/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/23/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is designated Mixed Use Community (MU-C) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community- serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type uses. Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre, and shall consist of at least three land use types. The applicant requests a preliminary plat, a development agreement modification and conditional use permit application to develop the proposed multi-family lots with sixty (60) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units to the acre. Staff finds that the proposed development is not consistent with the MU-C land use designation for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density is above the range set forth in the comprehensive plan. 2. The applicant is not proposing a mix land use types. 3. The project doesn’t integrate with the surrounding area. There is no pedestrian or vehicle connectivity between the proposed project and the properties to the north or to the east. 4. Staff feels that the current approvals for the site are superior to the proposal and should remain in place. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (Staff’s comments 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) The development of multi-family homes on this site will contribute to the variety of housing types available in this part of the City, however the density is greater than anticipated by the comprehensive plan, there is not a mix of land use types and the applicant isn’t proposing any interconnectivity with the surrounding area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 115 of 255 Page 5  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The applicant is proposing to construct high density residential on the subject property; however the MU-C designation calls for a mixture of land use types. The applicant has not provided the necessary mix that the designation calls for.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The applicant is proposing to have one access to N. Linder and one to W. Ustick.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) The applicant has not provided cross-access to any other adjacent properties. Further, staff feels that in order to do so, a public street will be required to better facilitate traffic from those parcels out to the arterial roadways.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) Landscaping is proposed within planter islands in the parking areas on this site as shown on the landscape plan attached in Exhibit B.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors, or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L) The proposed multi-family development is located in close proximity to major access thoroughfares (i.e. I-84 and Ten Mile Road Road) within the City.  “Elevate quality of design for houses and apartments; evaluate the need for design review guidelines for single-family homes.” (3.07.02O) The multi-family structures within the proposed development will be subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines in the Architectural Standards Manual. Further refinement to the design of these structures is required in order for the project to meet the design review requirements.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Because of its location in close proximity to the Ten Mile Interchange (which is rapidly developing), as well as major transportation corridors (I-84 and Ten Mile Road), this property is ideal for providing higher density housing options. B. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 116 of 255 Page 6 C. Concept Plan: A concept plan was submitted that depicts the fifteen residential buildings and site amenities. D. Specific Use Standards: Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. The floor plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict 80 s.f. of private open space for each unit.  Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.  At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units are between 500 and 1,200 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 15,000 square feet or 0.34 of an acre of common open space is required. The applicant is proposing 18,672 square feet of open space, or 0.42 of an acre.  For multi-family developments between 50 and 75 units, 3 site amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27D. The applicant proposes a dog run, a putting green, gazebos and benches as amenities in compliance with UDC standards. The applicant is required to provide one amenity from each of the three sections as set forth in UDC 11-4-3- 27. The applicant is missing two amenities. One is missing from the quality of life section and one from the open space section as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. The current plans do not meet this requirement and the applicant will need to revise them to meet the requirements of the UDC.  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. E. Access: Access to the site is proposed from W. Ustick Road, and N. Linder Road. ACHD has limited the access to N. Linder and W. Ustick to right-in/right-out only. Staff also has Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 117 of 255 Page 7 concerns that the applicant is not providing cross-access to either the parcel to the north or the east. Additionally, in order to provide access to the parcels to the east and north a public street will likely be required on the eastern property line. F. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, parking for multi-family uses is based on the number of bedrooms. In this case, each unit contains 2-3 bedrooms, which requires 2 parking spaces per unit and one in a covered space. Based on the number of units (60), the applicant is required to provide 120 parking spaces with 60 covered. The applicant is proposing 143 parking spaces for the development with 120 spaces required. G. Landscaping A 25-foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along both N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads, both arterial roadways, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. With the exception of the double sidewalk in certain section of the landscape buffer, the proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the aforementioned standards. H. Fencing All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. I. Certificate of Zoning Compliance The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. J. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and building design is required to be generally consistent with the elevations and site plan submitted with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. K. Utilities: Enter Utilities Analysis. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the subject MDA and consequently the PP and CUP requests based on the following reasons:  The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Mixed Use-Community designation because the proposed density is greater than the range proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 118 of 255 Page 8  The proposal does not provide a mix land use type in order to comply with the Mixed Use– Community designation.  The project doesn’t integrate with the surrounding area. There is no pedestrian or vehicle connectivity between the proposed project and the properties to the north or to the east.  Staff feels that the current approvals for the site are superior to the proposal and should remain in place. For these reasons, Staff does not feel it’s in the best interest of the City to modify the existing development agreement to accommodate the current development proposal. B. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157525 C. Meridian Fire Department: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157209/Page1.aspx D. West Ada School District: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157974/Page1.aspx E. Central District Health Department (CDHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=156405 F. COMPASS: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157016/Page1.aspx G. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156946/Page1.aspx H. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157259/Page1.aspx I. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157307/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 119 of 255 Page 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 120 of 255 Page 10 B. Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 121 of 255 Page 11 C. Existing Concept Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 122 of 255 Page 12 VIII. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is not in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land usebe cause the proposal is above the target density for the Mixed Use-Community Comprehensive Plan designation, does not provide a mixture of land uses and does not provide connectivity between the subject property and the propertis to the north and east. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features on this site that need to be preserved. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission and Council 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 123 of 255 Page 13 Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the C-C district. 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, however the lack of three distinct land use types, the density greater than what is allowed and the lack of connectivity within the MU-C Comprehensive Plan designation is not harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of MU-C 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 the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi- family development should be compatible with existing residential and uses in the vicinity. Further, staff finds that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the character thereof. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect other properties in the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the a pproval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If approved, conditions of approval will be included in Exhibit B of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not 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 prote ction, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. However, the Commission and Council should rely on public testimony from adjacent neighbors to determine if the proposed lighted fields and outdoor speaker system and large volume of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 124 of 255 Page 14 traffic generated by the proposed use will be detrimental to their welfare in determining this finding. h. That the proposed use will not result in the dest ruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 125 of 255 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 D Project File Number: H-2018-0107 Item Title: Public Hearing for Alicia Court Subdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning Services, Located 4036 E. Granger Ave. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 6 building lots and 2 common lots on 3.084 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district Meeting Notes: �/ 1 I �1 U'1 -b P (-)C' & / Z"O 12 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Alicia Court S ubdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning Services, L ocated 4036 E. G ranger Ave. 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 11/14/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 126 of 255 W, C) / 9 � 4 « k / ƒ 0 m 0 a a 0 m } � � 9 2 � 00 ® Q m 2 Cl) 0 ƒ SD k 2 %• \ ] % m ■ % M. 0 a 2 0 m - ° 2 § « / G k k $ % m_ m CY)$ m 2 @ 2 � 2 0 2 § Ct) / m k N ƒ m 2 00 n / / $ % / / ? G w m k / 0 = / g 0 � � m 2 0 (D 2 C: D (a W. -n U) 2 4. CD x w r_ Q w Z3 2 = � w 0 n � c -r a a a , @ / m a ® U «® a » G G M. ° 2 2 3 3 \� 2 « e o � � CD � � 9 2 � 00 ® 2 2 7 ƒ ƒ p \ -' D % <' m 0 a 2 e• m 2 2 § « / cr / -0 °_ m_ / m 2 @ / � a / Ct) / ƒ / N « «. $ / 0 = / E w � o 2 (D 2 C: -n 4. \ 0 Z3 = � n -r @ m \� � � � 9 2 � 00 ® Item #41): Alicia Court Subdivision (H-2018-0107) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.084 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 4036 E. Granger Avenue. History: This property was annexed in 2014 & a CUP was approved for a church that has since expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to develop the site with 6 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 1.94 d.u. per acre with a net density of 2.277 d.u. per acre, which falls below the target density of the MDR designation. The applicant will need to request a "step down" in density in order for the proposed development to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and with a request to "step-down" in density, is compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. All adjacent residential uses are zoned R-4, and this would be consistent not only with the surrounding neighborhoods, but also with the comprehensive plan. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and accessory structure that are to remain as part of this project. The existing home and accessory structure will be located on the proposed Lot 1, Block 1. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district. Staff has reviewed the plat to ensure compliance with the UDC and has determined that it does. The minimum lot sizes for a parcel in the R-4 district 8,000 square feet with 60 feet of frontage if the parcel fronts on a local street and 30 feet of frontage if the parcel fronts on a common driveway. Access: Access to the site is from the extension of W. Alicia Street. The applicant is proposing to construct a common driveway to access five (5) of the six (6) lots. The common driveway is proposed to be large enough to accommodate a fire department turnaround. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will keep their direct access to E. Granger Avenue as part of this project. The applicant is seeking a council waiver to allow the existing home to maintain access in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. If Council does not provide an access waiver for Lot 1, Block 1, the applicant will need to redesign their plat to provide local street access to Lot 1, Block 1. Sidewalks/Parkways: The UDC 11-3A-17 requires detached sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways. A detached sidewalk was constructed with the Redfeather Estates No. 2 Subdivision. No new sidewalk will be required as part of this application. Pathway/Access Drive: The applicant is proposing a pathway from E. Granger Avenue to the common driveway that is proposed for the project, This pathway will serve a dual purpose; it will provide pedestrian connectivity for the proposed residences and provide an access drive for the City to perform maintenance of the utility mains within the proposed 30 foot utility easement. The proposed pathway has a 90 degree turn in its path and as such will have a blind spot for police and other in ensuring public safety. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant should place the pathway and utilities between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1. This will eliminate the 90 degree turn in the pathway and as such eliminate the public safety concern. Additionally the common lot should match the utility easement in width. The entire easement should be placed within the common lot. Lastly, the applicant should vegetate the pathway/access drive on both sides with shrubs and ground cover. Landscaping UDC 11-2A-5 requires a 20 foot landscape buffer along E. Granger Avenue. There is an existing landscape buffer that was installed with the Redfeather Estates No. 2. The 20 foot landscape buffer was placed in an easement with the approval of the Redfeather Estates No. 2. UDC 11-313-7 requires that all street landscape buffers be placed in a common lot that is owned and maintained by the home owners association. The 20 foot width of the landscape buffer is not maintained across the entire frontage of the property. The applicant will be required to add the necessary width to meet the requirements of UDC 11-2A-5. As noted above, the applicant is not proposing to make any changes to the existing landscape buffer in width or in planting materials. The applicant shall place the entire 20 foot landscape buffer within a common lot to be owned and maintained by the home owner's association and shall ensure that the planting materials meet the requirements of UDC 11-3B-7. A previous approval with Redfeather Estates No2, allowed the applicant to place the 20 foot landscape buffer along E. Granger in a landscape easement instead of the otherwise required 20 foot common lot. The applicant is requesting that the previous approval be honored and that they not be required to place the landscape buffer in a common lot with this development. Common Drive: The applicant is proposing a common driveway for the development to provide access for five (5) of the (6) proposed home in the development. The common driveway is extended from a current stub street (Alicia Street) from the east. ACHD in their staff report is requiring the applicant to extend the public street in place of the proposed common driveway, to terminate in a cul-de-sac, and to extend the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. The applicant shall either revise their plat to meet the requirements of ACHD, or shall receive approval from their commission to keep the plat as proposed. Fencing: There is existing fencing along the frontage of E. Granger Avenue that is proposed to remain as part of the development. UDC 11-3A-7 requires that the fencing be located outside of the 20 foot easement in this case. The provided landscape plan shows a portion of the existing fencing within 10 feet of the existing property line. The applicant shall move the fencing outside of the recorded landscape easement as show on the recorded plat for Redfeather Estates No.2 or apply and receive approval for alternative compliance to vary from the standards set forth in the UDC. Additionally, the applicant shall provide fencing along the pathway/access road as provided in UDC 11-3A-7. Elevations: The provided elevations include a mixture of materials including stone, stucco, lap siding and architectural shingles and provide visual interest on the elevations provided. The applicant should ensure that the elevations that face E. Granger Avenue provide architectural interest. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2018-0107, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 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 of File Number H-2018-0107, as presented during the hearing on November 15, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0107 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reasons) for continuance) Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 11/15/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager, 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0107 ALICIA COURT SUBDIVISION PROPERTY LOCATION: 4036 E. Granger Avenue I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Riley Planning Services, has submitted an application for a preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 3.084 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district; II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 3.08 Future Land Use Designation MDR (Medium-Density Residential) Existing Land Use Single-family home Proposed Land Use(s) Multiple single-family dwellings Current Zoning R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Proposed Zoning R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 6 single-family, 2 common Phasing plan (# of phases) Single Phase Number of Residential Units (type of units) 6 single-family units Density (gross & net) 2.277 net density Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) None required Amenities None required Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: July 12, 2018 with 7 people in attendance History (previous approvals) Annexed into the city in 2003 as part of Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 (AZ-03-021; PP-03-024; FP-06-041) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 127 of 255 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes 11  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One access to W. Alicia Street, a local roadway 4 Traffic Level of Service Cloverdale Road – F, Granger Avenue – better than D 11 Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access None Existing Road Network NA Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers NA Proposed Road Improvements ACHD is requiring a public street extension of W. Alicia Street. 11 Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station Not Provided  Fire Response Time 5 minutes 11  Resource Reliability 74%, does not meet the target of 85% 11  Risk Identification 1, meaning current resources would be adequate to supply service. 11  Accessibility Roadway access, traffic 11  Special/resource needs An aerial device will not be required. 11  Water Supply 1000 gallons per minute 11  Other Resources C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 128 of 255 Page 3 Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Penelope Riley, Riley Planning Services B. Owner: Wood Family Trust C. Representative: Penelope Riley, Riley Planning Services IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/26/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/24/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/3/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/23/2018 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 6 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 1.94 d.u. per acre with a net density of 2.277 d.u. per acre, which falls below the target density of the MDR designation. The applicant will need to request a “step down” in density in order for the proposed development to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and with a request to “step-down” in density, is compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. All adjacent residential uses are zoned R-4, and this would be consistent not only with the surrounding neighborhoods, but also with the comprehensive plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 129 of 255 Page 4 A. Comprehensive Plan Policies: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use:  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The proposed medium low density development with single-family detached homes will contribute to the variety of housing types in this area. Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the homes will be.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The existing home on the subject property is proposing to maintain their current access to E. Granger Avenue as part of the development; E. Granger is designated as a residential collector. UDC 11-3A-3 requires that any subdivision provide local street access to any use t hat currently takes access from a collector or arterial roadway. The applicant will need to request a Council waiver in order to keep the direct access to E. Granger Avenue for Lot 1, Block 1..  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City services are available and will be extended by the developer to the proposed lots with development of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) Because this site is under 5 acres in size, the UDC (11-3G-3) does not require open space to be provided within the development.  “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) The applicant is providing a pedestrian/access pathway from the common driveway out to E. Granger Avenue. The pedestrian/access pathway shall be placed in a 30 foot common lot.  “Encourage infill development.” (3.01.02B) The proposed subdivision is surrounded by existing residential developments and is the definition of infill development. Utilities exist in adjacent streets, there is a stub street to the parcel, sidewalks exist along E. Granger Avenue, etc. B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and accessory structure that are to remain as part of this project. The existing home and accessory structure will be located on the proposed Lot 1, Block 1. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district. Stafff has reviewed the plat to ensure compliance with the UDC and has determined that it does. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 130 of 255 Page 5 The minimum lot sizes for a parcel in the R-4 district 8,000 square feet with 60 feet of frontage if the parcel fronts on a local street and 30 feet of frontage if the parcel fronts on a common driveway. D. Access: Access to the site is from the extension of W. Alicia Street. The applicant is proposing to construct a common driveway to access five (5) of the six (6) lots. The common driveway is proposed to be large enough to accommodate a fire department turnaround. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will keep their direct access to E. Granger Avenue as part of this project. The applicant is seeking a council waiver to allow the existing home to maintain access in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. If Council does not provide an access waiver for Lot 1, Block 1, the applicant will need to redesign their plat to provide local street access to Lot 1, Block 1. E. Sidewalks/Parkways: The UDC 11-3A-17 requires detached sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways. A detached sidewalk was constructed with the Redfeather Estates No. 2 Subdivision. No new sidewalk will be required as part of this application. F. Pathway/Access Drive: The applicant is proposing a pathway from E. Granger Avenue to the common driveway that is proposed for the project. This pathway will serve a dual purpose; it will provide pedestrian connectivity for the proposed residences and provide an access drive for the City to perform maintenance of the utility mains within the proposed 30 foot utility easement. The proposed pathway has a 90 degree turn in its path and as such will have a blind spot for police and other in ensuring public safety. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant should place the pathway and utilities between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1. This will eliminate the 90 degree turn in the pathway and as such eliminate the public safety concern. Additionally the common lot should match the utility easement in width. The entire easement should be placed within the common lot. Lastly, the applicant should vegetate the pathway/access drive on both sides with shrubs and ground cover. G. Landscaping UDC 11-2A-5 requires a 20 foot landscape buffer along E. Granger Avenue. There is an existing landscape buffer that was installed with the Redfeather Estates No. 2. The 20 foot landscape buffer was placed in an easement with the approval of the Redfeather Estates No. 2. UDC 11-3B-7 requires that all street landscape buffers be placed in a common lot that is owned and maintained by the home owner’s association. The 20 foot width of the landscape buffer is not maintained across the entire frontage of the property. The applicant will be required to add the necessary width to meet the requirements of UDC 11-2A-5. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 131 of 255 Page 6 As noted above, the applicant is not proposing to make any changes to the existing landscape buffer in width or in planting materials. The applicant shall place the entire 20 foot landscape buffer within a common lot to be owned and maintained by the home owner’s association and shall ensure that the planting materials meet the requirements of UDC 11-3B-7. A previous approval with Redfeather Estates No2, allowed the applicant to place the 20 foot landscape buffer along E. Granger in a landscape easement instead of the otherwise required 20 foot common lot. The applicant is requesting that the previous approval be honored and that they not be required to place the landscape buffer in a common lot with this development. H. Qualified Open Space/Site Amenities: UDC 11-3G-2 does not require open space or amenities for developments under 5 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to develop a parcel that is 3.084 acres in size and as such open space and amenities are not required. I. Common Drive: The applicant is proposing a common driveway for the development to provide access for five (5) of the (6) proposed home in the development. The common driveway is extended from a current stub street (Alicia Street) from the east. ACHD in their staff report is requiring the applicant to extend the public street in place of the proposed common driveway, to terminate in a cul-de-sac, and to extend the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. The applicant shall either revise their plat to meet the requirements of ACHD, or shall receive approval from their commission to keep the plat as proposed. For all common driveways, a perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. With the final plat application, the applicant shall provide an exhibit that shows the setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures on all common lots. J. Fencing: There is existing fencing along the frontage of E. Granger Avenue that is proposed to remain as part of the development. UDC 11-3A-7 requires that the fencing be located outside of the 20 foot easement in this case. The provided landscape plan shows a portion of the existing fencing within 10 feet of the existing property line. The applicant shall move the fencing outside of the recorded landscape easement as show on the recorded plat for Redfeather Estates No.2 or apply and receive approval for alternative compliance to vary from the standards set forth in the UDC. Additionally, the applicant shall provide fencing along the pathway/access road as provided in UDC 11-3A-7. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 132 of 255 Page 7 K. Utilities: 1. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer service is available to this property from the existing sanitary sewer main line in the intersection of E. Granger Drive and N. Grenadier Way. 2. Location of water: Domestic water service is available to this property from the existing water main line in N. Grenadier Way. 3. Issues or concerns: None L. Elevations: The provided elevations include a mixture of materials including stone, stucco, lap siding and architectural shingles and provide visual interest on the elevations provided. The applicant should ensure that the elevations that face E. Granger Avenue provide architectural interest. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the provisions in Section VIII of this report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 133 of 255 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 134 of 255 Page 9 B. Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 135 of 255 Page 10 C. Architectural Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 136 of 255 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 137 of 255 Page 12 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. Planning Division Comments/Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A, dated 10/01/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Place the pathway and utilities between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1. This will eliminate the 90 degree turn in the pathway and as such eliminate the public safety concern. b. The pathway width shall match the utility easement in width. The entire easement shall be placed within a 30 foot wide common lot. c. For all common driveways, a perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. d. With the final plat application, the applicant shall provide an exhibit that shows the setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures on all common lots. e. The applicant shall either revise the plat to meet the requirements of ACHD or receive approval from ACHD’s commission to keep Alicia Court as a common driveway as proposed. f. The existing structures (home and accessory structure on Lot 1, Block 1) that are proposed to remain on lots in the subdivision shall comply with the building setback requirements listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. The garage will serve as an accessory structure to the future home and shall not be used as a residence. g. The applicant shall redesign their plat so that the home on Lot 1, Block 1 takes access from a local street, or they receive a Council waiver to keep the direct access to E. Granger Avenue as proposed. h. The applicant shall request a “step down” in density in order for the proposed development to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. i. Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes constructed on lots that abut E. Granger Avenue, a collector street, will be highly visible, these elevations should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the adjacent public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. j. Prior to receiving a building permit, the Planning division shall review the building plans for any home that backs up to E. Granger Avenue to verify that there is modulation in the homes. 2. The landscape plan included in Exhibit B, dated 7/20/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide landscape buffer on either side of the pathway/access drive and shall vegetate it with shrubs and ground cover. b. The pathway/ access drive shall be paved with asphalt in order to provide for a pedestrian access as well as an access for the Public Works department. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 138 of 255 Page 13 c. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot landscape buffer along the entire frontage of E. Granger Avenue. d. The applicant shall place the entire 20 foot landscape buffer along E. Granger Avenue within a common lot to be owned and maintained by the home owner’s association and shall ensure that the planting materials meet the requirements of UDC 11-3B-7. e. The provided landscape plan shows a portion of the existing fencing within 10 feet of the existing property line. The applicant shall move the fencing outside of the recorded landscape easement as show on the recorded plat for Redfeather Estates No.2 or apply and receive approval for alternative compliance to vary from the standards set forth in the UDC. f. If any of the existing trees on the site are proposed 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 should be noted on the plan. General Conditions of Approval a. Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. b. Comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. c. Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. d. 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. e. Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. f. Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11- 3B-5J. g. Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. h. Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. i. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. j. 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. k. Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. Ongoing Conditions of Approval a. 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. b. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 139 of 255 Page 14 c. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances. d. 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. e. The applicant homeowner’s association shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. f. The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. g. 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. Process Conditions of Approval a. 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. b. 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. c. The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. d. 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). e. 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. f. 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. B. Public Works Department 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2. General Conditions of Approval 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 140 of 255 Page 15 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. 2.3 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. 2.4 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. 2.5 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 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. 2.8 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. 2.9 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. 2.10A 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. 2.11All 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 141 of 255 Page 16 2.12Applicant 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. 2.13It 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. 2.14Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18The 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. 2.19The 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. 2.20At 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. 2.21A 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. 2.22The 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. 2.23The 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. C. Meridian Fire Department: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157208/Page1.aspx D. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156945/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 142 of 255 Page 17 E. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157287/Page1.aspx F. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157770 G. Central District Health Department (CDHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156404/Page1.aspx H. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157311/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 143 of 255 Page 18 IX. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use; if the applicant complies with the conditions included in this report, the proposed plat should be consistent with the transportation and circulation goals. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features on this site that need to be preserved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 144 of 255 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 E Project File Number: H-2018-0112 Item Title: Public Hearing for Shelburne East (H-2018-0112) by Shelburne Properties, LLC, Located at 4080, 4115, 4205, 4301 and 4330 Bott Ln. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 35.09 acres of land with R-4 (23.58 acres) and R-8 (11.52 acres) zoning districts; and Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 101 building lots and 21 common lots on 34.62 acres of land in the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning districts Meeting Notes: ,<��i✓, 1 �-,c Sje12 ,)8--1�— GC- I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for S helburne East (H-2018-0112) by S helburne Properties, L L C , L ocated at 4080, 4115, 4205, 4301 and 4330 B ott L n. 