Loading...
2018-12-06MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance __X__ Lisa Holland __X__ Steven Yearsley __O__ Gregory Wilson __O__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X__ Jessica Perrault __O__ Bill Cassinelli __X__ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Adopted Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of November 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120), Located at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd. Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Alicia Court Subdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning Services, Located 4036 E. Granger Ave. Continued to 12-20-18 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 B. Public Hearing for Pleasant View Elementary (H-2018-0123) by West Ada School District, Located on the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an approximately 65,000 square-foot education institution (elementary school) in an R-4 and R-8 zoning district Continued to 01-03-19 C. Public Hearing for TM Crossing Expansion (H-2018-0122) by SCS Brighton, LLC, Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. on the North side of I-84 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.68 acres of land with a C-G zoning district Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled 01-02-2019 D. Public Hearing for Warrick Subdivision (H-2018-0115) by Schultz Development, Located at 2445 E. Amity Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 36.22 acres of land with an R-4 (19.94 acres) and R-8 (16.28 acres) zoning districts; and 2. Request: a Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots and 19 common lots on 36.22 acres of land Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled 01-02-2019 Meeting Adjourned at 7:18 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 6, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 6, 2018, was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault _______ 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 December 6th, 2018, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have one item that has requested being continued and so we will open -- if there is anybody here to testify tonight, we will probably not be taking any testimony on Item 4-A. With that could I get a motion to adopt the agenda. Perreault: So moved. Holland: 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 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 4 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 2 of 28 Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ferguson Parking Addition ( H- 2018- 0120), Located at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd. McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. To approve the minutes of November 25th -- or November 15th, 2018, and Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for Ferguson Parking Addition. Can I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. Holland: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: 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 regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval 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 -- or a tablet and a sign up for anyone who wishes to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire and after that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 5 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 3 of 28 McCarvel: So, at this time we are actually continuing from the November 15th meeting Item H-2018-0107 for Alicia Court and they are asking for a continuance to December 20th. Is the applicant here this evening? Okay. So, I guess can I get a motion to continue Item H-2018-0107 to December 20th? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Looking at the draft here -- I think we are probably okay that evening. I will make a motion to continue to December 20th. McCarvel: Yeah. Let's take a peek. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to continue Item H-2018-0107 to December 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Pleasant View Elementary ( H- 2018- 0123) by West Ada School District, Located on the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an approximately 65, 000 square-foot education institution ( elementary school) in an R-4 and R-8 zoning district McCarvel: And so at this time we will open Item H-2018-0123, West Ada School District, and will begin with the staff report. Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. The application before you first tonight is a conditional use permit for Pleasant View Elementary. This site consists of approximately nine acres of land, zoned R-4 and R-8 and is located on the north side of West Gondola Drive and east of North Black Cat Road. It's midway between West McMillan Road and West Chinden Boulevard. To the north are single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-8. To the south is West Gondola Drive, which is a collector roadway and existing and future single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-4. To the east existing and future single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-4. And to the west are single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-8 and R-4 and North Black Cat Road. This property was annexed in 2005 and was re-platted as part of the Bainbridge and Volterra North Subdivisions in 2010 and 2013 respectively. A final plat for Gondola Subdivision was approved in November 2018, not too long ago, to create a buildable Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 6 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 4 of 28 parcel where the school is proposed to be located. The future land use map designation is medium density residential. A CUP is being requested to construct an approximately 65,000 square foot elementary school in R-4 and R-8. The elementary school will accommodate approximately 650 students, ranging from kindergarten to 5th grade and its proposed to open in 2020 if the CUP is approved. Originally the applicant proposed two points of access into the parking lot via West Gondola. One was supposed to come -- or one was supposed to come here and, then, there was just one - - I think it was right here and they are now proposing two. The fire department requested a third access point to make sure there is enough separation between the -- the access points for emergency purposes. Parking -- as a result parking has decreased from 145 spaces to 126. With the addition of the third access city code does require that 130 be provided based on the square footage to the building. If approved staff will coordinate with the applicant with the CZC and design review that all to come into compliance. The site as designed does not meet all the structure and site design standards regarding parking design and buildable frontage. The applicant will be required to submit alternate compliance concurrent with the CZC and design review application to make sure that they are meeting those requirements. Let's see. The applicant plans to accommodate future enrollment with possible portable installation. Specific use standards for education institutions do require a concept plan for the future expansion be provided and that should be submitted concurrently with the CZC design review application. Additionally, future parking needs should also be forecasted in that submittal. ACHD wasn't able to complete their staff report in time for this hearing. They did send an e-mail to confirm that they will approve the revised site plan that includes the three driveways. ITD provided comment that they would like a signalized light at Black Cat and Chinden. Staff recommends that Commission decide whether that's a condition they would like to add to the staff report or not. The conceptual building elevations were submitted for the school. The proposed building is single story. Building materials consist of masonry veneer, actual masonry block and accent metal panels. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC and the architectural standards manual. No written testimony was received from Amber Van Ocker. She's the applicant's representative and architect on the project. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the report. With that staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Van Ocker: Good evening, Madam Chairman. Amber Van Ocker, LKV Architects, representing the school district, West Ada School District, in this matter. We don't have too much to add to the staff report. I think Stephanie has done a great job. We have communicated through this process and we understand some of the conditions of approval that have been placed on the application and we are prepared to go through that process and make those revisions with our CZC application. So, I will just stand for any questions that you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Just off the top, just in general where do you envision the portables? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 7 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 5 of 28 Van Ocker: Yeah. They will be on -- yeah. Here we go. They will end up being on this southeast portion of the site and there will probably only be one that we will end up showing that location with the CZC application. McCarvel: Okay. And any additional parking with that or -- Van Ocker: No. McCarvel: -- do you feel like you're -- okay. Van Ocker: We will end up meeting that 130 parking requirement that Stephanie mentioned in the staff report. So, there is a handful more parking spaces that we need to be able to squeeze in, but we already have kind of a revised site plan we can make that work. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question I have is on the parking lot design. I'm curious to why there is two separate parking lots, rather than having them connected for -- Van Ocker: Great question. What we do with our elementary school designs, we -- it's really imperative that we have a separate parent drop off from our bus loops and so we like to separate those two parking and it just makes the flow through the site -- you know, that 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes in the afternoon when parents are coming to pick up students, that they are not interfering with that bus traffic. So, we have always kind of -- when -- when the site affords it to us and we have got the space to be able to have two separate drop offs. It just makes -- the site circulation works so much better. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Did I understand you correctly that you're willing to submit alternative compliance with the CZC and comply with whatever staff requires? Van Ocker: That's correct. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 8 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 6 of 28 Yearsley: So, did I understand you correctly that you're only planning one additional -- additional dwelling for the expansion; is that correct? Van Ocker: For the relocatable classroom? Yearsley: Yes. Van Ocker: Yes, there will only be one. There is only really space for one. Yearsley: Okay. Van Ocker: So, we will -- we will end up locating that on that southeast section of the site and that will be noted in our CZC application. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Van Ocker: Thank you. McCarvel: Do we have any public testimony for this application? Johnson: There are no sign-ins. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on this application this evening? Okay. If there is no more questions for staff, can I get a motion to close the public hearing on Item H-2018-0123? Holland: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0123. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Yea, a new school. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 9 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 7 of 28 Perreault: In the staff report it says the Commission should decide whether to have the light at Black Cat and Chinden as a condition added to the staff report and I would propose that we do. McCarvel: I think -- how many other applications have that request in there? I mean Black Cat and Chinden is a lot of fingers already in that with -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, quite a few projects have come through the city. Each one of them there is a different trigger to require that improvement. I can tell you that staff did meet with it ITD a few months ago to talk about some cost share options for installing that signalized intersection. There wasn't an agreement reached and so right now the way it's -- I think what's happening is a few months ago I believe that you guys approved a subdivision on the northwest corner that was required to put a signal in. We have the Tree farm Subdivision that's in their third phase and, then, of course, Costco as part of their agreement, they have to do the signalized intersection prior to their store opening. So, we have enough provisions and conditions out there to get the signalized intersection. It may not be -- the timing with the school might not be the right timing, but it will happen with Costco regardless or one of those other subdivisions as warranted. So, Costco is looking to open I think sometime in fall of 2020 is what we -- we have heard. So, that's -- that's why we pose the question to you. Staff didn't feel comfortable requiring that as part of the CUP. That's why we brought it to your attention, that, hey, one of our partnering agencies has requested something that we typically don't get from ITD and we know there is other conditions in place for other projects to provide that signalized intersection, so that's why we -- certainly it's within your purview to require that and that's why we posed the question to you if you feel it's relevant to -- we already have all these developments going on, but now we are putting it on one applicant to do it and that's why we pose that question to you to see if you thought that was equitable for the school to do it or not. Yearsley Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, I have one question for you is with ACHD not being able to complete their staff report, are we comfortable approving this without actually hearing what their conditions are and making sure that they get included in these -- this CUP? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, fair question. I mean Stephanie and I talked about it. Typically we would like to have ACHD's comments and particularly since ACHD does look at more of those off-site improvements with sidewalks, crossing Hawk signals, we like to get that incorporated into our staff report. If -- if it's the Commission's pleasure you can continue the project and wait for ACHD's conditions or you can simply add a condition that says they need to comply with all ACHD's conditions and that way when it comes out we will include that as part of the public record and we will have that captured in the findings. It's whatever the Commission's pleasure is. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 10 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 8 of 28 Yearsley: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Looking at the map one more question for staff. The -- the road that's on the south side of this development, does that exit directly onto Black Cat I'm assuming? It doesn't really go anywhere else. It's -- it's coming out right onto Black Cat there on the mid mile. Parsons: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, are you referring to Gondola Drive? Holland: Yeah. Parsons: Yeah. It's a collector street that stubs into Black Cat. Holland: So, I guess looking at the map and where that comes in, seeing my fellow Commissioners, I -- I think my bigger concern would not be the stoplight at Black Cat and Chinden, but what the access looks like for Gondola Drive coming onto Black Cat, since it's at the mid mile and I would hate to make school districts pay for the infrastructure of a major intersection out there and certainly like to see what the cost sharing agree might look like with other developers in the nearby vicinity. Thoughts? McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think Black Cat and Chinden is a little far away for them to have to deal with, especially with the other development that's going on there. But, yeah, I think that intersection there at Gondola and Black Cat is of concern -- would be the bigger issue for a light. Yearsley: Well -- and that's my concern about approving this right now, is because without ACHD giving their conditions and having the applicant a chance to weigh in on it, you know, we are basically forcing their hand to basically meet all of ACHD's conditions if we approve it like you said. So, for me personally I would recommend approval -- or continuing it until ACHD has had a chance to act on it and, then, we can have a chance to meet with the applicant and talk over which ones or all, depending on what they are requesting is -- is appropriate. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think I agree. I would rather see the ACHD report and make sure that we are doing our due diligence and safety of buses coming in and out of there and pedestrians coming in and out of there, making sure that we have got it set up okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 11 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 9 of 28 McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. Okay. Do we have a realistic time frame for the ACHD report? I know it's not your -- Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I kind of communicated with Christy and she made it seem like it would be fairly soon. I think her hope was to get it done before tonight's meeting. That didn't happen. So, I would say December 20th might be realistic, but I don't know for sure. McCarvel: We have one, two, three, four -- now five already on December 20th. Are we at a time is of the essence on this? Are we trying to get this done? Obviously schools needed to be done yesterday. Yearsley: I don't know. For me personally I think the 3rd would be more appropriate to give ACHD enough time to get their -- McCarvel: Yeah. And, then, to revise -- Yearsley: The staff report. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. I agree. With that would somebody like to make a motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move to continue file number H-2018-0123 for the hearing date of January 3rd, 2019, to allow ACHD and staff to -- or as ACHD to get their staff report completed and having our staff a chance to revise the staff report based on their conditions. McCarvel: Do I hear a second? Oh. Pogue: Madam Chair, you need to open the public hearing and, then, continue it. Yearsley: Oh. Yeah. McCarvel: All right. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we open file number H-2018-0123. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing H-2018-0123 and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 12 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 10 of 28 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I now move to continue file H-2018-0123 to the hearing date of January 3rd, 2019, to allow ACHD to complete their staff report and city staff to update their -- their current staff report to allow for their conditions. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0123. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for TM Crossing Expansion ( H- 2018- 0122) by SCS Brighton, LLC, Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. on the North side of I-84 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1. 68 acres of land with a C-G zoning district McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will open the public hearing for H-2018-0122, TM Crossing Expansion, and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next on the agenda is TM Crossing Expansion. This is an annexation and zoning request. The site consists of 1.6 acres of land, zoned R1 in Ada county and is located north side of I-84 east of South Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. We have -- north and east we have rural single family residential, zoned R1 in Primrose Subdivision. South we have I- 84 and to the west we have future commercial and office development, zoned C-G, which is TM -- TM Crossing Subdivision. This property was a lot and block in the Primrose Subdivision and at one time was designated as a public use. That has since been removed from the plat and now this is a parcel that the applicant has purchased and now wishes to develop the parking lot. Future land use designation on this property is -- shows LDR as far as designation, but as Commission is aware the Comprehensive Plan designations aren't necessarily parcel specific like zoning, so the applicant has requested to float that commercial designation to this parcel in order to construct the parking lot. Staff is amenable to that request and if you got -- the Commission is amenable as well, the C-G zoning that the applicant is requesting is consistent with that commercial designation. So, the applicant did provide a conceptual development plan with the annexation request. You can see here they are requesting this particular parcel would become a parking lot, which is a future -- which would coincide with the adjacent Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 13 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 11 of 28 commercial building to the west of the site and provide some additional parking to this proposed development. The applicant will do a 25 foot wide landscape buffer and six foot tall fencing along the north and east property boundary adjacent to the residential uses. Access to the parking lot would be provided from the TM Crossing development, so the one that it's abutting to the west and, then, emergency access would be from the Primrose Subdivision to the east. Currently ACHD has some designated future right of way in that area for a future vehicular connectivity -- connectivity, but for now staff is amenable to allow that to be an emergency access until such time as that adjacent subdivision to the east would redevelop in the future with something other than low density residential. I don't know what that is right now, but certainly it may not stay that way forever. A provision of annexation is that we are recommending a DA with the annexation request. Again, we are requiring the 25 foot wide landscape buffers and the privacy fencing along that north and west boundary -- excuse me -- east boundary. Because the site doesn't necessarily abut the interstate, staff is also recommending a 35 foot landscape buffer, along with a ten foot multi-use pathway along the interstate that could be eventually extended with redevelopment of that residential subdivision to the east. Staff did receive written testimony from Mike Wardle in agreement with the provisions in the staff report. Staff did not see any public testimony as part of the public record and we are, again, recommending approval with the C-G zoning district and I will stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle. Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Well explained and simply a straightforward expansion that allows us to -- actually we have seen a dramatic change in the context of the project since it was originally annexed. It was anticipated to be largely a retail center is turning into an employment center with office buildings and so in that context, then, when the adjacent property was made available, we opted to purchase that, so that it would, again, just be strictly a parking area with the required 25 foot landscape buffers and fencing. Bill did comment on an emergency access. The roadway that parallels the east boundary just -- and I don't know quite how to manipulate this, but you see the site plan where you have the east-west road that parallels the interstate and, then, it takes a curve to the north, that roadway will continue up to Franklin in the next several years. When that roadway is improved, the emergency access, which right now is only the secondary requirement that the fire department has, that one will go away and that existing 25 foot ACHD right of way will either be by license agreement landscaped. I don't anticipate that Verbena Street coming out of that one acre subdivision will ever be extended. We, in fact, worked with the neighborhood to assure that that would not be the case and so it was only a requirement for -- at least until that roadway to the north to Franklin Road comes that there is any kind of an access at all and there is a -- they just completed most of the fire access and gated it and ACHD had kind of indicated that they didn't really want that gated on -- within the so-called right of way, but, basically, we are just keeping the fence or the gate where it's been since the 1970s. So, we are working with ACHD on the license agreement to assure that, again, there is no through traffic coming out of that subdivision that would really cause some Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 14 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 12 of 28 difficulties and challenges for our neighbors and we have -- so, if you have questions I would be happy to answer them, but it's a pretty straightforward request just to annex and zone it in the context with the overall TM Crossing project. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you very much. McCarvel: Did we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Johnson: Madam Chair, only one person signed in. They did not indicate wishing to testify. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on this application? All right. If there is no further questions, the applicant having come forward, can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2018-0122? Perreault: So moved. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0122. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Pretty straightforward. More parking. Yea. Too bad Bill's not here. Yeah. I think the buffers and all the suggestions and emergency access I think is -- as long as ACHD is okay with dotting the I's and crossing the T's on that, I don't see a problem. Perreault: Madam Chair, I agree. I don't anticipate that that's going to convert to residential at any point considering the size, so that seems like it's a use that's conducive to the area. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I agree. I think it looks good. I -- I do remember this application when it came through the first time and I find it interesting that -- how it has actually changed and I actually like this change much better as an employment center and, then, a retail center. I think it brings much needed jobs. Just as a note, that road to the north with the other application that came in on the north, they actually were required to make that connection to that subdivision onto that street at that point and so this being just a -- a fire access is probably appropriate potentially having it totally removed when that gets completed would be fine. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 15 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 13 of 28 Holland: Madam Chair, no concerns here either. Bill, do we need to mention the DA in the motion? With that, then, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0122 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 6th, 2018, with no modifications. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2018-0122. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Warrick Subdivision ( H- 2018-0115) by Schultz Development, Located at 2445 E. Amity Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 36. 22 acres of land with an R-4 19. 94 acres) and R- 8 ( 16. 28 acres) zoning districts; and 2. Request: a Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots and 19 common lots on 36. 22 acres of land McCarvel: Next on the agenda is file number H-2018-0115, Warrick Subdivision. We will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening is the Warrick Subdivision. This is an application for annexation and a preliminary plat. The site consists of 36.22 acres of land, currently zone RUT in Ada county and is located at 2445 East Amity Road on the south side of Amity, west of South Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north we have future single family, which was the Castle Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8. West and south is existing and future single family residential. The White Bark, Southern Highlands, Sky Mesa Subdivisions, currently zoned R-4. And to the east we have rural residential ag, zoned RUT in Ada county. There is no history on the site as they are seeking annexation into the city. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is three or fewer units -- dwelling units to the acre. The applicant has applied to annex and zone 36.22 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district and an R-8 zoning district. So, a two zoning designation request. So, the R-4 portion consist of 19.94 acres and the R-8 portion is 16.28 acres of land. The applicant is requesting a step up with this particular development. So, as I mentioned to you it's three or less to the acre. It currently, as proposed before you this evening, it sits at 3.6. So, not a huge step up. A minor bump. But, nonetheless, it is over lined with the medium density residential designation of three to eight dwelling units to the acre. There are some existing homes and out buildings on this site that will be removed with -- upon development of the property. The applicant has submitted a concurrent preliminary plat Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 16 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 14 of 28 that consists of 130 building lots, 19 common lots, and they are also proposing a mix of housing types. So, not only are we having a mix of R-8 and R-4 zoning, but there is also a blend of 106 single family detached homes and, then, 24 attached homes, ranging in sizes from 1,350 square feet all the way up to 4,000 square feet. The average lot size for the proposed development is approximately 7,600 square feet. Amity Road is planned to be widened in -- in the near future between 2022 and 2026. So, the applicant is required to put in a westbound turn lane per ACHD's conditions and they had to set aside or dedicate additional right of way to make that happen per ACHD. Landscaping was also proposed within the development consisting of a 50 foot wide landscape buffer along Amity Road, with a 20 foot tall berm -- or 20 foot wide berm, parkways along local streets, and common open space and landscaping along pathways. Code requires a minimum ten percent open space with the proposed new development. The applicant is proposing 15 -- over 15 percent qualified open space, which consists of that 2.5 acre central park in the middle of the proposed development, a common area containing pathways, which is along the Ten Mile Creek along the east boundary is required to construct a ten foot multi-use pathway, half of the street buffer and, then, some additional common areas that were 50 by 100 in size that could qualify as open space and, then, also open space -- or, excuse me, the amenities include a clubhouse, a pool, and, then, Ten -- the Ten Mile Creek and, then, a pond, which also counts. The staff is also recommending that the applicant include a children's play structure as an additional amenity as part of this proposed development. Ten Mile Creek runs along the east boundary of the site, because that is a protected waterway that has to remain open as a water amenity. The applicant has not proposed any fencing along that waterway. However, if the Commission and Council determine that is a safety factor and would like to see fencing, certainly that should be a condition -- a recommended condition of approval from this particular body. The applicant did submit conceptual elevations for not only the clubhouse, the attached product, but also the other residential homes within the proposed development. Any homes up against the arterial street Amity will have to provide a mix of materials and articulation and modulation in the proposed facades. Staff did receive written testimony from Matt Schultz in response to the staff report and because the applicant is exceeding the open space standards, the amenities package for the UDC, staff is supportive of the request to step up and we are recommending approval of this project. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions Commission may have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Bill, do you have anything that shows where that Beasley Lateral runs across the site? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't, but I would presume that it's running along the south boundary here -- will be redirected here and, then, funnel Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 17 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 15 of 28 into this irrigation pond. But I think the applicant could probably shed some light on that for you. Perreault: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Schultz: Good evening. Matt Schultz. 