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 11/14/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 145 of 255 3 2 m / $ / a 0 =k. ® G o m \ / m $ 5' m 2 \ m 0 2 ƒ $ ® R 3 $ 2 f 2 � ° w § O m DO k 0 2• / * k w t 2 = 7 m Co o = a C 7 c 2 e u m o CL C/)/ n I g m ■ / / 0 a y ® 2 = w @ k E* 3 w CD77 e 2 « 2 s « % % / 0 % % % G G $ 7 % % % 6 § k ƒ_ § § � 00 >O ƒ N G / N � x w x 0 E cr D 3 X 2 x m � » 2 R. � � Q w � $ w x w g w 0 O Cl) ® ® ® ® ® / k / \ / / ƒ / ƒ / % / Q ® ® »© » ® / c c # 6 0» w 6 % c» m 2 2 2 2 2 2& 2 2 2 2 2 0 e o m m 2 2 � / o & 0 0 0 =k. Q. 3 ° (D m a a 2 ]•=3 m D 22 3 a c ® 2 7 ° w _ # / $ m N C/)/ c % $ / _ / m / w R ® � 0 � E cr 3 2 m » R. � � / o & 0 0 N N O_ 00 C) O CD CL N ET DO O G) O W 0 T O r ;,� Uri((D 3 v (nCD— C- (D C- m C - 7 -h cn N co N v 00Z3 N m (D 00 0 O O m NO v m (D � h_ co h CL v (D m (D (D 0 (D (D cn m CD- Q co 00 Cl) 0') � o m N X X x x x x x rn 0) cn � O,_ 1 c ,_cn Cn (O N cn N N cn N cn c) N O -u O -u O T O 00 00 00 00 � b � (IQ V� CD N N O O 00 N Item #4E: Shelburne East (H-2018-0112) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 34.62 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 4080, 4115, 4205, 4301 & 4330 E, Bott Ln. Adjacent Land Use: This site is surrounded mostly by rural residential/agricultural land with some existing & future urban density residential. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: The applicant submitted an application for annexation & zoning of 35.09 acres of land with R-4 (23.58 acres) and R-8 (11.52 acres) zoning districts; and, preliminary plat consisting of 101 building lots & 21 common lots on 34.62 acres of land in the proposed R-4 & R-8 zoning districts. The proposed density of the development is 3.10 units per acre consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. There are (4) existing homes & accessory structures on this site; all are proposed to be removed except for one home (on Lot 9, Block 9) & a garage (on Lot 6, Block 7) which will remain on lots in the proposed subdivision. A new home will be constructed on the lot with the existing garage. The existing home will be required to hook up to City water & sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available. Access is proposed from the west via the future S. Hillsale Ave. and from the east via E, Bott Ln., both designated collector streets. Stub streets for future extension and interconnectivity are proposed to the west to the Marsh and Rasmussen properties; and to the south to the Williams property. ACHD is requiring Bott Lane to be improved off-site from the east property line, east to Cloverdale Rd. A new bridge is proposed on Bott Lane over the Ten Mile Feeder Canal to replace the existing single -lane bridge. A structural engineer is reviewing the existing bridge over the Ten Mile Feeder Canal to ensure it's capable of supporting a fire truck (80,000 lbs.) so that a secondary access is available to the site for emergency purposes until such time as the bridge is reconstructed. The Ten Mile Feeder Canal & the Nine Mile Creek cross this site. The canal is proposed to remain open; and the creek is required to remain open and be improved as a natural amenity. A 15' wide irrigation easement is depicted along the southern boundary of Lots 2-9, Block 4 and along the north boundary of Lot 9, Block 3; the UDC requires easements wider than 10' to be placed in a common lot that is a minimum 20' wide unless otherwise modified by City Council. The Applicant requests Council approval for the easement to be located on the associated building lots rather than be placed in a common lot. A total of 16% (or 5.25 acres) of qualified open space is proposed, which is 6% (or 1.85 acres) over the minimum required of 10% (or 3.4 acres), and consists of a community orchard, pond, collector street buffers, parkways along collector and some local streets, stormwater detention facilities and open grassy areas at least 50' x 100' in area. A minimum of 2 site amenities are required based on the size of the development; several amenities (above the minimum required) are proposed from each of the 3 categories (quality of life, recreation & pedestrian or bicycle circulation system) consisting of the following: (3) picnic areas with shelters and tables, a sports court (i.e. pickleball), a segment of the City's multi -use pathway system along the Ten Mile Feeder Canal, internal pathways and micro -paths, a pond with a bench, a tot lot with children's play equipment, a community orchard with picnic tables, and an additional 20,000 square feet of common open space area. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes within the development that are consistent with those being constructed in Shelburne Subdivision to the west. Building materials consist of stucco & board -and -batten siding with some stone veneer accents. Most of the homes will be a single -story in height with some 2 -story, will range in size from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet, contain 3-4 bedrooms and have 2- and 3 -car garages. The rear/side of homes visible from the Hillsdale Ave. & Bott Ln., collector streets, are required to provide articulation in those elevations. Written Testimony: John Carpenter, T-0 Engineers — Applicant's Representative (response to staff report); and Tim & Lisa Petsche (requests a 6' tall privacy fence & either a restriction for a single -story home on the lot against their SEC or no 2nd Story windows facing north due to the location of their outdoor kitchen & pool where they'd like to retain their privacy). Staff Recommendation: Approval w/a DA — the proposed density is at the low end but consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas. Common open space and site amenities are dispersed throughout the development and are substantially above the minimum required standards. Pathways provide pedestrian connections to internal common areas throughout the development and to adjacent Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 11/15/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0112 Shelburne East PROPERTY LOCATION: 4080, 4115, 4205, 4301 & 4330 E. Bott Ln., in the SE ¼ of Section 28, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation & zoning of 35.09 acres of land with R-4 (23.58 acres) and R-8 (11.52 acres) zoning districts; and, Preliminary Plat consisting of 101 building lots and 21 common lots on 34.62 acres of land in the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR) (3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Rural residential and agricultural, zoned RUT in Ada County Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residences Current Zoning RUT Proposed Zoning R-4 and R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 122 lots total; 101 building lots/21 common lots Phasing plan (# of phases) 3 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 101 (single family detached homes) Density (gross & net) 3.10 units/acre (gross); 4.81 units/acre (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 5.25 acres (16%) Amenities 20,000 SF grassy area, sports court, tot lot, community garden, pond, three shade/picnic areas, open play field, micro- pathway, 10-foot wide multi-use pathway Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Nine Mile Creek, Ten Mile Feeder Canal Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 146 of 255 Page 2 Description Details Page Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: April 10, 2018; 12 attendees July 2, 2018; 10 attendees August 7, 2018; 10 attendees History (previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics (see Exhibit B for detailed information) Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes (for LOS proposal) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) S. Hillsdale Ave. & E. Bott Ln. (both collectors) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Stub streets are proposed to adjacent parcels to the west and south (see plat) Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Proposed Road Improvements Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1+/- mile to Station No. 4  Fire Response Time 4 minutes (level of service expectation= 5 minutes)  Resource Reliability 79% (does not meet the targeted goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 1 (residential) – current resources would be adequate to supply service to this propose project  Accessibility Does not meet all required road widths and turnarounds; will need revisions to meet IFC requirements. [A structural engineer is reviewing the existing bridge to ensure it can safely support a fire truck (i.e. 80,000 lbs.).]  Special/resource needs An aerial device will not be required  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour  Other Resources Police Service  Distance to Police Station 5 miles from Meridian Police Department  Police Response Time 5 minutes  Calls for Service 89  % of calls for service split by priority % of P3 CFS – 1.1% % of P2 CFS – 65.2% % of P1 CFS – 31.5% % of P0 CFS – 2.2%  Accessibility Requesting two different points of public access. Improve bridge to accommodate two lanes of traffic and heavy vehicles. Recommend that all roadway and bridge improvements be completed before occupancy of homes. (A structural engineer is reviewing the bridge to ensure safe secondary access in the interim of the bridge being reconstructed.)  Specialty/resource needs No additional need  Crimes 22 total  Crashes 4  Other Reports Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 147 of 255 Page 3 Description Details Page Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Hillsdale Elementary: ½ mile Lake Hazel Middle School: 1.7 miles Mountain View High School: 4 miles  Capacity of Schools Hillsdale Elementary: 650 Lake Hazel Middle School: 1,000 Mountain View High School: 1,800  # of Students Enrolled Hillsdale Elementary: 751 Lake Hazel Middle School: 1,015 Mountain View High School: 2,303 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 148 of 255 Page 4 Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Shelburne Properties, LLC. - 7440 E. Pinnacle Peak Rd., Ste. 142, Scottsdale, AZ 85255 B. Owner: Jeffrey and Deanna Fulcher – 4330 E. Bott Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 Michael and Marleen Kingsley – 4301 E. Bott Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 David and Dixie Seegmiller – 4080 E. Bott Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 Shelburne Properties, LLC. – 4115 E. Bott Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: John Carpenter, T-O Engineers – 332 N. Broadmore Way, Ste. 101, Nampa, ID 83687 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/26/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/24/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/2/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/23/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 149 of 255 Page 5 A. Comprehensive Plan Policies:  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E)  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D)  “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)  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F)  “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C)  “Develop pathways to connect Meridian with Boise, Nampa, Kuna and Eagle.” (6.01.02C) B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are (4) existing homes and accessory structures on this site; all are proposed to be removed except for the home on proposed Lot 9, Block 9 and the garage on proposed Lot 6, Block 7. A new home is proposed to be built on Lot 6, Block 7 and the existing garage will serve as an accessory structure to the home. The structures proposed to remain meet the required setbacks. The remaining structures should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. C. Dimensional Standards: (UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-6) Note: There are several lots that do not include a street frontage dimension and one lot (Lot 12, Block 1) that doesn’t meet the minimum property size. All lots should comply with the dimensional standards listed above, as applicable. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 150 of 255 Page 6 D. Specific Use Standards: None E. Traffic Thompson Engineering prepared a traffic analysis for this development; a full Traffic Impact Study was not required. The traffic analysis was reviewed by ACHD and taken into consideration in their report. F. Access: (UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via the future S. Hillsale Ave., a collector street, via E. Peaceful Pond Dr. from E. Zaldia St.; and E. Bott Ln., currently a local street but designated as a future collector street, via Cloverdale Rd. A new bridge is proposed on Bott Lane over the Ten Mile Feeder Canal to replace the existing single-lane bridge. ACHD is requiring Bott Lane to be improved off-site from the east property line, east to Cloverdale Rd., with 30 feet of pavement and 3-foot wide gravel shoulders. The Applicant is having a structural engineer review the existing bridge over the Ten Mile Feeder Canal to ensure it’s safely capable of supporting a fire truck (80,000 lbs.) so that a secondary access is available to the site for emergency purposes. Documentation should be submitted to the Planning Division and Fire Department of the findings. Stub streets for future extension and interconnectivity are proposed to the west to the Marsh (#S1128427880) and Rasmussen (#R5070900400) properties; and to the south to the Williams (S1128438500) property. G. Parking: (UDC Table 11-3C-6) Off-street parking should be provided in accord with the following standards: All garages are proposed to hold 3 cars and will have a parking pad outside the garage to accommodate parking for each residence in accord with this requirement. H. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D) Three (3) common driveways are proposed that comply with UDC standards. An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 151 of 255 Page 7 I. Sidewalks/Parkways: (UDC 11-3A-17) Detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed along S. Hillsdale Ave. and E. Bott Ln., collector streets, and adjacent to some common lots; attached sidewalks are proposed along the majority of local streets within the development. J. Pathways: (UDC 11-3A-8, 11-3B-12C) A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed along the east side of the Ten Mile Feeder Canal in accord with the Pathways Master Plan; a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the pathway (coordinate details with Kim Warren, Park’s Dept. 208-888-3579). K. Landscaping (11-3B) A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Bott Ln. and S. Hillsdale Ave., both collector streets, in accord with UDC Table 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-6 and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along each side of the pathway consisting of a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. A minimum of (1) tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. Landscaping needs to be included on the west side of the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Feeder Canal. Stormwater swales are required to be vegetated and designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped with lawn (either seed or sod) and a minimum of one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3E. Parkways are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-G-3B.5. Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Mitigation calculations are included on the landscape plan in accord with UDC standards. L. Qualified Open Space: (UDC 11-3G-3B) A minimum of 10% (3.4 acres) qualified open space is required; a total of 5.25 acres (or 16%) is proposed consisting of a community orchard, a pond, collector street buffers, parkways along collector/local streets, stormwater detention facilities, and open grassy areas at least 50’ x 100’ in area. (See Exhibit D in Section VII.) M. Qualified Site Amenities: (UDC 11-3G-3C) A minimum of (2) qualified site amenities are required; several amenities are proposed from each of the three categories (i.e. quality of life, recreation, and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system) as follows: (3) picnic areas with shelters and tables, a sports court (i.e. pickleball), a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system along the Ten Mile Feeder Canal, internal pathways and micro-paths, a pond with a bench, a tot lot with children’s play equipment, a community orchard with picnic tables, and an additional 20,000 square feet of common open space area. (See Exhibit E in Section VII.) N. Waterways: (UDC 11-3A-6) The Ten Mile Feeder Canal and the Nine Mile Creek cross this site. The canal is proposed to remain open and not be piped; the creek is proposed to be piped. However, the UDC requires Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 152 of 255 Page 8 creek corridors to remain open and be improved as a natural amenity in all residential designs. O. Storm Drainage: (UDC 11-3A-18) An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. P. Open Water Ponds (11-3G-3B.8) An irrigation pond is proposed on Lot 13C, Block 4 and will bypass flow from the Nine Mile Creek and will be designed to serve as an amenity. All ponds with a permanent water level are required to have recirculated water and be maintained such that it doesn’t become a mosquito breeding ground. Q. Fencing: (UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7) Five-foot tall privacy fence is proposed along the perimeter of the subdivision and adjacent to common areas that are visible from the street; 5-foot and 6-foot tall view fence is proposed adjacent to the Ten Mile Feeder Canal and internal common areas in accord with UDC standards. R. Irrigation Easements: Irrigation easements wider than10 feet are required to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. There is a 15-foot wide irrigation easement depicted along the southern boundary of Lots 2-9, Block 4 and along the north boundary of Lot 9, Block 3 that is required to be placed in a common lot unless otherwise approved by City Council; the Applicant requests Council approval of the easement to be placed on building lots rather than in a common lot. S. Utilities: (UDC 11-3A-21) Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 9, Block 9 is required to hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. T. Building Elevations Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes within this development; the architectural style will be a continuation of those in Shelburne Subdivision to the west. Building materials consist of stucco and board-and-batten siding with some stone veneer accents. Most of the homes will be a single-story in height with some 2-story, will range in size from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet, contain 3-4 bedrooms and have 3-car garages (see Exhibit F in Section VII.) Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes will be highly visible from the collector streets (i.e. Hillsdale Ave. and Bott Ln.), staff recommends articulation is incorporated through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. VI. DECISION Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 153 of 255 Page 9 A. Staff: The legal description submitted with the annexation application shows the boundaries of the property contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The proposed density (3.10 units/acre) of the subdivision is at the low end but consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas. Common open space and site amenities are dispersed throughout the development and are substantially above the minimum required standards. Pathways provide pedestrian connections to internal common areas throughout the development and to adjacent properties. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 154 of 255 Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description & Exhibit Maps for Annexation Boundary Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 155 of 255 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 156 of 255 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 157 of 255 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 158 of 255 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 159 of 255 Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 160 of 255 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 161 of 255 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 162 of 255 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 163 of 255 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 164 of 255 Page 20 B. Preliminary Plat (dated: 9/17/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 165 of 255 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 166 of 255 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 167 of 255 Page 23 C. Landscape Plan (dated: 9/12/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 168 of 255 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 169 of 255 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 170 of 255 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 171 of 255 Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 172 of 255 Page 28 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit and Calculations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 173 of 255 Page 29 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 174 of 255 Page 30 E. Site Amenities Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 175 of 255 Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 176 of 255 Page 32 F. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 177 of 255 Page 33 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 178 of 255 Page 34 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 179 of 255 Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 180 of 255 Page 36 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 181 of 255 Page 37 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Comments/Site Specific Conditions 1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation and zoning of these properties. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the rezone. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Development shall substantially comply with the preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan, qualified open space exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the associated conditions of approval in the staff report. b. The existing home proposed to be retained on Lot 9, Block 9 shall hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. c. The existing garage on Lot 6, Block 7 is allowed to remain as an accessory structure to the future home to be constructed on that lot and shall not be used as a residence. d. The rear and/or sides of 2-story homes visible from the collector streets (i.e. Hillsdale Ave. and Bott Ln.) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. e. The Nine Mile Creek shall remain open and be improved as a natural amenity as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2 The preliminary plat, dated 9/17/18, shall be revised as follows: a. The 15-foot wide easement along the southern boundary of Lots 2-9, Block 4 and along the north boundary of Lot 9, Block 3 is required to be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council per UDC 11- 3A-6D. The Applicant requests Council approval for the easement to be located on building lots rather that in a common lot. b. Revise the two (2) turn-arounds on E. Davin St. to comply with Appendix D of the IFC. c. Lot 1C, Block 10 should not be included as a common lot and should be shown as right-of- way. 1.3 The landscape plan, dated 9/12/18, shall be revised as follows: a. Remove the landscaping in the middle of the cul-de-sac on S. Trenton Pl. unless otherwise approved by the Fire Dept. b. Depict landscaping along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. c. Stormwater swales are required to be vegetated and designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. d. Remove the common area strip on the west side of Lot 1, Block 8. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 182 of 255 Page 38 e. Staff recommends a common lot for landscaping is provided on Lot 6, Block 7 along the frontage of S. Trenton Ave. for continuity. 1.4 All ponds with a permanent water level are required to have recirculated water and be maintained such that it doesn’t become a mosquito breeding ground. 1.5 All existing structures proposed to be removed shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 1.6 Install “No Parking – Fire Lane” signs on all 48’ radius cul-de-sacs per requirement of the Fire Dept. 1.7 A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Feeder Canal prior to signature on the final plat. Coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren, Park’s Department (208-888-3579). 1.8 A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveways is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. 1.9 An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application for lots accessed by common driveways that depict the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11 -6C-3D. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 1.10 A structural engineer shall review the existing bridge over the Ten Mile Feeder Canal to ensure it’s capable of safely supporting a fire truck (80,000 lbs.) so that a secondary access is available to the site for emergency purposes. Documentation should be submitted to the Planning Division and Fire Department of the findings prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. 2.2 Comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 2.3 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 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. 2.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 2.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 2.7 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C. 2.8 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 2.9 Construct all parkways consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E, 11-3G-3B5 and 11-3B-7C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 183 of 255 Page 39 2.10 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 2.11 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 2.12 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 3. Ongoing Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 3.3 The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances. 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. 3.5 The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 3.6 The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 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. 4. Process Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Site Specific Conditions Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 184 of 255 Page 40 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 1.2 An off-site water main connection to the water main in E. Amity Rd must be made with phase 3 of the current phasing plan. Final plat for each phase must be modeled to ensure fire flow. If water main in E Clayden Street cannot be built with phase 1, per current phasing plan, then the water main in S Langdon Street and E Fratello Street must be upsized to 12-inch diameter. 2. General Conditions 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 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. 2.3 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. 2.4 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. 2.5 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 185 of 255 Page 41 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. 2.9 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. 2.10 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. 2.11 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. 2.12 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. 2.13 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. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 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. 2.18 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. 2.19 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. 2.20 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. 2.21 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. 2.22 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 186 of 255 Page 42 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157207/Page1.aspx D. PARK’S DEPARTMENT No comments were received. E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156947/Page1.aspx F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157017/Page1.aspx G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157972/Page1.aspx H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157028/Page1.aspx I. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156890/Page1.aspx J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157781/Page1.aspx K. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157048/Page1.aspx L. NEW YORK IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156399/Page1.aspx M. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=158096&dbid=0 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 187 of 255 Page 43 IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject 35.1 acres of land with R -4 and R-8 zoning districts and to develop 101 new single-family residential homes. Staff finds that the proposed map amendment complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with Medium Density Residential and should be compatible with adjacent residential uses (see section VII above for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in the adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). Staff finds that the annexation of the site is in the best interest of the City. B. 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: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 188 of 255 Page 44 3. 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. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission’s or Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 189 of 255 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 F Project File Number: H-2017-0088 Item Title: Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate, Located at the SE corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.51 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C -C zoning district (63.796 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (17.713 acres) in the city; and Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 2 common lots, and 2 other lots for future right-of- way dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C -C and R-8 zoning districts; and Request: Variance to the UDC 11-31-1-4B.2for 2 accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 Meeting Notes: ���� �J �t, q/0 tA���d ��P M � I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.F. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for L inder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/D M G Real Estate, L ocated at the S E corner of N. L inder Rd. and W. C hinden Blvd. 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 11/11/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 190 of 255 0 cn � f � o & 3 00 C ƒ co c 3 2 m O > c >« z § 2 m 0 /. \ k � j' @ m L . m m m■ E 2 g G E % 0 q -0 $ @ 2 0 / � % q r t 2 2 e n T \N � 7 k 2 % \ 2 % f _ m & a e e » � k m m \ \ ° 2 ƒ c $ G) 0 0 Q 3 -n O j j 2 � 0 \ E � \. m / � 0 2 > \ m » % CO n < 2 « m G 2 G 2 (a m¢ % m m m m% = ¢ ¢ / ƒ % $ % 2 O O O x a k 0 > Q x w x R B 2 m � w $ w x g � I 0 0 @ / 2 / 2 / k k a % / / / / % / / / (-n % % o A » c @ % 6 / 6 / 2 > 2 # 2 >& 2 2 # y y 2 2 e« 2 3 «« < c 2« 0 cn � f � o & 3 00 C ƒ 0 D ƒ <' ° D ° m o o 2 d' j' 2 2 § ® M ° » 7 -0 $ @ 2 0 / � w r t 2 2 T \N � 7 % _ m 6 / m m CD $ -n O � E � 0 2 m » R. (a 0 cn � f � o & 3 00 Z C- C7 D Cn � D 0 cn � � o D � _ � D � Cl) G) �, (u 0 n 0 m n c o � W = 3 0 cD 0 3 (D v CD CD 0 0 n m D O = v SV = w= 3 N cD C (D m O = CD aoi (D - -' Q Q CD �. U10) 0 � = 00 (n N 0 NN 0 � O W OO 1 �C (n CCO �I O d7 W Z OX C CN 00 cy C � v C � w 0 m N 7 Sy _cr O (a v O O 0 ((DD (A iv SU iS CS p CSD. 7 O C/)(D 3 (D (D Q O C/) C/) C7 3 h co o0 m co m co m 00 m co m m m Q W m co o0 m � M M M rn c� c� � (. U (Q (0 (a c� cQ (� � rn (a Q Q (D (D (D (D (D CD CD O Q; M (D Q (D p O 0 C,) CL rn o X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x (,n CTt (St (n � .P C3i � N � N � W W � � O � co j � N O y co co 00 Cn N ()1 W C\ C\ O C\ O c W C\ W C\ p cp cn O C\ W C\ NC\ N (\ O C\ O N O N P N W N �1 N O N (Ji N y N (n N O N �I N N O0 N O T1 O T O T O T1 O T1 O T1 O T O O T O _) Tl O v _S -u O V C O C) 00 co co 00 00 CC) co 00 co Ou co 00 Oo N O 00 W r "". T W T C- T. C7 c a 0 � 0 0 W v m c v �� � D� = o m v' v� � cn °� (D a Q- 0 CT= n m X D z3 a cn cn v cn co v d° m �. v w v 00 =3 m = ° :3o m (D 0 cn CD W W -y N U1 CA Ul cn D cn M N co w w w (O (O (0 (0 (. C �I co w co O O co O W Cl) m N (31 cn 7 � (O m z z z � z z n n 0 D D fl conte D D co D c�D 33 m O _ cn _ O < Q v �' ccnn (n o CD cn (Q m D o D < v < CD m m (D p p p CD CD CD p co CD 00 m w m co w co (b Q Q Q CO w W W O co CD w CD w CD CD v CD m (D N CD w CD (D rn c� rn c� rn rn rn �. �. Z3. rn CD CD N fl � Q Q Q Q.. O Q. O Q.. O _Q _Q _Q. v' N' N v v W v W v co W v v p 7 7 7 n Cl) =3 w:3 W 7 = x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x N N U1 O � 1 O � 1 O � 3 O � O � 6� 6� — U1 � C.77 3 � � � w CD w w N O C'S U1 C n w (np C\ (� C\ W cn IV CSI C U1 C\ N C\ W C\ C\ O cn U C` N C` O N 00 N -� N Ul N (n N co N O N �I N 6 N O N N N W N --4N O D O -u O -u O -u O -u O T O -0 O -0 O -0 O -0 O -D O -0 O 00 00 00 00 co 00 00 co 00 00 00 00 00 M O N O_ OD n `G O (D 2: v' Q v 0 r-� N O 00 m X 0 0 m x 0 m v m CD N n v 0 w 0 cn O G) v l< 0 x (D m w M � v 0')c0 rn cQ rn rn 0 0 x x CO CO C:) cn N CD N D O O co Cb I PA Linder Village Revised Plan Testimony of David R. McKinney November 15, 2018 The current plan is much better than the previous, but still has several significant problems: 1. Too Little Residential. The application does not substantially comply with the Comprehensive Plan (CP). a. The CP shows approx. 54 ac. MU -C and 24 ac. MDR. To comply with the CP, the proposed development should therefore be zoned 54 ac. C -C, and 24 ac. R-8. b. The UDC specifies 20% residential in C -C zones. 20% of 54 =11 ac. Thus, the total project should include 11 + 24 = 35 ac. residential. c. The Applicant's zoning request is for 64 ac. C -C and 18 ac. R-8. The 18 ac. residential is only about 50% of the 35 ac. required. 2. 24/hr Operation/Delivery at Winco. The UDC specifies that "Business hours of operation within the C -C and C -G districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district..." (UDC 11 -2B -3-A4.) The Winco is too large for this site (80,000 sf, vs 60,000 sf max per UDC). If the Commission is willing to bend these provisions of the UDC, the developer must make some concessions: a. No 24/hr operation, and/or b. No deliveries between 10 pm and 6 am. c. Live -work units should be built in Phase 1, to provide a buffer as soon as Winco is operating. ' 3. Site Circulation. The east -west site circulation roads in north and center of the development are too narrow and do not draw traffic into the development enough. A Proposed site circulation modification image is attached showing my suggested revisions: a. The northern route should be made more prominent, and should turn to connect into the east -west collector street on the south. b. The central east -west circulation road (directly in front of Winco) should also be enlarged and connected into the others. c. The north -south leg of the internal circulation road to the west of Winco should be straightened. 4. Signal on Chinden. a. This signal will cause additional traffic delay on Chinden. The Developer's claim that the signal will improve traffic on Chinden is in reference to current conditions, not the long-range plans and standards for Chinden (and current ITD, ACHD and COMPASS standards) specifying signals only every 1/2 mile. b. Providing a 2nd signal in the 1 mile stretch between Meridian Rd. and Linder will cause more delay than only having 1 signal between those roads. c. The ACHD report was just made public today. That is insufficient time for citizens to have notice. For that reason at least, this hearing should be continued to a future date. 5. Signal on Linder. This is good. a. The Fire Department's opposition to the signal on Linder makes no sense. A fully signalized intersection in front of the station will cause no more congestion than the existing signal does. Notice their objection gives no reasons, just a conclusion. 6. Not Really a Village. The plan presented by the developer is not really a village, but for the most part is just another strip mall, requiring patrons to drive between various portions of the development. a. We want this to be successful, because a half -empty unsuccessful commercial development is a blight on our neighborhood. b. The plaza area is too small — not enough critical mass to be commercially viable for retailers there. c. Major anchors are too far away from the plaza area to encourage foot traffic. e .ar ;,„ -4TI I , NJ *_ Item #4F: Linder Village (H-2017.0088) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Variance Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 78 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the SEC of N. Linder Rd. & W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Commercial (retail/restaurant/vehicle washing facility, fuel facility) & single-family residential uses in Reynard Subdivision, zoned C-3 and MU -DA in Eagle East & South: SFR properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C -C West: N. Linder Road; commercial property, zoned C -G and SFR uses in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4 History: The Commission previously heard this application last year; at the hearing on Oct. 19th 2017, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the project to the City Council based on the design of the previous concept plan. The Council heard the application and voted to remand the application back to the Commission for review of a revised concept plan. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -C (54 acres) & MDR (24 acres) Summary of Request: Annexation and zoning of 81.51 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C -C zoning district (63.8 acres) & the R-8 zoning district (17.71 acres) in the City. The proposed zoning and development is consistent with the FLUM designations for this property. A conceptual development plan was submitted that depicts a mix of retail, office, civic & residential uses consisting of (9) commercial pads, (2) restaurant pads, and a fuel station along the periphery of the development adjacent to Chinden and Linder; (4) 2 -story live/work (i.e. residential/office) buildings, a library and (2) market buildings along the central north/south entry corridor via Chinden within a plaza; (2) multi -story office/residential/retail buildings along the collector street; (1) anchor (i.e. Winco) and a mid -anchor to the west of the central north/south corridor; (3) mid -anchors to the east of the north/south central corridor; future office/retail development planned at the NEC of the site; a park and future SFR development on the south side of the collector street; and pedestrian walkways throughout the development providing interconnectivity between the residential and commercial portions of the site. Staff recommends traffic calming (i.e. chokers/bulb-outs, speed humps, etc.) is provided in front of the plaza area in an effort to slow traffic for pedestrian safety. The concept plan accounts for ITD's CFI(continuous flow intersection)/ROW needs with a white dashed line at the SEC of Linder/Chinden; however, improvements (i.e. multiple parking spaces & the drive aisle around the front of Building #2) are shown within that area that will be eliminated with construction of the CFI. Staff recommends the concept plan is revised prior to the Council hearing to remove the improvements from that area. The truck receiving area for the Winco store has been relocated from the rear of the building to the west side of the building facing Linder Road with the loading docks facing north toward Chinden Blvd. away from the residential uses to the south and are proposed to be screened by a masonry wall. The future MDR development (attached/detached homes) planned on the south side of the collector street will assist in providing a transition to larger SFR lots to the south & east in Paramount Subdivision; and the collector street will provide a separation and boundary between the future residential & commercial development. A Preliminary Plat is requested consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 2 common lots and 2 other lots for future ROW dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C -C & R-8 zoning districts. A Variance to UDC 11 -3H -4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 is also requested, which requires Council approval (no action is needed from the Commission). The residential lot (Lot 3 on the south side of the collector street) is included in the plat as one large lot and will be developed in the future under a subsequent preliminary plat as will the future office/retail development on the eastern portion of the site depicted as Lots 12 and 13. A phasing plan was submitted for the proposed development. Staff recommends the following improvements are completed with the first phase: 1) N. Bergman Ave. is extended to the east/west collector street; 2) install the entire 20 -foot wide street buffer on both sides of the east/west collector street; and 3) complete the extension of the east/west collector street to N. Fox Run Way. The phasing plan should be revised accordingly. The TIS was updated based on the revised concept plan and submitted to ITD & ACHD. Access is proposed for the development via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 as follows: (1) right-in/right-out access is proposed nearest the Linder/Chinden Blvd. intersection and (1) full -access is proposed in alignment with Bergman Way on the north side of Chinden. ITD has jurisdiction of access from SH 2O-26. The UDC prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH 2O-26); the Applicant is requesting Council approval of a variance for these accesses. ITD submitted comments stating: they accept the right- in/right-out access with an eastbound right turn deceleration lane and the right-in/right-out/left-in approach via SH 2O-26 with right turn deceleration lanes for eastbound & westbound SH 2O-26 (final approval will be determined once all documentation has been provided and the permit is signed); Improvements are required at the SH 2O-26/Fox Run, Linder Rd. and Meridian Rd. intersections as identified in the TIS; and SH 2O-26 will be widened to a 5 lane section between Linder and Meridian Roads. The applicant has requested consideration to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD & ACHD to implement the aforementioned improvements along with additional improvements required by ACHD which are required to be complete prior to issuance of any C of 0 within the development. Access is proposed via Linder Rd. as follows: (1) right-in/right-out access nearest the Linder Rd./Chinden intersection and (2) full accesses further to the south. The southernmost access via Linder is a collector street that stubs to the east property boundary that will eventually provide access from Linder to N. Fox Run Way and the signal at Chinden/Fox Run; a signal is proposed at the Linder/collector street intersection which is not supported by the Fire Department due to the belief the signal will cause too much congestion with the operations of the engine company trying to leave the station and respond to calls. Three (3) stub streets (i.e. N. Arliss Ave.; N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director Street) exist at the south and east boundaries of the site to the future residential area that will be extended with development; (2) accesses are proposed from the residential area to the collector street which will provide internal access to the mixed use development from the adjacent residential area without residents having to go out onto Linder and Chinden. Staff recommends N. Bergman Ave. is extended to the collector street with the 18t phase of development so that adjacent residents can access the site without having to go out onto Linder or SH 2O-26. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be provided to the commercial property to the south on Linder Rd. A segment of the City's multi -use pathway is required along Linder Rd. per the PMP; a 10' wide pathway is also required within the street buffer along SH 2O-26. The concept plan also depicts a 10' wide pathway along the east & south perimeter boundaries of the site with internal sidewalks/pathways proposed throughout the development with connections to the multi -use pathways. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid -anchors and the retail shops. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding and stone and brick veneer accents. Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. All structures except SF detached are required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC & the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: Many letters of testimony have been received on the revised application; please see the public record for a complete list. Staff Recommendation: Approval – staff feels the revised concept plan addresses the items that were previously noted as issues at the Commission and Council hearings and will provide a nice mixed use development in the northern portion of the City. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0088, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0088, as presented during the hearing on November 15, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0088 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: November 15, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Linder Village – AZ, PP, VAR (H-2017-0088) Note: The Planning & Zoning Commission previously heard this application on August 3, September 7, and October 19, 2017. At the public hearing on October 19th, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject AZ and PP requests to the City Council based on the original conceptual development plan for the following reasons: 1) proposed site design/layout (i.e. lack of transition and integration with adjacent residential properties); 2) lack of detail on the concept plan for the eastern and southern portions of the annexation area (i.e. no pedestrian or vehicular connectivity with adjacent residential neighborhood and no plan for a street connection between Linder Road and the east boundary for future connection to N. Fox Run Way); 3) the proximity of higher intense commercial uses to single- family residential uses; 4) 24-hour operation of the Winco store and impacts on adjacent residents; 5) traffic; and 6) access – general consensus that the proposed development plan was not consistent with the MU-C designation in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council heard this application on November 21, 2017 and January 16, 2018. At the hearing on January 16th, the Council voted to remand the application back to the Commission for review of a revised plan that includes a collector street connection from N. Linder Rd. to N. Fox Run Way for access to the traffic signal and takes into consideration comments from the hearing in regard to safety concerns pertaining to the extension of N. Arliss Ave., the location of the Winco building, and 24-hour operation of Winco. The following is a new staff report based on the revised plans submitted by the Applicant in response to Council’s decision at the hearing on January 16, 2018. A copy of the previous report for the City Council hearing date of January 16, 2018 can be viewed at: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/142347/Page1.aspx I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC, has submitted an application for the following:  Annexation and zoning of 81.51 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning district (63.8 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (17.71 acres) in the City;  Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 2 common lots and 2 other lots for future right-of-way dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-8 zoning districts; and,  Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. See Section IX of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP applications; and denial of the proposed VAR application in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 191 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 2 Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. Note: The Variance request does not require action from the Commission; the City Council is the decision making body on this application. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2017-0088 as presented during the hearing on November 15, 2018, with the following modifications: (add any proposed modifications). Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0088 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2017-0088, as presented during the hearing on November 15, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at the southeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd. at 1225 W. Chinden Blvd., in the NW ¼ of Section 25, Township 4N., Range 1W. Parcel No.’s: S0425223011; S0425212480; S0425212420 B. Owner(s): Lynx Investments, LP 712 N. Troutner Way Boise, ID 83712 CCPD, Inc. P.O. Box 203 Pendleton, OR 97801 C. Applicant: Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC 2537 W. State St., Ste. 110 Boise, ID 83702 D. Representative: Craig Slocum, CSHQA 200 Broad Street Boise, Idaho 83702 E. Applicant’s Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and a variance. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on all of these applications except for the variance, which only requires Council approval, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: October 26, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 192 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 3 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 24, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: October 31, 2018 E. Posted to Next Door: October 23, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of undeveloped agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Commercial (retail/restaurant/vehicle washing facility, fuel facility) and single-family residential uses in Reynard Subdivision, zoned C-3 and MU-DA in Eagle 2. East: Single-family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-C 3. South: Single-family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-C 4. West: N. Linder Road; commercial property, zoned C-G and single-family residential uses in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4 C. History of Previous Actions: None D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue. b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue, as well as within N. Linder Road, and at the west terminus of W. Director Street. c. Issues or concerns: The fire flow at the end of the proposed dead end water main on the east is marginal, and creates a water quality concern. This main shall connect to existing water main on Director St within the road alignment in the Future Residential area, or within the collector roadway extension to Fox Run Way. Each phase of this development will need to be modeled separately to ensure fire flows are adequate. E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The North Slough and the Simpson Lateral cross this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This site is not located in the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS LAND USE DESIGNATION(S): Approximately 54 acres of the annexation area is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) and the remaining 24+/- acres is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 193 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 4 MU-C: The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non- residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use – Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted below (Figure 3-3 in the Comprehensive Plan, pg. 27). Developments should have a mix of at least 3 land use types [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]; residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre; non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; vertically integrated structures are encouraged; supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. MDR: The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). MU-C MDR Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 194 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 5 TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map (MSM) does not depict any collector streets planned across this site. However, a collector street is proposed, as recommended by City and ACHD staff, from Linder Rd. to N. Fox Run Way, which will serve as a backage road to SH 20-26 and provide access to the signals SH 20-26 at those intersections. As part of this development project, Chinden Blvd. is planned to be widened to 5 lanes from N. Linder to N. Meridian Rd. in Phase 1 (2020) and ultimately to N. Locust Grove Rd. in Phase 2 (2021). ACHD plans to widen Linder Road from Cayuse Creek (1/4 mile south of this site) north to Chinden in 2019. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes to develop the site with a mix of uses consisting of specialty retail and restaurants, fast/casual food and beverage, automotive/fuel sales, mixed retail/health and medical, entertainment/soft goods, retail/civic (i.e. library), community grocery, live/work retail, future office/retail and future residential development as shown on the Use Area Plan included in Exhibit A.3. Smaller building pads and buildings are proposed along the periphery of the development adjacent to arterial streets with the larger anchor, mid-anchor and office buildings proposed internal to the site adjacent to the future collector street and future residential development in a linear “strip” configuration. This site layout and configuration is not consistent with the concept MU-C plan depicted above because the smaller commercial pads/buildings are fronting on the adjacent arterial streets rather than the larger commercial buildings. Additionally, the linear “strip” configuration of the large and mid-anchor buildings is not desired in MU-C areas. However, there is a large variety of uses proposed within the development and although larger structures and the east/west drive-aisle are depicted in a linear arrangement, they are broken up and separated by the plaza/esplanade area and are not a continuous strip of buildings. Additionally, the proposed east/west collector street will assist in providing a separation or a transition between the mixed use commercial and future residential area. The truck maneuvering area and loading docks for Winco located on the west side of the building facing Linder and Chinden away from the future residential area is also an improvement from previous versions of the concept plan. Staff is generally in favor of the plan although it doesn’t entirely comply with the design elements preferred in MU-C designated areas. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & ACTION ITEMS: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The southern 17+/- acre portion of the site is proposed to develop with single-family homes although a specific development plan is not proposed at this time. Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the units will be.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The single-family homes and living units proposed above office and retail uses (i.e. vertically integrated) will provide housing options near employment and shopping uses proposed within this development and across Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to the north (i.e. Fred Meyer and other commercial uses).  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) There are existing single-family residential detached homes adjacent to the south and east boundaries of this site in Paramount Subdivision. The proposed future residential development along the southern boundary of this site should provide a buffer and transition Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 195 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 6 to the proposed commercial and office uses on this site and protect existing residential properties.  “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed grocery store will be within walking distance of residences in the nearby vicinity as well as those proposed with this development. The proposed park will provide a recreational area in close proximity to residential uses. The proposed library will also provide a needed service in this area within walking distance of nearby residences.  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) City staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation authorities (i.e. ACHD and ITD) on this project. See discussion above under Transportation. The City has policies limiting access points to arterial and collector streets and prohibits new accesses to State highways. The proposed site plan shows two direct access points to SH 20- 26; (3) access points to Linder Road, an arterial street; and (6) access points to the future collector street. Every additional access is a point of conflict that can impact roadway functionality.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) The proposed collector street will serve as a backage road along SH 20-26 and provide a connection between Linder and Fox Run and the traffic signals at SH 20-26/Linder and SH 20-26/Fox Run. The (3) local streets that stub to the subject property from Paramount Subdivision will be extended with development and (2) connections are proposed to the collector street for improved circulation between the residential and future mixed use development.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) Pedestrian sidewalks/pathways are depicted on the site circulation plan included in Exhibit A.3 throughout the development with connections from the perimeter sidewalks along Linder, Chinden and the collector street between the residential and mixed use development.  “Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses.” (3.05.03A) The proposed collector street, associated street buffer landscaping, library, multi-story office/residential/retail and large office building will provide a transition from the future residential development to more intense commercial uses.  “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and development requests, and the impacts on services.” (3.04.01H) Comments from these service providers are included in Exhibit B of this report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 196 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 7  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) The proposed development should offer a large variety of commercial and retail opportunities for residents and commuters in the northern portion of the City.  “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B) The proposed site plan shows generous landscape buffers to buffer commercial from single- family residential areas. However, the applicant is proposing a 24-hour use (i.e. Winco). Staff has some concerns about hours of operation for the grocery store, although the loading area is proposed on the west side of the building adjacent to Linder Road away from the residences, which should reduce disturbances to neighbors.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) This property is contiguous to land that has already been annexed into the City. Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses (e.g., landscaping, fences, etc.). (3.05.02A) The concept plan depicts internal parking lot landscaping and street buffers along existing streets (i.e. Linder and Chinden) and along the portion of the collector street that is proposed to develop in the first phase (see Exhibit A.2).  “Evaluate comprehensive impact of growth in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic impacts, school enrollment, parks, etc).” (3.01.01B) Agency comments are included in Exhibit B of this report.  “Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land-use decisions.” (3.03.02G) See COMPASS’ comments in Exhibit B.  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) As noted in 3.03.02O, the MSM does not show any new arterial or collector roadways in this area. However, the proposed collector street as recommended and supported by Staff will serve as a backage road along SH 20-26 and provide much needed access to the traffic signals at Chinden/Linder and Chinden/Fox Run.  “Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities (water, sewer, streets, fire, police, etc.) by encouraging controlled growth through development application reviews and development agreements.” (3.04.01G) The proposed project is surrounded by urban development and would be well served by the City.  “Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit development.” (6.02.02H) A bus stop is depicted on the Circulation Plan in Exhibit A.4 along Linder Road just north of the proposed collector street by Pad L; coordinate with VRT on the future location and design. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 197 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 8 In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas: (Staff’s analysis in italics) • Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre. The density of the future residential development area should be a minimum of 6 units per acre. • Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69. Although still considered medium density, smaller lots (i.e. higher density) for single-family detached and attached homes are proposed adjacent to existing single-family detached (medium density) homes on larger lots in Paramount Subdivision to the south and east of this site. The vertically integrated residential proposed within the mixed use portion of the site will be higher density. • A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application. A concept site plan was submitted for the entire mixed-use area and is included in Exhibit A.2. • In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. The concept plan depicts a plaza in the area where the markets and library are proposed as well as an esplanade to the north around the 2-story live/work structures central to the development. • The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development. The proposed concept plan depicts (smaller lot) medium density residential development adjacent to existing (larger lot) medium density residential uses to the south and east. Densely landscaped street buffers with berms are proposed along the collector street which separates the mixed use development from the future and existing residential development. • A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. The proposed concept plan depicts commercial (retail/restaurants), office, residential (vertically integrated live/work, single-family residential) and library uses in accord with this requirement. • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments. A library is proposed within this development in the central plaza area and a park is proposed at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the future residential development area. Rocky Mountain High School, Paramount Elementary School, a fire station, and a church exist to the south within a ¼ mile of this site. A City park exists approximately a mile away to the west on Ten Mile Road. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 198 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 9 • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count. The concept plan depicts a plaza area by the library central to the development and a park on the south side of the collector street adjacent to the future residential development. • All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. Three (3) stub streets exist to this site that are proposed to be extended with development for interconnectivity between the residential and commercial development; this will enable nearby residents to access the site without having to travel out onto Linder Rd. and/or Chinden Blvd. which will decrease traffic on these roadways. Staff recommends N. Bergman Ave. is extended to the collector street with the first phase of development. • Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code. The developer will be required to dedicate right-of-way along Linder Road and within the site as required by ACHD; right-of-way along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 should be dedicated and/or reserved for future dedication as required by ITD. • Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed- Use standards listed herein. The proposed development is not within Old Town. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-C areas: • Development should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. See above. • All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types. The concept plan depicts commercial, residential, office and civic uses. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre. Residential uses are proposed for approximately 20% of the development area; development within the future residential area should reflect a residential gross density of at least 6 units per acre. • Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. The elevations submitted by the Applicant for the future residential area are 2 stories in height which should be proportional to the adjacent future commercial structures; the street buffer landscaping along both sides of the collector street should also assist in buffering the residential from the commercial area. The elevations submitted with future Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for the commercial structures should be proportional to and blend in with the design of the future adjacent residential buildings. • Vertically integrated structures are encouraged. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 199 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 10 Four (4) 2-story vertically integrated (residential/office) structures are proposed near the plaza and library; and (2) vertically integrated (office/residential/retail) structures are proposed across from the park area on the concept plan. • Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square-foot building footprint. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000-square foot building footprint. For the development of public school sites, the maximum building size does not apply. The community grocery store proposed on this site is 80,200 square feet (s.f.), which exceeds the 60,000 s.f. limitation by 20,200 s.f. Additional public and quasi-public uses are provided in excess of the minimum 5% commensurate with the increase in building size proposed as shown on the Open Space Plan included in Exhibit A.8. • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement. The concept plan depicts a library, a public plaza in front of the library and market buildings, an esplanade to the north where the live/work units are proposed, a park and open space area with a walking path adjacent to the future residential development, common area adjacent to the multi-story office/residential/retail and other public spaces in accord with this requirement. • Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%, the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint. Because the building footprint for the community grocery store exceeds the 60,000 s.f. limitation in the MU-C designated area, additional public and quasi-public uses above the minimum 5% are proposed commensurate with the proposed increase in building size. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zoning District(s): 1. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and housing types that can be accommodated (UDC 11-2A-1). 2. The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways (UDC 11-2B-1). Allowed uses in the C-C district are larger scale and broader mix of retail, office, and service uses and are usually located with access to arterials or nonresidential collectors. B. Schedule of Use: 1. UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-8 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. Single-family dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 200 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 11 2. UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the C-C zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. Retail, restaurant, professional service (i.e. office), healthcare services, fuel sales facility, civic (i.e. library) and vertically integrated residential projects are all listed as principal permitted uses in the C-C district. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district; and 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required within street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. (Landscaping within parking lots is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C but is not required or reviewed with this application.) E. Off-Street Parking: NA (not required or reviewed with the subject application) IX. ANALYSIS Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: A. Annexation & Zoning (AZ): The applicant requests approval to annex & zone 81.51 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning district (63.8 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (17.71 acres) in the City. The proposed zoning is consistent with the FLUM designations of MU-C and MDR for this site. Note: The proposed residential area is approximately 7 acres less than depicted on the FLUM for the MDR designated area. Conceptual Development Plan: The applicant submitted a conceptual development plan that depicts a mix of retail, office, civic and residential uses consisting of (9) commercial pads, (2) restaurant pads, and a fuel station along the periphery of the development adjacent to Chinden and Linder; (4) 2-story live/work (i.e. residential/office) buildings, a library and (2) market buildings along the central north/south entry corridor via Chinden within a plaza; (2) multi-story office/residential/retail buildings along the collector street; (1) anchor (i.e. Winco) and a mid- anchor to the west of the central north/south corridor; (3) mid-anchors to the east of the north/south central corridor; future office/retail development planned at the northeast corner of the site; a park and future single-family residential development on the south side of the collector street; and pedestrian walkways throughout the development providing interconnectivity between the residential and commercial portions of the site. Staff recommends traffic calming (i.e. chokers/bulb-outs, speed humps, etc.) is provided in front of the plaza area in an effort to slow traffic for pedestrian safety. The concept plan accounts for ITD’s CFI/right-of-way needs with a white dashed line at the southeast corner of Linder/Chinden as shown below; however, improvements (i.e. multiple parking spaces and the drive aisle around the front of Building #2) are shown within that area that will be eliminated with construction of the CFI. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 201 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 12 Landscaping within the street buffer along Chinden is also inaccurately represented on the site plan based on ITD’s TIS Acceptance letter and the STAR agreement that Linder Village/ITD/ACHD are currently working on. The development is required to build the full US 20/26 corridor plan on the south side of Chinden. This means that edge of pavement will be constructed to essentially the first dashed line (see below). Sidewalk, utilities and drainage will reside within the 30 foot easement. The right-in/ right-out approach and the approach at Bergman Way all need to be moved further south to better reflect actual location in relation to the site. The arrows on the Bergman Way approach misrepresent the allowed turning movements when constructed. Bergman is limited to unsignalized right-in, right-out, left-in movements. Through movements from north to south on Berman Way will not be allowed. The concept plan should be revised prior to the City Council hearing to reflect the above- noted discrepancies. The multi-use pathway along Linder Rd. should also be widened to 10 feet and traffic calming in front of the plaza should be added. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 202 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 13 The truck receiving area for the Winco store is depicted on the west side of the building facing Linder Road with the loading docks facing north toward Chinden Blvd. away from the residential uses to the south and are proposed to be screened by a masonry wall. The future medium density residential development (attached and detached homes) planned on the south side of the collector street will assist in providing a transition to larger single-family residential lots to the south and east in Paramount Subdivision; and the collector street will provide a separation and boundary between the future residential and commercial development. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed and recommended by staff with this application and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends a DA is required with the annexation containing the provisions included in Exhibit B. B. Preliminary Plat (PP): The applicant proposes a preliminary plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 2 common lots and 2 other lots for future right-of-way dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-8 zoning districts. The residential lot (Lot 3 on the south side of the collector street) is included in the plat as one large lot and will be developed in the future under a subsequent preliminary plat as will the future office/retail development on the eastern portion of the site depicted as Lots 12 and 13. Note: Block numbers should be included on the plat. Phasing Plan: A phasing plan was submitted for the proposed development, included in Exhibit A.6. Staff recommends the following improvements are completed with the first phase: 1) N. Bergman Ave. is extended to the east/west collector street; 2) install the entire 20-foot wide street buffer on both sides of the east/west collector street; and 3) complete the extension of the east/west collector street to N. Fox Run Way. The phasing plan should be revised accordingly. Existing Structures: There are no existing structures on this site. Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district and UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. All of the proposed lots comply with the minimum standards. Note: There is no minimum front, rear or interior side setbacks required in the C-C district; however, required street landscape buffers act as a setback where applicable as building encroachment within buffers is not allowed. Traffic Impact Study (TIS): An updated TIS was submitted to ITD and ACHD for review based on the revised concept site plan for the Phase 1 development area. Staff has not yet received an updated staff report from ACHD. ITD’s letter is included in Exhibit B, Section 12. As part of this development, SH 20-26 will be widened to 5 lanes from N. Linder Rd. to N. Locust Grove Rd. as deemed necessary in the TIS. The TIS does not contain analysis on the future residential and office/retail development area. Prior to any development in that area, a revised TIS will need to be submitted to ITD for review as the land use(s) in these areas may trip the need for a CFI at Linder/Chinden sooner than anticipated. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 203 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 14 Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 and 11- 3H-4. Access is proposed as follows: (2) accesses are proposed via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 – (1) right-in/right-out 1,090+/- feet east of the Linder/Chinden Blvd. intersection and (1) full-access in alignment with Bergman Way on the north side of Chinden; and (3) accesses via N. Linder Rd. – (1) right-in/right-out nearest the Linder Rd./Chinden intersection and (2) full accesses further to the south. The southernmost access via Linder is a collector street that stubs to the east property boundary that will eventually provide access from Linder to N. Fox Run Way and the signal at Chinden/Fox Run; a signal is proposed at the Linder/collector street intersection which is not supported by the Fire Department (see comments Exhibit B, Section 4). Three (3) stub streets (i.e. N. Arliss Ave.; N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director Street) exist at the south and east boundaries of the site to the future residential area that will be extended with development; (2) accesses are proposed from the residential area to the collector street which will provide internal access to the mixed use development from the adjacent residential area without residents having to go out onto Linder and Chinden. The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has jurisdiction of access via N. Linder Rd.; and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has jurisdiction of access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20- 26. The UDC (11-3A-3) limits access points to collector and arterial streets to improve safety and ensure motorists can safely enter all streets. The UDC (11-3H-4B.2a) prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH 20-26); the Applicant requests Council approval of a Variance for access to SH 20-26 as proposed. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) submitted comments on this application based on the revised concept plan, included in the project file, in regard to access via Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. The comments state: 1) ITD accepts the right-in/right-out access proposed via SH 20-26 nearest the Linder/SH 20-26 intersection with an eastbound right turn deceleration lane; 2) ITD accepts a right-in/right-out/left-in approach via SH 20-26 with right turn deceleration lanes for eastbound and westbound SH 20-26. If right-of-way cannot be obtained from the adjacent property owner to the east (i.e. Brighton Corp.), ITD will assume its original position of allowing a signal at Bergman Way. ITD will allow a future dedicated left-in signal at Bergman Way for southbound turning traffic in association with the future continuous flow intersection (CFI) at Linder Rd. This left-in signal will be a slave to the CFI signal; 3) Improvements are required at the SH 20-26/Fox Run intersection as identified in the TIS; 4) SH 20-26 will be widened to a 5 lane section between Linder and Meridian Roads as proposed in the TIS; 5) Improvements are required at the SH 20- 26/Linder Rd. intersection; and, 6) Improvements are required at the SH 20-26/Meridian Rd. intersection. The Applicant has requested consideration to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD and ACHD to implement the aforementioned improvements along with the additional improvements required by ACHD, which are required to be complete prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy within the proposed development. ITD and ACHD are working with the Applicant to document the terms of the agreement. The Developer is required to meet certain milestone deadlines in order for ITD to move forward with the STAR agreement. Final approval of the proposed accesses via SH 20-26 will be determined once all documentation has been provided and the permit is signed. (See the entire ITD letter at: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157968/Page1.aspx. Access is required to be taken from a local street when available per UDC 11-3A-3. There are 3 local streets (i.e. N. Arliss Ave., N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director St.) stubbed to this site; however, the portion of the site that abuts these streets is not being developed with the first phase. In order for adjacent residential neighbors to access the commercial portion of the site Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 204 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 15 without having to go out onto Linder and/or Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26, Staff recommends N. Bergman Ave. is extended to the collector street with the first phase of development. The intent of the UDC (11-3A-3) is to limit access points to arterial and collector streets; a Council waiver is required for the proposed accesses via N. Linder Road and the east/west collector street. The UDC (11-3H-4B.2) prohibits new accesses via SH 20-26 and requires access to a street other than the state highway; the applicant has requested City Council approval of a variance for the (2) accesses proposed via SH 20-26 as depicted on the concept plan. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway is required to be provided to the property to the south (Parcel #S0425233701, 5960 N. Linder Rd.) in accord with UDC 11- 3A-3A in an effort to decrease access points to the arterial street (i.e. Linder Rd.); the developer should work with that property owner to align the driveway/easement with the backage road proposed on that site and with ACHD to ensure the access is set back a sufficient distance from the Linder/collector street intersection. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should also be provided between all lots within the subdivision. Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping along N. Linder Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and the east/west collector street is required to be provided with development per UDC Tables 11-2A- 6 and 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and along N. Linder Road, both entryway corridors, and a 20-foot wide buffer is required along the collector street. Staff recommends the entire street buffer and detached pathway/sidewalk along N. Linder Road, W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and along both sides of the street east/west collector street is constructed with the first phase of development. Open Space: A minimum of 10% (or 1.77 acres) of the area of the residential portion of the site (17.71 acres) is required to consist of qualified open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. A future preliminary plat for that area should include qualified open space in accord with this requirement. Site Amenities: A minimum of one qualified site amenity that meets the requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3C is required to be provided within the residential portion of this site upon development. The concept site plan depicts a swimming pool and clubhouse as amenities. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway (Eagle Island) along the frontage of this site on N. Linder Road. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14- foot wide public pedestrian easement. The applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway. The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is also proposed along the east and south perimeter boundaries of the site with internal sidewalks/pathways proposed throughout the development with connections to the multi-use pathways along Linder and Chinden, the sidewalks along the future collector street, to the adjacent properties to the south and east, and to the future development area as shown on the circulation plan included in Exhibit A.3. Staff recommends a sidewalk is provided along the east side of the driveway through Lot 1 to the parcel (#S0425233701, 5960 N. Linder Rd.) to the south for pedestrian interconnectivity. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are required along N. Linder Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26, both arterial streets, and along the east/west collector street. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 205 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 16 Waterways: The North Slough and the Simpson Lateral cross this site. These waterways will require piping (if not already piped) for development of the site to occur as proposed. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The proposed plans do not depict fencing on the site. Utilities: Street lights are required to be installed along public streets adjacent to the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed and will be served by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation district. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18. Hours of Operation: Business hours of operation in the C-C zoning district are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours of operation may be requested through a conditional use permit as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. The grocery store (i.e. Winco) is proposed to operate 24 hours/day. The property as-is without being subdivided, currently abuts residential use and zoning at the south boundary of the site. However, when the property is subdivided as proposed, it will not abut a residential district or use; therefore, hours of operation shouldn’t be restricted. Because this is an annexation, provisions above and beyond UDC standards may be implemented through the development agreement if deemed appropriate by the City Council. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid-anchors and the retail shops as shown in Exhibit A.6. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding and stone and brick veneer accents. As noted above in Section VII, non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; future building elevations submitted for design review should demonstrate compliance with this requirement. All structures except single-family detached are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Single-family detached residential structures are exempt from design review. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant is required to submit a CZC application for approval of the proposed use, site layout and building elevations from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit a Design Review application concurrent with the CZC application for final approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. C. Variance (VAR): The applicant requests a variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH 20/26). The applicant requests approval of (2) accesses via SH 20/26 as shown on the concept site plan included in Exhibit A.2. When a change or increase in intensity of use is proposed, the UDC requires the owner to develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of any existing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 206 of 255 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 17 approaches is required to be abandoned and removed. Public street connections are only allowed at the section line roads; and the half mile mark between section line roads, and shall be collector roads. The letter from ITD included in Exhibit B, Section 12, in regard to the proposed access states ITD accepts the right-in/right-out access proposed via SH 20-26 nearest the Linder/SH 20-26 intersection with an eastbound right turn deceleration lane; and a right-in/right-out/left-in approach via SH 20-26 with right turn deceleration lanes for eastbound and westbound SH 20-26. Final approval of the proposed accesses via SH 20-26 will be determined once all documentation has been provided and the permit is signed. ITD has the authority to grant access from a state highway to a site; the City has the authority to grant access from a site to the state highway. Although ITD may approve the proposed accesses via SH 20-26, approval from the City is still needed and the UDC prohibits access via SH 20-26 unless a variance is approved by City Council. The UDC (11-5B-4) allows requests for a variance for the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. In order to grant a variance, the Council is required to make 3 findings as follows (included in Exhibit D): 1) The variance can’t grant a right or special privilege that isn’t otherwise allowed in the district; 2) The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and 3) The variance can’t be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Because staff can’t make all of the required findings listed in Exhibit D, staff is recommending denial of the proposed variance application. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ application with the requirement of a development agreement that includes the provisions listed in Exhibit B; approval of the PP application with the conditions contained in Exhibit B, and denial of the VAR application in accord with the Findings in Exhibit D. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Conceptual Development (dated: 10/8/18) 3. Use Area Plan (dated: 10/8/18) 4. Site Circulation Plan (dated: 10/8/18) 5. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/4/18) 6. Phasing Plan (dated: 10/25/18) 7. Landscape Plan (dated: 1/4/18) 8. Open Space Plan (dated: 10/8/18) 9. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations B. Agency & Department Comments & Conditions C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 207 of 255 Exhibit A Page 1 A. Drawings/Other Exhibit A.1: Zoning Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 208 of 255 - 2 - Exhibit A.2: Conceptual Development Plan (dated: 10/8/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 209 of 255 - 3 - Exhibit A.3: Use Area Plan (dated: 10/8/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 210 of 255 - 4 - Exhibit A.4: Site Circulation Plan (dated: 10/8/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 211 of 255 - 5 - Exhibit A.5: Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/4/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 212 of 255 - 6 - Exhibit A.6: Phasing Plan (dated: 10/25/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 213 of 255 - 7 - Exhibit A.7: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 1/4/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 214 of 255 - 8 - Exhibit A.8: Open Space Plan (dated: 10/8/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 215 of 255 - 9 - Exhibit A.9: Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 9/20/2016 & 1/4/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 216 of 255 - 10 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 217 of 255 - 11 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 218 of 255 - 12 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 219 of 255 - 13 - B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The concept site plan included in Exhibit A.2 shall be revised per Staff’s comments and recommendations in Section IX.A of the staff report prior to the City Council hearing. 1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the concept site plan, use area plan, circulation plan, open space plan, phasing plan, preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions contained herein. b. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. c. One building permit is allowed to be issued on the subject property prior to recordation of the subdivision. d. Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent future residential buildings in accord with the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use community designated areas. e. Provide an ADA bus stop on the site as proposed; work with Valley Ride Transportation (VRT) to coordinate the details. If VRT determines a bus stop is not needed at this location, the applicant should submit written documentation as such from VRT. f. A minimum of three (3) land use types are required to be provided within this development [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. g. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway (Eagle Island segment) within the street buffer along N. Linder Road in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the pathway is required to be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded. The applicant shall coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway. If the pathway is covered under ACHD’s pedestrian easement, a separate easement is not required by the City. h. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded for the pathway. If the pathway is covered under ACHD’s pedestrian easement, a separate easement is not required by the City. i. All of the existing stub streets (N. Arliss Ave., N. Bergman Ave. and W. Director Street) shall be extended with this development as originally intended for interconnectivity. Bergman Ave. shall be extended with the first phase of development for interconnectivity between the commercial development and residential neighborhood. j. The street buffer landscaping and 10-foot wide multi-use pathways along the entire frontage Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 220 of 255 - 14 - of N. Linder Road and SH 20-26/Chinden Blvd. shall be constructed with the first phase of development. k. A minimum gross density of 6 units per acre shall be provided within the future residential development area depicted on the concept site plan. l. The Developer shall complete all improvements required by ITD and ACHD associated with this development within the timeframe required by those agencies in accord with the STARS agreement and consistent the Traffic Impact Study prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development. m. Provide traffic calming (i.e. chokers/bulb-outs, speed humps, etc.) in front of the plaza area in an effort to slow traffic for pedestrian safety. n. At a minimum, a swimming pool and clubhouse shall be provided in the future residential development; 10-foot wide pedestrian pathways shall be provided around the perimeter of the overall development; pedestrian pathways shall be provided internally within the development as depicted on the concept plan; and an entry feature shall be provided at the Linder/SH 20-26 intersection as amenities. o. Prior to any development occurring in the future residential and office/retail area shown on the concept site plan, a revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shall be submitted to ITD and ACHD for review. Any new requirements based on the revised TIS shall be considered 1.2 Site Specific Conditions – Preliminary Plat 1.2.1 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.5, dated 1/4/18, shall be revised as follows: a. Include a note granting a blanket cross-access/ingress-egress easement between all lots within the subdivision. b. Include block numbers on the face of the plat. c. Include a street name for the east/west collector street. d. Revise the plat per the changes required to the concept site plan. 1.2.2 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.7, dated 1/4/18, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a sidewalk along the east side of the driveway through Lot 1 to the parcel (#S0425233701, 5960 N. Linder Rd.) to the south for pedestrian interconnectivity. b. Revise the plan per the changes required to the concept site plan. 1.2.3 The entire street buffer and detached pathway/sidewalk along N. Linder Road, W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and both sides of the east/west collector street shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 1.2.4 Provide a cross-access/ingress-egress easement to the property to the south (Parcel #S0425233701, 5960 N. Linder Rd.) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A; the developer shall work with that property owner to align the driveway/easement with the backage road proposed on that site – submit a copy of the recorded easement to the Planning Division with the final plat application. 1.2.5 North Bergman Ave. shall be extended to the collector street with the first phase of development. 1.2.6 All fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 221 of 255 - 15 - 1.3 General Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.3.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.3.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.3.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.3.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 1.3.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C (streets). 1.3.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 1.3.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.3.11 Provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the design standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. 1.3.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.3.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.3.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the City of Meridian Standards Manual. 1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.3.17 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B as applicable. 1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.4.1 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 1.5 Process Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.5.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 222 of 255 - 16 - 1.5.2 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit application. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of these mainlines through the project. 2.1.2 Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue, as well as within N. Linder Road, and at the west terminus of W. Director Street. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of these mainlines through the project. The fire flow at the end of the proposed dead end water main on the east is marginal, and creates a water quality concern. This main shall connect to existing water main on Director St within the road alignment in the Future Residential area, or within the collector roadway extension to Fox Run Way. Each phase of this development will need to be modeled separately to ensure fire flows are adequate. 2.1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 223 of 255 - 17 - 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 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 applicant’s 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 224 of 255 - 18 - 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 887-221. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157929/Page1.aspx 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157930/Page1.aspx The Fire Department is against the traffic signal in front of station 5. The signal will cause too much congestion with the operations of the engine company trying to leave the station and respond to calls. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Please coordinate trash enclosure design and locations with Bob Olson, Republic Services (208- 345-1265 office, or 208-371-1745 cell; or, email: ROlson@republicservices.com ) prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Also, provide provisions for recycling. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5 for any existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site. Contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any existing trees from the site. 6.2 The Pathways Master Plan requires a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s multi-use pathway (Eagle Island) along the frontage of this on N. Linder Road; the applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department (208-888-3579) regarding the requirements for the pathway. The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) also requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along SH 20/26. 6.3 Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26; coordinate the details of the easements with Kim Warren, Pathways Project Manager, 208-888-3579. If the pathways are located within right-of-way, an easement is not Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 225 of 255 - 19 - required to be submitted to the City. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD on this project. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157031 9. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157483 10. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157255/Page1.aspx 11. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157710/Page1.aspx 12. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157968/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 226 of 255 - 20 - Exhibit C: Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary R-8 Zone Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 227 of 255 - 21 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 228 of 255 - 22 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 229 of 255 - 23 - C-C Zone Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 230 of 255 - 24 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 231 of 255 - 25 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 232 of 255 - 26 - D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. ANNEXATION & ZONING FINDINGS: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-C and R-8 zoning districts and proposed development plan is consistent with the MU-C and MDR FLUM designations for this site and should be compatible with existing and future uses in the area (see section VII above for more information). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-C and R-8 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statements of the commercial and residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities are available to be extended at the expense of the applicant. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). Staff finds the proposed annexation of this property with the proposed development plan is in the best interest of the City. 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation and circulation goals. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available to be extended to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 233 of 255 - 27 - c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. 3. VARIANCE: The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11-5B-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; Staff finds granting the proposed accesses via Chinden Boulevard would grant a right or special privilege as the UDC specifically prohibits access via the state highway unless otherwise approved through a variance. b. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and Staff finds there are no unique characteristics of the site that create an undue hardship that granting a variance would relieve; however, this site does have a lot of frontage on SH 20-26 as the site is 2,640 feet wide (frontage on SH 20-26) x 1,290 feet deep (frontage on Linder) which would make sole access to the site via Linder and the (3) existing residential stub streets difficult and inefficient. c. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds granting the variance for additional accesses via Chinden Boulevard, an existing two lane highway, would likely be detrimental to public safety with traffic slowing down to turn into the site and pulling out of the site at a slow rate of speed merging into traffic at a high rate of speed. However, if the highway is widened to 5 lanes as intended through the STAR’s program, Staff finds the proposed accesses shouldn’t be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if the appropriate improvements are constructed as determined by ITD. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 234 of 255 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: November 15, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 G Project File Number: H-2017-0059 Item Title: Public Hearing for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment Continued from September 6, October 18, 2018 for Residential District Naming 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 Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.G. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from S eptember 6, October 18, 2018 for Residential D istrict Naming C onvention Text Amendment (H-2018-0059) by DevC o D evelopment 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 11/13/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 235 of 255 r N O 00 T 0 (D z v (D (D (D 7 v 0 (' z v 3 0 O (D 0 --I (D x D (D Q 3 (D n (=D = 3 Z C (Q (D -0 (D Q N (D N U) Q. ) . Z3 N U) -n 0 v 0 2 CD N � o c Z v (D v o m H �, Z3« CL iu C (n 7 C/)< (D r* =r m fl) X v v O (D v C 0 Q (D (n (n 5 v Q o (D .CI 3 U) O 0 :3 :3 CA)DL nn ^^hl ^ m ^ 4 (fl (o (o Cn O. 00 00 00 (3) CD m m m m (n (n G v (D (D (D o 0 0 o v � (D A) (D (D (D (D w N n (D N a W� 00 z3m W Q W rt N N N (CD CL O D ca x x X x X °1 U) rr Z (D C rr (D O X N v(n N N 1 O CCD (o co( Ulcn _� al w cn w O1 CO N (� N w N O N 3 N T O 0 O -u O T O T O (D 00 00 00 00 00 r N O 00 T 0 (D z v (D (D (D 7 v 0 (' z v 3 0 O (D 0 --I (D x D (D Q 3 (D n (=D = 3 Z C (Q (D -0 (D Q N (D N U) Q. ) . Z3 N U) -n 0 v 0 2 CD N CC) 0 9» @ S d 0 G 2 0 co 2 @ 5 2 2 0 m m= 0 5' = o o m zy o= m o o m= 0 0- a ] g 0 m& a M. zy« a m& § g a d j // 0 0 ƒ% 0 0 0 g m ® =3 :3 (' o m = g o CL = / 0 \ \ 2 2 k 0 f ] ƒ § ]. % / $ \ % \ % \ % 0 0 o c o & w Q u 2 m CL c a u e o 0 m 2 2 m 2 ° ® 9 m 3 O G) 3 / » O a m o ] a o / % § k k / / / O / / 7 2 f f (Df / 0 CO 2% 3 2 6« 5 / 2 e % 2 & b( m m m 2 m m 0 m m m a m m a m m 3 m % o / % o CL M. E / E % / % / f % / Cl) / / CU / \ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ / 5 U y w x x x x y y k x x a / d / k ƒ / / / d / d d / CC) _P6 6± 6 e Q e 6@ 6@ 6@Q J Q e a@ 3@ G & » » w » & @ o » o » w » @ 6 a @ c @ 2 -u 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 -u 2 2% 2& 2 2 2 0 2 0 e m 2 c 2« 2 m « 7 2 G 2 3 2 I W � CD � & ® o 3 � 00 a § � � & o 00 (-A 2 c- » 0 2 ei�: 0' m C- C- r- 2 2 T- @_ a) E S q° B S 0 §' l< $ k\ m. 6 CL // 3 a 6/ f = 2 q / � / / / �] / ƒ R (n2, m F m o \] / CL § / / % m 2 $ / 0 ( k / ƒ k / 0 / % ƒ / % 7 % K o \ 0. 0 2 m m 3 m m 2 m B' » 2 O2 0 o ® m m o 2 ® � \ § � § 2 $ / g / 3 7 a // ° / ) $ g O R / -• f / g / 0 U a / < ] CO 3 2 %:7- 3 2 8 2 % S 2 8 2 5 2 2 3 « G ° e % % % c « % % S ) q \ % = 4h. f k ? G = f k /% % % k % 6 0 % -41 \ 2 ° 8 k x x k w x w x x x 7 9 9 g 7 e®® ® 7 / / / / / 3 / % / \ / \ / / f ¢ / « ± 6& J Q ® 6 ® 6 ® « ® 2 ® 3 © ® G» e e o» »» a» o» o» e 6 u» e» 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 e 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 e 2« m 2 3 e G 2 2 2« e e 2 c § � � & o 00 (-A p 0(n D 0 D n co G)D C- C -n cn � 0 0 -+ < K (D C 0 0 0 Q r' cQ cQ n cD co co Q r« _ :30(D o v o v 0 c� n v < 0 0 v m =3 3. N W N N (n N N N W (D N N N N M CJi N N w -� N cn N O W W p_ O O (n Fn cn m m 0m 0 m v vco v 00 v n n 0 v m Q � � v —_p D 0 0• (n 0• 0 — (n< p p p p ' p r~ (D 0 0 -, 0 p °° p w Q p p p p CD W O ((D (_D (D ((DD O W (D (D (D (D (CD °° Q co W n .A 0 EL 00 W E W W a W W Q CO a 0) v W w. �. �. N �• �• �' O 7 Z3N 7 7 N 7 N 7 O 7 N 7 p X x x x x x x x x x x X x x \ O 3 \ O \ _1 P \ 41\ � \ _1 •) \ W \ W \ p \ \ O O O _i O � O C3l O C\ W cO C\ O (.n P C\ C\ (Jl � V7 C\ 1 C` W (pN C\ �I N O N co N W N O N A N (� N O N W N W N CD N O-0 O -0 O -uO -0 O -0 O -uO 0 O -u O CD O co W co co W c W c co O W W 0 0 b a' CD UQ C/1 UQ ITI 0 0 0 cn � b � UQ N � O � 00 (J) O N G) O_ O OO ca C7 n 7" `G 0 O O r- U) m v' m x Qo DO 71 -1 O m x n m v� N � O O 00 Boise R-1A – R-1C: Single Family Residential R-2: Medium Density R-3: Multiple-Family R-1M: Town Lot “To provide a flexible residential zone which allows the creation of narrow lots that can be developed in blocks for urban row houses or combined into wider lots for single family detached housing.” Chapter 11-04: Zoning Districts https://cityclerk.cityofboise.org/media/262806/1100.pdf Eagle D. Front yard setback from arterial and collector streets (as identified on the transportation and pathway network plan in the Eagle comprehensive plan) is 30 feet in all residential zoning districts. E. Street side setback on arterial and collector streets (as identified on the transportation and pathway network plan in the Eagle comprehensive plan) is 25 feet in all residential zoning districts. G. All front load garages shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the back of sidewalk. Chapter 2: Zoning Districts and Map http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=609 Caldwell Chapter 10-02: Zoning District Regulations and Standards http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=377 Kuna Zoning Distric t Maximu m Height Recommended Minimum Street Frontage* Front Yard Setback On A Local Road Front Yard Setback On An Arterial Or Collector Street Rear Yard Setback Interior Side Yard Setback Street Side Yard Setback Maximum Lot Coverage Minimum Lot Size R-2 35' 120' 20' 30'**** 15' 5' 20' 40% 20,000 sq ft R-4 35' 66' 20' 30'**** 15' 5' 20' 40% 6,600 sq ft* R-6 35' 45' 20' 30'**** 15' 5' 20' 40% 4,500 sq ft* R-8 35' 40' 20' 30'**** 15' 5' 20' 40% 3,300 sq ft R-12 40' 40' 20' 30'**** 15' 5' 20' 60% 2,200 sq ft R-20 40' 40' 20' 30'**** 15' 5' 20' 60% 1,300 sq ft 5-3-3: Official Height and Area Standards https://library.municode.com/id/kuna/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT5ZORE_CH3ZODIRE Garden City TABLE 8-2B-2 FORM STANDARDS IN ALL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS District Maximum Height* Setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage Minimum Lot Area/DU* Front Rear Interior Side Street Side R-1 35' 20' 15' 5' 20' 30% 1 acre R-2 35' 15'/20'* 15' 0/5'* 20' 70% 6,000* sq. ft. R-3 5'/20'* 15' 0/5'* 5' 70% n/a R-20 5' 5' 0' 5' 80% n/a C-1 5' 5'* 5'* 5' n/a 3,000 sq. ft. C-2 5' 5' 5' 5' n/a n/a M 72' 10' max 5' 0/3' 0' n/a n/a LI 55' 15' 5'* 5'* 20' n/a n/a District Maximum Density Minimum Density Typical Housing Types Rural density residential district (R-1) 1 du/acre N/A Single-family detached dwelling units Low density residential district (R-2) 6 du/acre N/A Single-family detached and attached; and two- family dwelling units District Maximum Density Minimum Density Typical Housing Types Medium density residential (R-3) 35 du/acre 14 du/acre in TOD locations of the comprehensive plan or neighborhood commercial nodes unless successful obtainment of a conditional use permit Single-family, two- family and multiple- family dwelling units Medium-high density residential (R- 20) No max 14 du/acre unless successful obtainment of a conditional use permit Multiple-family dwelling units Mixed use (M) No max 14 du/acre unless successful obtainment of a conditional use permit Single-family attached and multiple-family dwelling units 8-2B https://www.codepublishing.com/ID/GardenCity/#!/GardenCity08/GardenCity0802B.html Nampa RA Suburban Residential District/Zone Minimum property area: 30,000 sq. ft. Front yard setback: 35 ft. Property interior (side/rear) setback: 10 ft. RS Single Family Residential District/Zone RS Zoning District/Zone Maximum Number Dwelling Units Per Acre Required Property Area1 Required Property Width Required Mean Property Depth Required Street Frontage2 RS 6 7.26 6,000 50 feet 60 feet 22 feet RS 7 6.22 7,000 50 feet 70 feet 22 feet RS 8.5 5.12 8,500 70 feet 80 feet 22 feet RS 12 3.63 12,000 80 feet 80 feet 22 feet RS 15 2.90 15,000 100 feet 80 feet 22 feet RS 18 2.42 18,000 100 feet 80 feet 22 feet RS 22 1.98 22,000 100 feet 80 feet 22 feet Front yard setback: 20 ft. Property interior (side/rear): 5 ft. RD Two-Family Residential District/Zone Minimum Property Area Required: 7,000 sq. ft. Front yard setback: 20 ft. Property interior (side/rear) setback: 5 ft. RML Limited Multi-Family Residential District/Zone Minimum Property Area: 6,000 sq. ft. Front yard setback: 20 ft. Property interior (side/rear) setback: 5 ft. RMH Multi-Family Residential District/Zone Minimum Property Area: 6,000 sq. ft. Front setback: 20 ft. Interior setback: 8 ft. RP Residential Professional District/Zone Minimum Property Area: 6,000 sq. ft. Front setback: 20 ft. Interior setback: 8 ft. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=597 Portland, Oregon RF: Residential Farm/Forest R20: 20,000 sq. ft. R10: 10,000 sq. ft. R7: 7,000 sq. ft. R5: 5,000 sq. ft. R2.5: 2,500 sq. ft. 33.110.200 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/53295 Bend, Oregon Table 2.1.300 – Typical Residential District Setbacks Front Rear Side UAR 10 ft./20 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. RL 10 ft./20 ft. 10 ft./20 ft. 10 ft. RS 10 ft., except garages and/or carports must be set back 20 ft. 5 ft.** 3 ft.*/5 ft.** RM-10, RM and RH 10 ft., except garages and/or carports must be set back 20 ft. 5 ft.** 5 ft.** Table 2.1.500 Lot Areas and Dimensions in the Residential Districts by Housing Type and Zone Residential Use Zone Lot Area Lot Width/Depth Exceptions Single-Family Detached Housing; Manufactured Homes on Lots (See BDC 3.6.200(E)); Residential Care Homes and Facilities (See BDC 3.6.200(J)) UAR Minimum area: 10 acres Minimum width: 300 ft. min. average lot width with a min. street frontage of 150 ft. No exceptions permitted RL Minimum area: 10,000 sq. ft. with approved septic or sewer system Minimum width: 100 ft. min. average lot width with a min. street frontage of 50 ft. Minimum lot depth: 100 ft. Bulb of a cul-de-sac minimum width: 30 ft. min. at the front property line Flag lot or parcel minimum width: 20 ft. min. at front property line. See BDC 4.3.700, Infill Development Options RS Minimum area: 4,000 sq. ft. Minimum width: 40 ft. at front property line Minimum lot depth: 50 ft. RM-10 Minimum area: 4,000 sq. ft. Table 2.1.500 Lot Areas and Dimensions in the Residential Districts by Housing Type and Zone Residential Use Zone Lot Area Lot Width/Depth Exceptions RM Minimum area: 2,500 sq. ft. Minimum width: 30 ft. at the front property line Minimum lot depth: 50 ft. Zero lot line minimum width: 20 ft., see BDC 3.6.200(A), Courtyard Housing Mid-block infill, see BDC 4.3.700, Infill Development Options Corner lots or parcels must be at least five feet more in width than the minimum lot width required in the zone RH Not applicable Not applicable Two- and Three-Family Housing (duplex/triplex) See BDC 3.6.200(H) UAR Not applicable Not applicable Bulb of a cul-de-sac minimum width: 30 ft. min. at the front property line Flag lot or parcel minimum width: 20 ft. min. at front property line. See BDC 4.3.700, Infill Development Options Mid-block infill, see BDC 4.3.700, Infill Development Options Corner lots or parcels must be at least five feet RL Minimum area: 20,000 sq. ft. with approved septic or sewer system Minimum lot width: 100 ft. average Minimum lot depth: 100 ft. RS Minimum area – duplex: 8,000 sq. ft. Minimum area – triplex: 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum width: 40 ft. at front property line Minimum lot depth: 50 ft. RM-10 Minimum area – duplex: 7,000 sq. Table 2.1.500 Lot Areas and Dimensions in the Residential Districts by Housing Type and Zone Residential Use Zone Lot Area Lot Width/Depth Exceptions ft. Minimum area – triplex: 9,000 sq. ft. more in width than the minimum lot width required in the zone RM None Minimum width: 30 ft. at the front property line Minimum lot depth: 50 ft. RH None Single-Family Attached Housing (townhomes) See BDC 3.6.200(D) UAR Not applicable Not applicable RL*, RS, RM-10 Minimum area: 2,000 sq. ft. for each unit Minimum width: 20 ft. at front property line for interior townhome lots and 25 ft. at front property line for exterior townhome lots Minimum lot depth: 50 ft. RM Minimum area: 1,600 sq. ft. for each unit RH Minimum area: 1,200 sq. ft. for each unit Multifamily Housing (more than 3 units) UAR Not applicable Not applicable RL*, RS*, RM-10 Minimum area: 4,000 sq. ft. for each unit Minimum width: 30 ft. at front property line Minimum lot depth: 50 ft. RM, RH None Chapter 2.1: https://www.codepublishing.com/OR/Bend/?BendDCNT.html Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 236 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 237 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 238 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 239 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 240 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 241 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 242 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 243 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 244 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 245 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 246 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 247 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 248 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 249 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 250 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 251 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 252 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 253 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 254 of 255 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2018 – Page 255 of 255