84201 South Ten Mile, Meridian, here on behalf of Berkeley Building Company, who was under contract with the Warrick -- the Warrick family to purchase this property if -- if we can get this approved and -- and I was excited to hear that Joe Atala -- he's not here -- be able to be here tonight, president of Berkeley. He was able to get this piece. I love south Meridian. I have done a lot to work down here and am excited to help them with the project. I have done two other projects for Berkeley over the last few years. One was the entrance to Sutherland Farm. We did five acres, 33 lots. We also did one called The Pond Subdivision, which is now Settlers Lane on Meridian up near Ustick and Berkeley is excited to have some -- one that has enough size to it now to be more of a showcase project -- is to have a -- more of an infill where you don't have an opportunity to do -- do the amenities and do the -- the product mix that this one affords. The size is a two edged sword in terms of a lot more expensive, lot more issues, but he is nevertheless excited to be able to show off this project and so am I with -- with Berkeley Building Company taking the lead and he may invite a few of his partner builders that he's comfortable working around to -- to share in this. But Berkeley does have product type that ranges from some of the, you know, less large, more efficient lot sizes that we saw in The Pond and Settlers Lane and he also builds on some builder teams, such as Reflection Ridge, on some of the bigger stuff and this one allows him to, you know, basically demonstrate this whole portfolio, to provide, you know, not just more lots, but, you know, greater price point differentiation, greater -- which is really what we need I think in Meridian. Going through a comp plan review right now and I'm on one of the steering committees where that's a big deal, you know, the diversity and, you know, that the affordability word, which is still hard to get, but it does give us a little more opportunity to get closer to 300,000, you know. So, I don't know if it's affordable or not, but that's just kind of what we are challenged with in this market when we pay retail for land and utilities and everything else and -- and when you get out of it you still be affordable is tough. Nevertheless, proud to represent this project. There is -- somehow some way the southwest corner of Amity and Eagle got -- this 80 acres got designated low density whenever they did so. Amity is a five lane arterial -- or will be. It will be a five lane arterial. Eagle, obviously, is -- if you look at the bigger context of -- of you know, basically Eagle being over here a little bit off the page. Yeah. Here we are. So, that's roughly about 80 acres there and we are not representing that parcel, but some day it will come in, too, and I hear Albertsons is right here across the street a little ways, you know, Tuscany has also a blend of product sizes. We have got a little blend of in the product sizes. We think what we are doing is definitely appropriate, especially if the end result is around that 3.6 to the acre, it's a pretty slight -- slight bump up and it's my contention and, then, hopefully, it gets in the new comp plan update, the, you know, zero to three really mean zero to 3.5, even Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 18 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 16 of 28 though we are a little bit over that I think -- you know, I think you really should allow that up to 3.5 for low. We are a little bit over that, still here. I think it's a big deal on some of these bigger projects. So, with that said some of the -- key if you can go back to the overall color plan, please, Bill. Some of the key -- I guess development issues that pop up on this -- we do have a two and a half acre park. We have an open area that's about an acre -- a little bit less than an acre, which is quite large. You know, it's 230 by 170, you know, that the developer -- or the builder chose to use that as an amenity, instead of, you know, hey, we are providing a very, very expensive several hundred thousand dollar pool and clubhouse facility, do we really want a playground, do we really need a playground, is that my market, is that my target and he said, no, it's really not, we would rather just do a big open space area, two pathways and, you know, some benches and - - and use that as our -- as our amenity -- I mean one of our amenities in addition to the pool and clubhouse. So, he made a conscious decision not to. I have always put a playground in. It isn't required at a minimum that we do playground at all sites, you know, it's kind of a marketing decision for him and he chose not to. It's kind of a philosophical question that he chose that he could, but he doesn't really choose to on the playground. We are -- we are proposing to put in the -- there we go -- the ten foot regional pathway all along here, along the west side of the Ten Mile Creek per the City of Meridian's park standards. The fencing issue that came up is an interesting one. We are proposing a fence at the back of our lots, you know, your six foot wrought iron fence. Along these drains, the drain side of the pathways aren't fenced. You know, if you look at the regional pathways we -- what we do fence -- or where we have parallel fences, if you will, is along the Ridenbaugh Canal or those -- those -- those deliveries, those concrete delivery facilities, that's where we double fence, but along all these drains, through Tuscany and elsewhere you have a fence at the back of the lots and the side that's along the drains. So, when I saw from staff I'm like, okay, well, that's interesting. Nobody's ever really asked for a double fence along a drain before. If that's something that the Council wants so be it, but it's just -- it's just not how things have been done along these natural -- this is the Ten Mile Creek -- along these natural drains. It's pretty low -- pretty low flow in this area, you know, except for -- especially up here -- upstream of the Ridenbaugh Canal and in the spring the Ridenbaugh Canal dumps a bunch of water and that gets pretty high north of the Ridenbaugh, but south of the Ridenbaugh with all this acreage being taken out of farm ground it's a pretty low -- low flow in the Ten Mile Creek, it's kind of a natural, you know, the cattails and, you know, kind of trickle down through there. So, it's not a -- it's not a big hazardous raging river, you know, type of facility, like these canals tend to be in certain times of the year. So, it's whatever -- whatever the Council's go on that. ACHD in the staff report you will notice they did -- they didn't like where this was located, even though they told me to put it in the middle originally, which I did. There is two parcels over here. There is one around the house, they thought that was kind of in an awkward position, if this other parcel would have developed independent of the rest, even though they are by the same owner. I said, okay, fine. We will move it. So, they conditioned us to move it right in here. So, it's an easy adjustment, just to kind of move it down about 400 feet, to just -- if -- it's just a more convenient place for that road to go through later for whatever reason. I just said we -- that's an easy move. Okay. We will move it. It's -- it's not a big deal. As far as the -- the Beasley Lateral, it comes in through Sky Mesa down here Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 19 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 17 of 28 and it diagonals across and it runs along over here. Oops. Oops. There we go. It runs over here, then, it runs up the property line and there is a couple -- an historical weir right here built in 1920 with some lava rock that -- I think the Beasley Lateral was built in 1920'ish time frame. It used to deliver water for hundreds of acres. Now, there is only - - downstream of us there is one half acre over here on the other side of Whitebark that takes water. That's it. There is one half acre that still takes water out of Beasley downstream of us and the rest of it wastes north to the Ten Mile Creek. That's it. So, we have contacted them said, hey, can we provide you pressure irrigation service and they -- you know, at a minimum we -- oops. That was me. At a minimum we are looking -- if we had to keep that maintained we would run it down through here, you know, over -- you know, we would really relocate it and run it to him in a 12 inch pipe, but we would ask the Boise Board of Project Control, which is a federal agency, to relinquish their huge easements for which -- which is literally a trickle of water now and the majority of the water can go to the Ten Mile Creek, just like it currently goes north to here, it would go to here, go through the pond, be the -- be the feed for a regional irrigation pump station that the New York property -- Irrigation District has requested to serve the entire 80 acres, of which we are the first 37 in that. So, we haven't quite figured it out exactly where it's going to go yet. We have options. It could run at the back of these lots, which we don't want to do. We would rather -- I would rather run it through the open space and get it over there. I would rather really, really, really just do it out of here, you know, and so we have got -- as we get in the engineering and work with that neighbor we will figure out exactly where needs to go and there is plenty of agencies that have jurisdiction, because right now it's a -- it's a 30 foot easement, it's under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, there is quite a bit of bureaucracy to relocate that, which will take about a year and in the meantime our first phase avoids it. It will give us time to work all that out -- where that's really going to go. Our first phase will have a secondary access and anything over 30 lots needs a secondary access. We do have an existing -- it's not shown here as existing, but this is existing now to Whitebark. That's an existing -- this is built now, even that area is old. So, we are going to connect to that and, then, this phase of Sky Mesa is under construction right now that's going to provide that stub street to the south. So, we are well accessed and, then, we have our bridge for future access. So that bridge we will design, we will get a good price for it and, then, we put up 50 percent of that with ACHD and it will -- whoever comes in on this side takes that money ten years from now, whenever, and builds the bridge. We did the same -- we are doing the same thing on Wells across the street when we were the second guys in, so we get to build a bridge this winter in Tuscany for Wells right across the street right now and Brighton put up some money. So, speaking of bridges, there is an existing flood zone and -- it's not a bridge, it's a -- it's a 36 inch pipe. The flood zone is quite wide through here, more so on our neighbor than us. It also is on our neighbors across the street. Tuscany remapped it and show that it was all contained in the Ten Mile Creek. FEMA does a broad brush and, then, a developer comes back and does a very exact topographic survey and does an analysis and submits it to FEMA. They revise it. Well, it was never revised from about where my -- where my -- my mouse pointer is south. It has never been revised yet, so that the heavy lifting that we are going to do in conjunction with ACHD is to build a bridge culvert underneath Amity to come -- to what is now the flood flow over tops that road, because Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 20 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 18 of 28 that 36 inch pipe can't convey 3,300 cfs, which nobody's ever seen yet, but, you know, it could happen in a hundred year event and so -- and so like the Wells bridge ended up being a nine foot high by 14 foot wide box, you know, spanning the creek and that lets the flow go through without constricting it. Everybody's happy. And we would go back and remap the flood zone to have it all in the creek and improve everybody's flood insurance issues. We got four different owners here. We are the first guy in. We will need some cooperation, though, from the owners, you know, in terms of easement to build that culvert, you know, on -- it can't all be on our -- we kind of share -- share a property line right there in -- between ACHD and us. We are going to cost share on that culvert. ACHD has taken the lion's share of it and, then, any kind of right of way needed would be compensated for, you know, fair market value, which is what we do and, hopefully, everybody's happy when this is all done. That's the plan. We don't make things worse, we make things better when we come in and that -- and that's what we do. As far as -- as far as the average lot sizes, like Bill said, we are about 6,000 square feet in the R-8 for average lot size. We are about 9,000 square feet in the R-4 section for a lot size. Our average is around 7,600 for a wide variety of product type ranging from -- I wrote this down a long time ago. Have to bring my -- my application here. So, yeah, 1,300 square feet to 1,550 on some of the attached here in the middle and, then, the remaining in the R-8 will be detached -- those will be attached. The remaining will be detached in the R-8 range from 1,352 to 2,200 and, then, as you go south into the R-4 those will range from about 2,000 to 4,000 square feet on those lots. So, I think it's kind of cool to be able to do a variety in one project and to try to hit it and not sacrifice the amenities, you know, and everybody can share in the same upscale amenity that we are providing in an area that you really need to compete anyways with -- with everybody else that's done pools on some bigger ones, like Sky Mesa is a much bigger one and Tree Farm and Tuscany, which was already built out, but, you know, Tuscany -- I think they have four pools for a thousand lots. That's another point. We only have 130 lots for one pool. So, it's a better ratio. But it all comes down to the size of the pool I know, but it seems like anytime you get over a hundred residents on one pool that -- you get 200 they start squawking for another one, you know, it's too small, whatever, but -- so, it is a nice ratio of homes to pool I think. It's healthy and we are -- we are excited to represent it and fix some of these infrastructure issues that developers fix, you know, and do. It's kind of some heavy lifting, but we are prepared to do it to make it all right out there on the culvert, as well as some of the irrigation issues. So, with that I will stand or any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: So -- so, staff has actually conditioned the -- the playground. Are you asking that be removed? Is that what I'm understanding? Schultz: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, there was a little mistake in the original staff report that we were providing a tot lot, you know, and we actually providing an open play area and I pointed it out to staff, hey, we are not proposing one. It's not on our color rendering, there is no playground and that's when they went, oh, well, we think you should provide one. Oh, yeah, that's fine. So, we are asking that we not. We are Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 21 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 19 of 28 asking it be approved as submitted -- you know, the way we submitted it and -- and we think we have provided, you know, these open spaces that the minimum is 50 by 100, being able to provided one that's several times that size to be more of an open play area, instead of a focused little one. So, yeah, we are asking. Hopefully, it's not a cause for denial, but if you do -- if you want to keep on your condition of approval moving forward in your recommendation, we are happy to go along with that moving forward as far as your recommendation that we keep it, but we are not proposing to change right now. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: So, you said you didn't want one because of your market. What is your targeted market for these homes? Schultz: What we are seeing out there is a lot of people that want to downsize and they are kind of not -- I mean there will be some families in here no doubt. McCarvel: Yeah. Schultz: You know, there will be some. But there is just not as -- the ratios are much different now in terms of downsizing and they still want the same quality. The price isn't really an issue, they just don't want the big yard and they don't have a lot of kids or any, you know, so that's -- that's a market that is being satisfied by him very successfully right now in some other areas and he would like to continue here in south Meridian, which is, obviously, a very desirable location to live, so -- Perreault: Madam Chair? De Weerd: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Bill, could you bring up the landscape rendering again? Thank you. Matt, was there any consideration made to put a green space or a buffer between the -- I don't know -- I don't think these are townhouse lots -- right there near where your mouse is there. Right in that area. Schultz: Between the R-4 and the R-8? Perreault: Uh-huh. Schultz: No, we don't -- we don't think there is a -- it's at issue to have a little bit different lot sizes. We think they are not a -- they should be separated as much, you know, I know that those are -- those are worse. So, those should be separated and I think they are compatible, even though there is -- there is not -- they are not one to one lined up on lot sizes, you know, one and a half or whatever it is isn't bad. So, we have over 15 percent already open space, so we are not lacking a place to put it and so in terms of -- in that regard we thought we had a pretty -- pretty robust landscape plan and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 22 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 20 of 28 what happens in those areas -- although it might seem like a good idea, they become no man's lands or places that are hard to -- to police, especially with a pathway. So, I like to keep my pathways short now I think about it and in our new police -- I can't remember the name right now. He's really on that lately, too. So, I think that might become one of those areas that might be more of a policing issue if we did propose that. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just a quick clarification. So, the attached product I'm assuming just by the look of the lot sizes is probably going to be what's around the park for the most part? Schultz: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland -- it's been a while since I have submitted this, but I believe it could be here as well around the park and right there. But he's also leaving an option. He wants to have the option -- he's working on some detached 40 foot product. But he also is working on attached and staff's got a condition that if you are going to go attached on the final plat and on the plat you show what is your common zero lot line if you will and so he's still -- he's leaning towards doing it, but he's -- he -- you know, he might mix in some -- some detached as well in there, so -- it allows him to do another extra five feet is what it does on -- if you attach them, you know, on that same size lot. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You probably know this better than I do, since -- does Tuscany have a fence between their pathway and the canal? Schultz: No. Madam Chair and Commissioner Yearsley, they don't. Yearsley: Okay. Schultz: And no pathway that I have been involved with along a natural drain or creek have had them in my experience. Yearsley: Okay. And that's -- that's what I thought, but I couldn't remember. Schultz: Yeah. They are open. They are natural. Even the ones that are -- I mean this is a city pathway and there is plenty city pathways where they are open along these creeks. The Ten Mile Creek especially as you go north they are open through -- I'm thinking of through the south part of Tuscany and I don't remember on the north part of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 23 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 21 of 28 Tuscany, which was done 12, 13 years ago if they had double fencing or not, but I know in the south next to Wells there is not -- where we are building the bridge there is not an extra fence. Yearsley: And by the park and through that area there is no fence between the canal or the -- the drain -- Schultz: Right. Yearsley: -- and that as well, so -- Schultz: Yeah. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Schultz: Thank you. McCarvel: Thanks, Matt. Any public testimony, Chris? Johnson: Madam Chair, there is one person signed in. Stephen Stark. McCarvel: Okay. Stark: My name is Steven Stark and my address is 2630 East Amity Road and my wife Kathy Stark and I own a home with three acres. It's directly across the subdivision across the street on the north side of Amity there and I have two things I would like to talk about. One thing is we went to the neighborhood meeting and there was no talk about attached homes at all. So, I was pretty surprised when he brought that up and I noticed there were no pictures of attached homes, only pictures of houses and stuff. So, I think there is a place for attached homes, but not in the -- what is previously low density. I mean we understood that there were going to be some smaller lots and we know the new R-8 is a small lot and stuff, but I think -- I think attached homes is inappropriate for this part of town. There is not another -- that I know of -- anything close around that's like that. The other thing is I was wondering if it's possible to get a picture of a -- part of our property here where I can point something out and what he -- what he talked about was the replacement of the culvert and the floodplain is along the culvert there -- I mean along the creek and it's on our property and where they are talking about replacement of a culvert there is presently a 40 inch pipe culvert that goes underneath Amity and about a hundred feet down the road where the Meridian path comes along is another 40 inch culvert. So, if you open this culvert up nine foot by 18 foot I heard him say was an example and leave that 40 inch culvert, all that additional water is coming onto our property and it's going to increase our floodplain. Our structure is not in the floodplain and it will -- it will be. It was a very close call. There are structures out of the floodplain when Tuscany developed, they did the entire study of the area. FEMA decided that we were in the floodplain when we weren't. It took us a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 24 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 22 of 28 long time to get it all straightened out. We had to buy flood insurance. We ended up getting the flood insurance off our property and it all settled down and I'm a hundred percent positive that if you open up one side and, then, a hundred feet down the road you don't open up that side, it's going to create a massive problem for us on our property and, in fact, I heard him say that the majority of the water in that open ditch is going to run over to the Ten Mile and so it's going to be even higher than it is presently. So, that is a big problem for me and so my request is that an offsite condition be put in to increase the culvert underneath the Meridian bike path to equal the culvert going underneath Amity. That way it's a neutral effect on our property. So, whatever the reason -- or however they do it, I would like a neutral effect on our property as far as increasing the floodplain of our property. I also would like to request that on note two have the plans it talks about -- after the -- after the culvert is increased that the -- the base flood elevations will be evaluated. I would like to add that after the culvert is changed and the second culvert is changed, then, we measure the -- evaluate the -- the base elevations, because if they just replaced the culvert on Amity and, then, do an evaluation, we are -- we are in the flood zone. So, that is the end of my request and any questions for me? McCarvel: Any questions for -- okay. Thank you. Anybody else in the room who wishes to testify on this application? Certainly. K.Stark: Thank you. My name is Kathy Stark. I live at 2630 East Amity Road. And where he's talking about is that Ten Mile Creek or drain, whatever we want to call it, flows onto our property. So, it's just the corner of our property. So, at the corner there it exits our property underneath the path that goes along the Tuscany walkway and so it's just a small stretch that's actually on our property, but there is two culverts on there. You know, there is one coming underneath Amity and one exiting our property going on down the way where he is talking about where the Wells is. So, that same waterway goes down by the Wells and it's imperative to us that we don't increase our floodplain and cause us that grief. In addition to that he is correct, we did not -- at the neighborhood meeting there was no mention of attached homes. It was all -- and a -- and the new R-8 is quite small and that area is designated low density and I wouldn't consider attached homes low density, so -- and when we talked to them there was, you know, people like small lots. Well, if I can jump from roof to roof I don't really care for it myself and so I think that's inappropriate for our area. So, I would request that they can't have attached homes -- no attached homes and that whatever they do does not increase the water level in the Ten Mile Creek to where it would affect landowners beyond them. Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Excuse me. I have a question. McCarvel: We have a question. Yearsley: That second culvert is not on your property; is that correct? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 25 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 23 of 28 K.Stark: No. Well, actually, it is. It -- because this picture doesn't show. I took some pictures for my husband, but I don't think we got them. Let me see here. So -- McCarvel: Please speak into -- please speak into the mic. K.Stark: I'm sorry. McCarvel: You can bend the mic down to you. K.Stark: Do you see where this black plastic was? That was when Tuscany was developing -- you know, they make them put that up. Underneath there where those white rocks are, that's where there is another culvert that goes through to -- right over here. Yearsley: But that culvert is on the other side of that fence. I would assume that your property doesn't go across that fence; is that correct? K.Stark: Our property is right here and this is where that -- Yearsley: Okay. K.Stark: -- culvert -- the culvert -- you know, honey, is the pipe on our -- does it touch our property? Yearsley: Okay. K.Stark: So -- so, our fence line -- I'm sorry -- Yearsley: Yeah. K.Stark: -- is right here and it's -- Yearsley: And the pipe is on the other side. K.Stark: -- it really hard to see. These rocks are on the other side. So, that's whoever owns that. But it -- but it -- we should have brought the picture. It actually touches -- I mean our grandkids could walk under that if -- Yearsley: Right. K.Stark: Do you know what I'm saying? Yearsley: Right. So, the pipe touches your property, but it doesn't -- is not on -- it doesn't span across your property. K.Stark: No. It goes underneath. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 26 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 24 of 28 Yearsley: Okay. K.Stark: It goes right underneath right under here and across to where that other drain is. Yearsley: Yeah. That's what I was thinking. Thank you. K.Stark: Right there. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Schultz: Yes. Matt Schultz for the record. Appreciate the Starks comment. I remember talking about attached, but my memory is shot and it was about six months ago. But, nevertheless, I don't think -- would I do it as a builder, I don't know. I don't think it's bad, especially if it's owned, it's not a duplex where it's a rental, it's -- it's just -- like I said, you're able to go five foot wider even if you go attached than -- it just has a little bit of architectural differential. Will people pay as much for that? I don't know. It's not my choice. I'm a land guy, not a house guy, and Berkeley Building Company wants the flexibility to attach those. He has shown some -- you know, some -- he's an architect and he can draw up some cool stuff and he likes building the cool stuff and it's just -- it's an option he would like to have and it is allowed per your code in the R-8. I mean the zero line is allowed. It's an allowed condition, we just need to show it on the plat. As far as the flood zone is concerned, it's an interesting situation that I saw as well. We have got two culverts and, obviously, if you open up one and just let it go onto a smaller one downstream, you have just kind of -- you got a problem still. I mean -- so, it's never been our intent to ignore that, to open it up and not do it. I -- they are -- all of these owners, including the Starks, this was a subdivision right next to us, they kind of -- I'm not sure how they got out of dealing with it, but they did. You know, Castle Creek they were approved five years ago. They haven't built yet, but they are going to here soon. And, then, there is us and, then, our other neighbor. We all need to work together and we are willing to go -- go to bat and work out -- do you have an aerial, Bill, with like -- maybe like Google -- do you have like Google aerial -- just come off the street view. You, know, basically, this triangle in here and, obviously, they want the path not to go on their side. They want it to cross, which is fine, but in doing so we have -- we have incurred the cost of either an extra long culvert -- you know, just one continuous to fill that in or -- or two. It might be more cost efficient to do an extra long one and have that pathway just kind of come over through here and come back out where there might be some efficiency, but -- but, then, again, like I said, my initial test and I'm looking forward to working with all my neighbors to design this to make sure everybody comes out as better than we started and we are going to run the letter of map revision after we designed the culverts to show that it's all contained in the ditch and right now I was looking at it, I think that flood zone, based on my map, probably goes real close from the front door. I mean right now. But we -- we haven't even showed up yet and done anything. I mean -- so, we -- we want to take that flood zone, move it away from his front door and put it all the way back in the creek where it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 27 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 25 of 28 belongs and by doing -- by doing the appropriately sized culvert we are confident with the studies that have been done downstream and even to Hill Century Farm, that as long as you don't have a constriction that hundred year flow will stay in the creek and you can remap it, submit to FEMA, you show them all the technical documents and they draw the swath to the creek now and they -- they revise it. So, not only are we going to do the heavy lifting of the work and work out this interesting situation, we have the culvert to make sure nobody gets hurt, but we are also going to -- when we are all done or in conjunction with, we will run it through the Federal Emergency Management Agency and get the letters -- the maps revised to get it down in there. So, I think it's a -- it's a good thing that we are here and that's usually what happens. It takes one guy that has something to gain over here that does the heavy lifting to get one of these situations that nobody wants to do enough -- ACHD has told me they will pay 90 percent of this, as long as we can build out to the five lane future full culvert links and that's where some right of way comes into play. We are just not going to replace it here, it needs to extend out and if you have already extended it out, you may as well extend it the whole way, you know, and how that splits up in the end for us, because ACHD is going to say, well, that's your problem, you know, on the culvert and I'm going to go, okay, that's fine, maybe it's a 70/30 split of the whole thing instead of 90/10. Whatever it is it is. We are here to make it right and so we are going to work through that and we are confident we can work through that with the consultants we have and -- and with the will that we have to get this done and make it a good thing for everybody. So, that's all. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Schultz: Thanks. McCarvel: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we close the public hearing for 2018-0115. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0115. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Well, we have got a -- Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Go ahead. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 28 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 26 of 28 Perreault: Oh, I'm sorry. McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Question for staff. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Perreault: Bill, can you shed some light on why the recommendation was made for the play equipment? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly. I think Matt kind of alluded to it. Originally staff was under the impression that there was a play structure as part of their request. That did not happen. We errored. So, at that point we decided, you know, it makes sense, we know our Commission -- or our Council is -- is big on tot lots as part of developments, so we want to make it inclusionary for everyone. So, staff went ahead and recommended a -- recommended provision of the development agreement that they add an additional amenity. Certainly if the Commission feels that there is adequate amenities with this proposed subdivision, you could certainly look at them or strike that requirement for the tot lot. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. I think I could go either way, with or without the tot lot. I mean if it's a deal breaker for the Commission -- or the Council I guess they can have it. I -- I do think the type of homes that -- especially the ones -- the ones that are closest around there, do tend to attract more empty nester type people and, then, you have got lots on the other end that are big enough to have their own swing set. So, I could go either way, because I think the amenity package is nice as it is. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I agree. I don't know if I necessarily think that we need to have a tot lot on this property. With some of the comments that were brought up about attached homes, there actually are attached homes in this area. The Sobe Subdivision, which just is north of Tuscany off of Eagle Road has multiple attached homes and you really can't tell that they are attached homes and so I don't know if I think that they are necessarily a bad thing. It looks like just a big house. I mean with the smaller homes like this, most times your attached homes are a single story and so it actually looks fairly -- it looks -- it looks like a good product. With regards to the culverts and the flooding, I do appreciate Matt's willingness to work with his neighbors. At this point we cannot put that condition that that second culvert be replaced by him, because it's actually not on its property and we can't force him to -- but his willingness to work with the -- the four adjacent neighbors Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 29 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 27 of 28 to -- and ACHD to try to get that to the best solution as possible I think is commendable. So, with that I would -- I would recommend approval. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Madam Chair, I don't see a lot of concerns either. I appreciate that they are a little bit over what the recommended -- or requirement is for amount of open space. I always like when they put more open space than they need to. I'm kind of one way or another on the tot lot as well. They certainly are a nice amenity to the neighborhoods, but with the pool and a clubhouse that's also a nice amenity that not all neighborhoods have. So, you know, if Council decides they want to include the top lot, I don't think it's a deal breaker one way or another. The attached home products -- I always think it's interesting when you have got such a wide variety of housing products, but I tend to agree with what your comments were just a minute ago, that they don't tend to look like bad products and I would rather see some of those attached products that have the really tall skinny houses that just are maximizing all the square footage they possibly can. I don't think we need to make a condition about fencing the creek either. I haven't seen that in a lot of neighborhoods. I'm not too worried about that. And I agree on the drainage. I think it's -- he is willing to work with the neighbors and it sounds like he's got a plan to make sure they accommodate the neighbors across the street, as well as the future developers for the area. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree with Commissioner Holland. One thing I wanted to add regarding the attached homes. I think they suit this development well, but because housing prices are increasing at such a rapid rate, we are seeing individuals buying homes that -- that are attached and that are what they are calling garden homes that maybe don't fit the typical empty nester or single individual or married couple -- young married couple type of concept, because the prices are just -- are pushing families into those smaller types of homes and so I think you're going to see that shift pretty significantly over the next few years and because that's the case -- I mean I -- I think it's fantastic that they chose to put the location of those around the common area, because that is the case. I agree, I don't know that it necessarily necessitates requiring them to put a tot lot in, but I think we could see a variety of different, you know, groups living in this area, not just -- maybe the individuals who typically buy the attached properties. McCarvel: Yeah. I think my bigger concern is that, yes, given, you know, the R-8 zoning, it always sends -- sends a red flag up to me the minute I start reading and they request a step up in zoning, but I think if we can keep it at the 3.6, which is just barely over the R-4, I think that doesn't cause near as much heartburn for me as some of the others that we have seen and I think -- the variety of homes in the neighborhood lends itself -- I mean just brings in a nice mix of purchasers. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 30 of 143 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 28 of 28 Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council a file number H-2018-0115 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 6th, 2018, with the following modification: That the tot lot be removed and not need to be constructed. Perreault: Second. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2018-0115 with modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT, McCarvel: I know we have one more motion, but I would like to say one more thing. Hi, dad. All right. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we adjourn for the hearing date of Thursday, December 6th, 2018. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:18 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ) h An C x I /w R'1-10DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: oPQbej,,cED AU��sI� a`' w u Cilyor EIDIAN�- � IOAHO x� SEAL 7�"/ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 6, 2018 Page 29 of 28 C. JAY COLES - CITY CLERK Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: December 6, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of the November 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Approve M inutes of November 15, 2018 P lanning and Zoning C ommission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 11/26/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 3 of 267 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: December 6, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 B Project File Number: Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120), Located at 586 N. Locust Grove Road Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for Ferguson P arking Addition (H-2018- 0120), L ocated at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 11/26/2018 E xhibit A E xhibit 11/26/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 150 of 267 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0120 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for 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. Located at 586 N. Linder Rd. in the I-L Zoning District, by Ferguson Enterprises Inc. Case No(s). H-2018-0120 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: November 15, 2018 (Findings on December 6, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 15, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 15, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 15, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 15, 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 151 of 267 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0120 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 15, 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 MCU is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 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 15, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 152 of 267 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the (o day of �aXP rnhQ.Y' , 2018. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED V, COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED \ COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED �J COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED 1 �` COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED \ COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED Ye Rhon a McCarvel, Chairman (aot,91,� , P?O ATEOAttest:C. a o es, lerk SL - 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: Ci O -LJ Dated: �� U City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0120 Page 3 EXHIBIT A 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 154 of 267 EXHIBIT A 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 155 of 267 EXHIBIT A 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 156 of 267 EXHIBIT A 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 157 of 267 EXHIBIT A 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. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on November 15, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject MCU request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: David Crawford, B&A Engineers, applicant representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: David Crawford iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Stephanie Leonard vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 158 of 267 EXHIBIT A Page 6 VII. EXHIBITS A. Previously Approved Site Plan B. Proposed Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 159 of 267 EXHIBIT A 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 160 of 267 EXHIBIT A 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 161 of 267 EXHIBIT A 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. The Commission 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. The Commission 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. The Commission 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. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that 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. 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 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). The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 162 of 267 0 z o ��Fr���z�> F' l/%f k-(JuC LU I IU RJSt, IN U r 7 It' , Rt:mutumui L-)tr1:)11y Kuriyt:-,b Fr�lt:lrt�U LUIlirig Rural Rural/ Estate I unit / 5 acre or less R-2 LDR Low Density I to 3 units/acre R-2, R-4 MDR Medium Density 3 to 8 units/acre R-4, R-8, TN -R MHDR Medium High Density 8 to 15 units/acre R-8, R-15, TN -R HDR High Density 15 or greater units/acre R-15, R-40 O -T Old Town Flexible O -T MU -N Mixed Use Neighborhood 6 to 12 units/acre R-8, R-15, TN -R, TN -C, C -N, L -O MU -C Mixed Use Community 6 to 15 unitslacre R-15, R-40, TWR, TN -C, C -C, L-0 MU -R Mixed Use Regional 6 to 40 units/acre R-15, R-40, TN -C, C -G, M -E MU -1 Mixed use Interchange See Comprehensive Plan See Comprehensive Plan Note: Some designations allow for density bonuses dependent upon meeting other conditions described within the Comprehensive Plan. • �- ■ 111 X11. 11 X11 _ 11r1ti'rti• _ =•f • • f ' tir�S� L •� _d •r = = �1.•'.til f} 1 IIL, � 11 1� � 1 � X51 IC 2 '1 LP t 111 - IIIIIIIIIIYu.-� i IIN1111111 - III II I � . - � ■ - � 115 II III 1 - 11111111 = 1111111 ■uu■ . 111 � ■ 1 — 1■111■ 11 I�1111M INN i 11�11�1� = SIH ■ � — IY11 ■�1' 1�■ ice_ i■ 1 1 11 ■■■■■■■■�� -_=111■-ten ---- - - IN 11 min IN P IRIIIN 111111 1 Illi 1 1111111 1 �� 1� ■ ' ■1■ N , IN IIN11 ' N ■ � L'1 N 1111111111 111 N milli , Im IIIIN1111 111 milli 1 � ■ NN It �� r ening 2 Al WA: E ■ "" 11111 111111111111 IIINII�III WINIIul In mr Illllli I N11111jm�jr�=— . 1 ■ � � 11111 11 Z- -- -- f — IN11.11 �Idlll 11 IN Ly N IIIIII1111 111 1N IIIIN1111 111 1 N NN NN 1 11 ■ = Sp I,1NIt g�g If � —N- e Land Use Map w111tt 1■111■1 HL(CA- 3 Conceptual Building Elevations Legend IMProject Location Item ##4C: TM Crossing Expansion — Toning and Future Land Use Maps R-40 T R 0 TN - _3R-8 R- I- i Legend Project Location r Me.dIu =D.6r Reside n,t'c 0' ed-High :iv Il r.t; 1ResJ,dbntid1U1-M1TFHTT-M LbWLD6Mit - sidentio 4 84. - 7'Mi ked Employment -OVERIAND ■Civic TM - R l � 111 Zoning Map Future Land Use Map CD U. V 1 It .1-1I p . ......... nimiumnu =1111131d) ....... rj ........ .. IL Approved TM Crossing Subdivision OHIIH-1110 -ft 1 mm— ........... . . ..................... L E6 a E -Fl ln7 ti mom w r TM GROSSING EX PANSI 0 N AREA RIF Tm CROSSING EXPANSION AREA � P I I I Project Location 1 1 *Awl, K;;Z 'Awd . _ a m Proposed Zoning m� �f w F" 722.15' 589'4 3`43'E 1x34 -11'S.29 S. TS. 32 E, AMITY RD, S.32 S.1 r 52764 1' 5.3" E 321 203,18' w r 4 N � TEN MILE CREEK 16.x$ cc 4 I 43"$0' 589'41' 22"E 265,00' S69442 2"E 136- 70' C -N 1 11 5 178.5 -df' N '0#F "'E 8 2,20' SE9'41'38"F 489.99' NO'1 a'� 2µE 25.41' 19.9 N UT41' 38"W 1682.41' tq ry �2w NII w ONO lk WA,RRICK SUBDIVISION AMITY ROAD � � ) MERIDIAN IDAHO V -.Yl P • aO'fr 6d C- C'F �5. SRECi+COTU� CITY OF NIERIDIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIRENIENTS LUALIFIED CO -11=,N 6FWA= C*% -H &PACE REWREM31W. 10% Tw 14". IW2M fhli, AO Qualified Open Space �r THr AREA Or loft. Ir"C-ft LANDSCAPE LEGEND M 1,5? M-0 —7. kREA- e23 m. Fd. AREA— 1,1;521 -F. ARFoc� oc —T ARES 21116 SQ. Fr.• Conceptual Building Elevations . ,. •A 16 �' sA& Changes to Agenda: • Item #4A: Alicia Court Sub. — Applicant requests continuance to Dec. 201h Item #4A: 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: Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Summary of Request: Written Testimony: Staff Recommendation: 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- 2018-0107, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 6, 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- 0107, as presented during the hearing on December 6, 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 reason(s) for continuance) Item #413: Pleasant View Elementary (H-2018-0123) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9 acres of land, zoned R-4 and R-8, and is located on the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Road, midway between W. McMillan Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR subdivisions, zoned R-8 South: W. Gondola Dr. (collector) and existing and future SFR subdivisions, zoned R-4 East: Existing and future SFR subdivisions, zoned R-4 West: SFR subdivisions zoned R-8 and R-4 and N. Black Cat Road History: This property was annexed in 2005 and was pre -platted as part of Bainbridge and Volterra North Subdivisions in 2010 and 2013 respectively. A final plat for Gondola Subdivision was approved in November 2018 to create a buildable parcel, where the school is proposed to be located. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: A CUP is requested to construct an approximately 65,000 SF elementary school in an R-4 and R-8 zoning district. The proposed elementary school will accommodate approximately 650 students, ranging from Kindergarten to 5th grade and is proposed to open in fall of 2020 if granted CUP approval. Originally the applicant proposed 2 points of access into the 2 parking lots via W. Gondola Dr. The Fire Dept. requested an additional access point to allow for adequate separation for emergency access. The current proposal includes three access points via W. Gondola Dr.; one to a parking lot for staff and bus traffic on the west and two accesses to a parking lot for parent drop-off and pick up on the east. Parking decreased from 145 spaces to 126 with the addition of the third access, City code does require 130 based on the square footage of the building. If approved, staff will coordinate with the applicant upon CZC and DES submittal to come into compliance. The site as designed does not meet all of the Structure and Site Design Standards regarding parking design and buildable frontage. The applicant is required to submit alternative compliance concurrent with CZC and DES applications to differ from those standards. The applicant plans to accommodate future enrollment with possible portable installation. The specific use standards for education institutions does require a concept plan for future expansion and portable location be included with CZC and DES application. Future parking needs should be considered in that concept plan as well. ACHD wasn't able to complete their staff report in time for this hearing, but did send an email to confirm that they will approve the revised site plan that includes 3 driveways. ITD provided comment that they'd like a signalized light at Black Cat and Chinden, staff recommends the commission decide whether that's a condition they'd like to add to the staff report. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the school. The proposed building is single -story, building materials consist of masonry veneer, structural masonry block and accent metal panels. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC & ASM. Written Testimony: Amber Van Ocker, Applicant's Representative (response to the staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions in staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018-0123, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 6, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0123, as presented during the hearing on December 6, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0123 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4C: TM Crossing Expansion (H-2018-0122) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.68 acres of land, zoned R1 in Ada County, located on the north side of 1-84, east of S. Ten Mile Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North & East: Rural SFR, zoned R1 in Primrose Sub South: 1-84 West: Future commercial/office development, zoned C -G History: This property was included in the Primrose Sub plat and designated as a "public use area" but never developed as such and has been being used as a pasture. This designation was vacated in 1979 & was recently removed from the plat. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR Summary of Request: The Applicant requests annexation & zoning of 1.68 acres of land with a C -G zoning district. Because FLUM designations are approximate and not parcel specific, the applicant requests the adjacent Commercial designation to the west is "floated" to this property. The Applicant has submitted letters from the abutting residential property owners (Atwood's, Hennis', and Plummer's) in support of the request. The proposed C -G zoning is consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation. The applicant proposes to develop the site with a parking lot to serve a future development phase of the TM Crossing development to the west containing professional offices. A 25 -foot wide landscaped buffer and 6' tall fence will be provided along the north & east property boundaries to screen the parking area from the adjacent residential uses. Public access to the parking lot will be provided from the TM Crossing development to the west via Navigator Dr.; emergency access to the commercial development will be provided from the east via W. Verbena Dr. along the north boundary of this site within the existing unimproved ROW. As a provision of annexation, Staff recommends a DA containing the provisions in Section VIII of the staff report including the requirements for the following: 1) a 25' wide landscaped buffer along the north & east property boundaries with a 6' tall privacy fence; 2) a 35' wide landscaped street buffer with a 10' wide multi -use pathway along 1-84; 3) a pedestrian connection from the residential neighborhood to the commercial development to the west; and 4) a pedestrian walkway from the parking lot to the main building entrance. Written Testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation (response to the staff report — in agreement w/staff report provisions) Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement of a DA 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- 2018-0122, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 6, 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- 0122, as presented during the hearing on December 6, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0122 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #41): Warrick Subdivision (H-2018-0115) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 36.22 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 2445 E. Amity Rd. on the south side of Amity, west of S. Eagle Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Future SFR (Castle Creek), zoned R-8 West & South: Existing and future SFR (Whitebark, Southern Highlands, Sky Mesa), zoned R-4 East: Rural residential/ag, zoned RUT in Ada County History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (3 or fewer units/acre) Summary of Request: Annexation & zoning of 36.22 acres of land with the R-4 (19.94 acres) & R-8 (16.28 acres) zoning districts. The annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the west, south & north and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The Applicant requests a "step" up in density from LDR to MDR (3-8 units/acre) without an amendment to the FLUM. In residential areas, the Comp Plan provides for other densities to be considered without requiring an amendment to the FLUM. The gross density proposed is 3.6 units/acre which is only 0.6 units/acre more than allowed within the LDR designation. There is an existing home and several accessory structures on the site that are proposed to be removed prior to development. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 130 building lots and 19 common lots on 36.22 acres of land. A mix of housing types are proposed consisting of single-family detached (106) & attached (24) homes, ranging in size from 1,350 to 4,000 square feet; the average lot size is 7,659 s.f. Per the ACHD report, Amity Rd. is planned to be widened to 5 lanes between Locust Grove & Eagle Roads between 2022 and 2026. A westbound center turn lane is required to be constructed on Amity Rd. at the site access (Fonthill Way). Additional ROW is required to be dedicated & the pavement widened to 17' from centerline w/3' gravel shoulders on Amity Rd. One access is proposed via Amity Rd., a stub street (Scrubpine) at the west boundary is proposed to be extended and stub streets are proposed to the south & east for future extension. ACHD is requiring a road trust to be submitted for 1/2 the projected cost of a crossing over the Ten Mile Creek at the east boundary to be constructed when the adjacent property to the east redevelops. Landscaping is proposed within the development consisting of a 50' wide street buffer along Amity Rd. with a 20' wide berm; parkways along local streets within the development containing mitigation trees; common open space areas and along pathways. A minimum 10% (or 3.62 acres) of qualified open space is required to be provided along with a minimum of 2 qualified site amenities. The applicant proposes to provide 5.46 acres (or 15%) qualified open space consisting of a 2.5 acre park, common area containing pathways, 1/2 the street buffer along Amity Rd., a 50' x 100'(+) common area and common area with a pond. Site amenities are proposed as follows: pedestrian pathways throughout the development and a segment of the City's multi -use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek corridor, a community swimming pool, clubhouse, a sitting area and additional qualified open space (20,000+ s.f.) above the minimum required from the quality of life, recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system categories. Staff also recommends children's play equipment is provided as an additional amenity. The Ten Mile creek runs along the east boundary of the site and is required to remain open as a natural amenity. The Beasley Lateral crosses this site & is proposed to either be relocated, meander north and west through the site, or diverted completely to the SEC pond and the creek — the Applicant is unsure at this time. Fencing is proposed within the development in accord with UDC standards. No fencing is proposed between the multi -use pathway and the creek; The UDC states that fencing along natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway unless determined by Council to be necessary to protect public safety. If Council determines fencing is necessary, a requirement for fencing should be added. Conceptual building elevations and photos were submitted for future attached & detached homes and the clubhouse proposed within the development. The clubhouse and SFR attached units are required to comply with the design standards listed in the ASM. The rear/side of 2 -story homes on lots that face Amity Rd. are required to incorporate articulation since they will be highly visible from the arterial street. Written Testimony: Matt Schultz, Applicant's Representative (response to the staff report) Staff Recommendation: The proposed development exceeds UDC standards for qualified open space & site amenities, proposes a desirable mix in housing types and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC standards. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP applications with a "step" up in density as requested by the Applicant in accord with the Findings 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- 2018-0115, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 6, 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- 0115, as presented during the hearing on December 6, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0115 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: December 6, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Number: H-2018-0107 Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Alicia Court Subdivision. By Riley Planning Services Located at 4036 N 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: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Alicia C ourt Subdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning S ervices, L ocated 4036 E . Granger Ave. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 163 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 164 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 165 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 166 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 167 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 168 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 169 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 170 of 267 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 171 of 267 Page 9 B. Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 172 of 267 Page 10 C. Architectural Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 173 of 267 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 174 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 175 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 176 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 177 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 178 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 179 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 180 of 267 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 181 of 267 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: December 6, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Number: H-2018-0123 Item Title: Meeting Notes: Public Hearing for Pleasant View Elementary By West Ada School District located on the north side of W. Gondola Dr. and East of N. Black Cat Rd. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an approximately 65,000 square foot education institution (elementary school) in and R-4 and R-8 zoning district, I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for P leasant View E lementary (H-2018-0123) by West Ada School District, L ocated on the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. B lack C at 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 12/3/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 182 of 267 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/6/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Pleasant View Elementary Project No.: H-2018-0123 Active: ✓ There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 12/6/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0123 Pleasant View Elementary PROPERTY LOCATION: The north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Road, midway between W. McMillan Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd., in the SW ¼ of Section 27, Township 4N, Range 1W. (Parcel numbers: S0427234000 and S0427314880). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, West Ada School District, has submitted an application for conditional use permit to construct an approximately 65,000 square-foot education institution (elementary school) in an R-4 and R- 8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 22.86 (Final plat for Gondola Subdivision was recently approved to create 9.05 acre buildable lot for school) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use Undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Elementary School Current Zoning R-4 and R-8 Proposed Zoning R-4 and R-8 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) N/A Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: October 11, 2018; 8 attendees History (previous approvals) AZ-05-040, DA Inst. No. 111010393 (Volterra North) and DA Inst. No. 109061598 (Bainbridge); PP-13-011 and PP-10- 004; H-2018-0116; CZC-14-070; FP-15-018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 183 of 267 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) W. Gondola Dr. (collector) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Need to record cross-access agreement spanning lot 1, block 10 of Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 to allow for ingress/egress via 3 proposed access points. Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Black Cat Road – partial sidewalks (in front of developed parcels) McMillan Road – partial sidewalks (in front of developed parcels) Proposed Road Improvements Fire Service  Accessibility Requesting additional emergency access point  Special/resource needs No additional resource needs Police Service  Distance to Police Station 8 miles  Police Response Time 5 minutes  Calls for Service 76 calls between 11/1/2017-10/31/2018  % of calls for service split by priority % of P3 CFS – 2.6% % of P2 CFS – 63.2% % of P0 CFS – 34.2%  Accessibility No issue  Specialty/resource needs No additional resource needs  Crimes 88  Crashes 10  Other Reports N/A Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Approximately 1/3 mile (7.5 acres) West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Hunter Elementary – 1.5 miles Sawtooth Middle School – 2 miles Owyhee High School – 1.9 miles (Recently approved H-2018- 0075)  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 184 of 267 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner West Ada School District – 1303 East Central Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. Representatives: WH Pacific Engineers – 2141 W. Airport Way, Boise, Idaho 83705 LKV Architects – 2400 E. Riverwalk Drive, Boise, Idaho 83706 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 185 of 267 Page 4 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 11/13/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 11/13/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/26/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 11/13/2018 E. Neighborhood meeting date and number of attendees: October 11, 2018; 8 attendees + Applicant V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct an approximately 65,000 square- foot education institution (public elementary school) on 9.05 acres of land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts as required by UDC Table 11-2A-2. The proposed elementary school will accommodate approximately 650 students, ranging from Kindergarten to 5th grade, and is proposed to open in the fall of 2020 if granted CUP approval. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium- density Residential (MDR). MDR designated areas allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). While single-family residential uses are typical in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts, education institution uses are permitted with approval of a CUP. The applicant recently received final plat approval (H-2018-0116) for two lots, one of which is a building lot on 9.05 acres. The other lot is a common lot for the street buffer along W. Gondola Dr., which was included and constructed with the development for Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 final plat. The proposed school will be located on the 9.05 acre buildable lot. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use: A. Comprehensive Plan Policies “Support the location of school sites within every square mile.” (3.02.01B) “Work with West Ada School District so elementary schools are sited in locations that are safe for the children, easily accessible by automobile, transit, walking and bicycle. Elementary schools should not be "hidden" within subdivisions or otherwise made inaccessible to the public.” (3.02.01F) “Ensure compatibility of schools with neighborhoods and adjacent land uses.” (3.02.01J) “Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools, parks and other community gathering places.” (3.07.02N) B. Dimensional Standards Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the applicable zoning district as set forth in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-6 for the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts respectively. The current proposal is in compliance with the standards below. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 186 of 267 Page 5 C. Specific Use Standards The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. The applicant is planning on placement of portables for expansion of classroom space depending on future student enrollment. When this need arises, the applicant shall install portables in accord with UDC 11-4-3-14F: F. Portable Classrooms (Temporary And Permanent): The site plan for all education institutions shall include the location of any future portable classrooms (temporary and/or permanent). 1. Temporary Portables: A temporary portable classroom shall be an accessory use valid for a maximum period of four (4) years from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Temporary portable classrooms that meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a certificate of zoning compliance approval but shall not be subject to design review. b. Temporary portable classrooms that do not meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a conditional use permit but shall not be subject to design review. 2. Permanent Portables: Prior to the termination of the four (4) year permit, the applicant may request to convert a temporary portable classroom to a permanent portable classroom. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 187 of 267 Page 6 a. Permanent portable classrooms that meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval. b. Permanent portable classrooms that do not meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a conditional use permit and design review approval. 3. Permit Termination: Upon termination of the four (4) year permit, the temporary portable classroom approval shall be null and void and the applicant shall remove the structure immediately. 4. Standards: a. The portable classroom shall not be located in the front yard of the principal school structure. b. The portable classroom shall not be located in any required yard. c. The placement of the portable classroom shall not reduce the number of required off street parking spaces. d. The portable structures shall comply with the building code in accord with title 10 of this code. e. Exterior colors of the portable classrooms shall be compatible with the color of the primary school building. f. The roofing material on the portable classrooms shall be of a finish that emits a minimal amount of glare. g. Where the portable classroom is located within two hundred feet (200') of a street and is visible from such a street, the portable classroom shall be screened from view of the street with a minimum of one evergreen tree per fifteen feet (15') of linear structure. The tree shall be a minimum of six feet (6') in height. (Ord. 10-1461, 10-12-2010, eff. 10-18-2010) Staff recommends that the site and landscape plans submitted with CZC and DES applications reflect these standards. D. Access Although UDC 11-3A-3 restricts access to collector roadways, Staff is amenable to granting access via W. Gondola Drive (a collector) since the site would not allow for another point of access. The first proposed site plan depicted two points of access to the site via two full-access driveways into the west and east parking lots on W. Gondola Drive. The Fire Department required an additional access point be added as the original site plan’s access points did not have adequate separation between two access points for the height of the building. The applicant revised their site plan to include a third access point via W. Gondola Dr. fulfilling those requirements. The western driveway is proposed to be aligned with the new residential street, Cedar Grove Drive. The proposed access points intersect a common lot located within lot 1, block 10 in Vicenza Subdivision No. 2. The applicant needs to obtain permission from Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 to cross lot 1, block 10 for the three proposed access points. The applicant shall submit documentation granting access with the CZC and DES applications. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 188 of 267 Page 7 E. Parking Off-street parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with UDC Table 11- 3C-6B. The number of spaces is typically determined by the district. However, in this case because the proposed use is more commercial than residential in nature, staff recommends the commercial standards apply to ensure adequate parking is provided for the use. Based on the proposed square footage of the structure (i.e. 65,000 square feet), a minimum of 130 parking spaces are required; a total of 145 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Per UDC 11-3A-19B-3a, no more than 50-percent of the total off-street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets for properties greater than two acres. The applicant shall be required to request alternative compliance (ALT) per UDC 11-5B-5 for the currently proposed site plan. The ALT request shall meet or exceed the intent of UDC 11-3A-19 and shall be submitted concurrently with the CZC and DES applications. Additionally, the proposed parking area will prevent the applicant from complying with UDC 11-3A-19B-2b which requires that a minimum of 40-percent of the buildable frontage of the property be occupied by building facades and/or public space. The applicant shall submit a request for ALT per UDC 11-5B-5 to deviate from UDC requirements. The ALT request shall be submitted concurrently with the CZC and DES applications. F. Sidewalks and Pathways Sidewalks exist along W. Gondola Drive and San Vito Way to provide pedestrian connection to existing neighborhoods and services. There are gaps in sidewalk connections along W. McMillan Road, N. Black Cat Road, and W. Chinden Boulevard within the typical 1.5 mile walk zone. Access to buses by students within the typical 1.5 mile walk zone will be required until the sidewalk and pathway system is completed in the area. A ten-foot multi-use pathway was provided with the construction of the subdivision in accord with Comprehensive Plan action items #3.03.03B, “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system” and #5.03.01A, “Implement the City’s Pathways Master Plan.” The multi-use pathway will support a needed service in close proximity to residences, businesses and services, in accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.01A, “Provide a walkable community through good design”. Additionally, an asphalt pathway is proposed around the perimeter of the site and will make connection to existing subdivision pathways to the north, west and east sides of the site. G. Landscaping A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Gondola Dr. in accord with UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-6 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Although not required to install a landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses, the applicant is proposing to install a minimum of approximately 15 feet of landscape buffer including trees and vegetative groundcover along the Bainbridge and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 189 of 267 Page 8 Bainbridge Hess Subdivisions to the north, west and east of the site. Landscaping along W. Gondola Dr. and abutting residential uses is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C and in accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.04B, “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscape techniques.” The plan as submitted depicts one row of parking spanning 13 stalls in the western parking lot that should include an interior planter island in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C-2. The current site plan depicts removal of four existing trees along W. Gondola Dr. 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 site. H. Traffic A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was submitted to ACHD for revi ew with this application. The TIS estimates the new elementary school will generate approximately 1,200 daily trips; 435 during the AM peak hour and 221 during the PM peak hour. The location and design of school zones and flashing beacon lights will be addressed during the design review process with collaboration from ACHD staff. Ultimate development and approval of school zones will be through ACHD in cooperation with the West Ada School District. A summary of the intersection and roadway standards evaluation is below, analysis and the full TIS study can be found in the project folder here: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/fol/157714/Row1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 190 of 267 Page 9 ITD has reviewed the TIS and has determined that the intersection of Black Cat Road and Chinden Blvd. should be signalized prior to the school's opening. Staff is unsure if there is adequate right-of-way to ensure the installation of the signal because the roadway may not be improved before the school’s opening. Staff recommends that the Commission determine if the signal at Black Cat Road and Chinden Blvd. intersection as requested by ITD should be required with the construction of the school. I. Site Circulation Bus circulation, student parking, staff parking, parent drop-off circulation, on-site pedestrian routes and a crossing guard plan were evaluated and submitted as part of the TIS. The primary parent drop-off area is proposed to be located in the eastern parking lot and has been designed to allow parents to drop students off curbside. A secondary drop-off is located on an island south of the primary drop-off with a designated crosswalk proposed to ensure children cross safely. Faculty and bus drop-off areas are proposed to be located in the western parking lot. Crossing guard locations have been recommended for consideration and should be finalized with collaboration between ACHD and the West Ada School District. J. Building Elevations The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed building included in Exhibit VII.C. Building materials consist of masonry veneer, structural masonry block, and accent metal panels. The proposed building is single-story with a combination of pitched metal roofing and low slope roofing with parapets to screen rooftop mounted mechanical systems. The three classroom wings will be approximately 23.5 feet in height, the gymnasium portion of the building will be 32 feet in height. The final design of the structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. K. Trash Enclosure A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan in the western parking lot. A detail of the enclosure should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The applicant should coordinate with Republic Services on the design and location of the enclosure. L. Fencing Fencing proposed along the perimeter of the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. In accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #3.02.01J, “Ensure compatibility of schools with neighborhoods and adjacent land uses”, The submitted site plan depicts a 4-foot fence, however no detail has been provided. Staff recommends that the applicant submit fence details prior to the hearing. Additionally, double-fencing is prohibited adjacent to common areas per UDC 11-3A- 7A-7b, the applicant shall coordinate fencing with Bainbridge Subdivision to comply with this requirement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 191 of 267 Page 10 M. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES) If approved, the applicant will be required to obtain approval of a CZC 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. The applicant will also be required to submit an application for DES concurrent with the CZC 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. N. Utilities: a. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject property currently exists in W. Gondola Drive. b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject property currently exists along the west boundary, and along the south boundary in W. Gondola Drive. c. Issues or concerns: None VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit application in accord with the Findings in Section IX per the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 192 of 267 Page 11 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (Dated: November 29, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 193 of 267 Page 12 B. Landscape Plan (Dated: October 15, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 194 of 267 Page 13 C. Building Elevations (Dated: October 18, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 195 of 267 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 196 of 267 Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 197 of 267 Page 16 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-05-040, DA Inst. No. 111010393 and DA Inst. No. 109061598; PP-13-011 and PP-10-004; H-2018- 0116; FP-15-018) associated with this property. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. 3. The site plan, included in Exhibit VII.A, dated November 29, 2018 shall be revised as follows: a. Record a cross-access agreement for access across lot 1, block 10 of Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 to allow for ingress/egress via the 3 proposed access points from W. Gondola Dr. b. Future portable classrooms should be depicted with site/landscape plan for CZC and DES approval. Placement shall be in accord with UDC 11-4-3-14F. 4. The landscape plan included in Exhibit VII.B, dated October 15, 2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Interior parking lot landscaping shall comply with UDC 11-3B-8C-2a. b. 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. c. A revised landscape plan including the three proposed access points shall be submitted with CZC and DES application. d. Prior to Planning and Zoning Commission, details of the perimeter fencing shall be submitted. e. The applicant shall coordinate fencing with Bainbridge Subdivision to comply with UDC 11-3A-7A-7b. 5. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit VII and the conditions of approval in this report. 6. The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) application to the Planning Division for approval of the proposed use and final site layout and building designs prior to submittal of a building permit application. 7. The applicant shall submit a request for alternative compliance to deviate from the UDC Structure and Site Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19B-2b and UDC 11-3A-19B-3a) in accord with UDC 11-5B-5. 8. 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). 9. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 10. The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the educational institution 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 198 of 267 Page 17 obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11- 5B-6F. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 13. All signage for the property is subject to the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D. 14. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record the Gondola final plat (H-2018-0116). 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sanitary sewer and water mains/services are currently available on the subject site. The applicant shall be responsible for the abandonment, per Meridian City standards, of any existing mainlines or services that are not utilized. 2.1.2 At least 2000 gpm of domestic water supply is available at 20 psi at the water main around school. Applicant to coordinate with Public Works Engineering if a higher flow is required. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.2.4 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.5 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 199 of 267 Page 18 2.2.6 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.7 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.8 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.9 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.2.10 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings for any new public water and/or sanitary sewer mainlines, per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.11 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed public sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. The two currently proposed access points are too close together for a 65,000 sq. ft. building. The additional access point will be required for approval of the project. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF REPORT: 1. Police Response Time- The proposed development Pleasant View Elementary School is approximately 8.0 miles from the Meridian Police Department. The expected response time to this area in an emergency is about 5 minutes. Between 11/1/2017 – 10/31/2018 the Meridian Police Department responded to 76 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. Most of these calls were related to thefts. During this same time period the Meridian Police Department responded to 10 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. Most of these crashes 60% were injury related. See attached document for additional details on calls. 2. Accessibility – Access for the Meridian Police Department is not an issue for the proposed development in this area. The roadways surrounding this area are more than adequate and the area already has sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. 3. Resource needs - There are no additional staffing, equipment needs or other resources needed to serve the proposed development. 4. Other comments- The Meridian Police Department already serves this growing area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 200 of 267 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 201 of 267 Page 20 5. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) 6. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) No comment on the subject application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 202 of 267 Page 21 7. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 203 of 267 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 204 of 267 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 205 of 267 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 206 of 267 Page 25 8. IDAHO TRANSPORATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 207 of 267 Page 26 IX. FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request on 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 site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts and the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. 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 education institution in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts is a desired use. 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 education institution should be compatible with agricultural and existing and planned residential 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. 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 VIII 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 were provided to this property with development of the subdivision; services will be extended to the proposed building by the developer. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 208 of 267 Page 27 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. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 209 of 267 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: December 6, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Project File Number: H-2018-0122 Item Title: Public Hearing for TM Crossing Expansion By SCS Brighton, LLC Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd on the North side of 1-84 Request: Annexation and Zoning 1.68 acres of land with a C -G zoning district Meeting Notes: �,� d I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for T M Crossing Expansion (H-2018-0122) by S C S Brighton, L L C , L ocated East of S. Ten M ile Rd. on the North side of I-84 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 12/3/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 210 of 267 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/6/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: TM Crossing Expansion Project No.: H-2018-0122 Active: I" Signature I Wis h To Wish Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral Sign In Date/Time Name Y Testi2295 w verbena Meridian id 12/6/2018 5:55:57 Sylvia hennis X dr 83642 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: December 6, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-489-0578 SUBJECT: H-2018-0122 TM Crossing Expansion PROPERTY LOCATION: East of S. Ten Mile Rd. on the north side of I-84, in the SW ¼ of Section 14, T.3N., R.1W. (Parcel #R7192800750) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 1.68 acres of land with a C-G zoning district for expansion of the TM Crossing site to allow additional parking to be provided in a future development phase. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Details Page Acreage 1.68 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (LDR) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped (pasture) Proposed Land Use(s) NA (floating adjacent Commercial FLUM designation) Current Zoning R1 in Ada County Proposed Zoning C-G Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Purdam Gulch Drain runs along southern boundary of site History (previous approvals) Un-numbered lot in Primrose Sub. designated “public use area” B. Community Metrics Details Page ACHD report (yes/no)  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes No Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 211 of 267 Page 2 Details Page Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access via the TM Crossing development; emergency access via W. Verbena Dr. (no public street access proposed) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Cross-access with adjacent property to west (i.e. TM Crossing) C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: SCS Brighton, LLC – 12601 W. Explorer Dr., #200, Boise, ID 83713 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation – 12601 W. Explorer Dr., #200, Boise, ID 83713 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: November 16, 2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 13, 2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: November 21, 2018 D. Next door posting: November 13, 2018 E. Neighbor meeting date and number of attendees: September 27, 2018; 9 attendees + Applicant Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 212 of 267 Page 3 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed annexation area is within the Area of City Impact boundary and is contiguous to land that has already been annexed into the City. A legal description for the area proposed to be annexed is included in Section VII, Exhibit A. The site consists of land included in the Primrose Subdivision plat designated as a public use area but never developed as such; the site has been being used as a pasture and contains no structures. In 1979, the Meridian City Council vacated the public use area designation on the plat (Ordinance #352). An Affidavit Authorizing Change to Official Plat Record was recorded on September 14, 2018 as Instrument No. 2018-087272, to remove the “public use area” notation on the plat. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for this site is Low Density Residential (LDR), which allows residential densities of 3 or fewer units per acre. The adjacent property to the west is designated Commercial. Because FLUM designations are approximate and not necessarily parcel specific, the Applicant requests the adjacent Commercial designation be allowed to “float” to this property without an amendment to the FLUM. With this request, Staff recommended the Applicant submit letters of support from abutting affected property owners (i.e. Atwood’s, Hennis’, Plummer’s), which the Applicant has done (see Section VII, Exhibit C). The Applicant submitted two (2) options to these property owners for landscape buffers adjacent to their properties; Option 1, which consists of a 25-foot wide buffer with 6-foot tall fence on the property line consistent with UDC Table 11-2B-3, was chosen by all (see Section VII, Exhibit D). Landscaping within this buffer should be provided with development of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-9C. The buffer (or right-of-way along the north boundary) should facilitate pedestrian access from the residential to the abutting commercial development as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 9C.3. Once annexed, the property will be improved as a parking area to serve a future development phase (i.e. professional offices) in the adjacent TM Crossing commercial development to the west; a conceptual development plan is included in Section VII, Exhibit B. The UDC (Table 11-2B-2) allows parking facilities as a principal permitted use in the C-G district; future development must comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G district and the parking standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5. A continuous pedestrian walkway that is a minimum 5 feet in width should be provided from the parking lot to the main building entrance in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4. There is existing unimproved dedicated right-of-way (ROW), 25-feet wide, adjacent to the north boundary of the site. The Applicant proposes to provide an emergency only access to the TM Crossing site from this ROW via W. Verbena Dr. as contemplated with TM Crossing subdivision. Access is proposed via a driveway from the west from Navigator Dr. within the TM Crossing development; public access via W. Verbena Dr. is not proposed or required at this time. If at some point in the future the adjacent homes to the north and east redevelop commercially and the 25- foot wide right-of-way depicted on the Primrose subdivision plat on the adjacent property to the north is dedicated, a public street connection may occur at that time. This site is separated from I-84 by a 15’ wide sliver of land, under different ownership, where the Purdam Gulch Drain is located that appears to be a remnant of land leftover when the interstate was widened. The UDC (Table 11-2B-3) requires a 50-foot wide street buffer to be provided on properties adjacent to Interstate 84 landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (#3.06.02F), which requires appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridors. Although this property doesn’t directly abut I-84, there is not sufficient depth on that property to provide the required buffer and it’s not likely to be improved since it’s not part of a larger parcel. For this reason, staff recommends a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is provided on this site as a provision of annexation. Additionally, Staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 213 of 267 Page 4 recommends the multi-use pathway within the street buffer along I-84 on the adjacent property to the west is extended across this site within the buffer to the east boundary of the site. The City may require a Development Agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation and zoning request pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure compliance with Staff’s recommendation associated with this application, staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions included in Exhibit VIII. Prior to development, an application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative design review is required to be submitted for the proposed parking area to ensure compliance with the DA provisions in this report and UDC standards. VI. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation and zoning application per the Findings in Section IX with the requirement of a Development Agreement including the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 214 of 267 Page 5 VII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description & Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 215 of 267 Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 216 of 267 Page 7 B: Conceptual Development Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 217 of 267 Page 8 Exhibit C: Support from Abutting Property Owners Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 218 of 267 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 219 of 267 Page 10 Exhibit D: Landscape Buffer to Abutting Residential Properties Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 220 of 267 Page 11 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. 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 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 the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan included in Section VII, Exhibit B and the provisions contained herein. 2. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved for the proposed parking lot expansion area prior to construction. The site and landscape plans submitted with those applications shall include the following: a. A 25-foot wide buffer as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C, shall be provided along the north and east property boundaries of the site with a 6-foot tall privacy fence on these property lines as committed by the Applicant to the property owners of Parcels #R7192800490, #R7192800480 & #R7192800470, as shown in Section VII, Exhibit D. b. A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer with a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided along Interstate 84, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. c. If at some point in the future the adjacent homes to the north and east redevelop commercially and the 25-foot wide right-of-way depicted on the Primrose subdivision plat on the adjacent property to the north (Lot 7, Block 3) is dedicated, a public street connection may be required at that time. d. A pedestrian connection shall be provided from the residential neighborhood (i.e. Primrose Subdivision) to the commercial development to the west in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. The location of the pedestrian connection may be within the right-of-way adjacent to the north property boundary. e. A continuous pedestrian walkway that is a minimum 5 feet in width shall be provided from the parking lot to the main building entrance in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 221 of 267 Page 12 B. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 222 of 267 Page 13 C. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 223 of 267 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 224 of 267 Page 15 D. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 225 of 267 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 226 of 267 Page 17 E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 227 of 267 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 228 of 267 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 229 of 267 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 230 of 267 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 231 of 267 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 232 of 267 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 233 of 267 Page 24 IX. FINDINGS 1. ANNEXATION & ZONING (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a rezone, 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-G zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation of Commercial that is being “floated” to this site from the adjacent property to the west. (See section V 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-G zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial district per UDC 11-2B-1. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The abutting neighbors have submitted letters in support of the proposed map amendment. 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 is in the best interest of the City. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 234 of 267 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: December 6, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 D Project File Number: H-2018-0115 Item Title: Public Hearing for Warrick Subdivision By Schultz Development Located at 2445 E. Amity Rd Request: Annexation and Zoning of 36.22 acres of land with an R-4 (19.94 acres) and R-8 (16.28 acres) zoning districts. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots and 19 common lots on 36.22 acres of land Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Warrick Subdivision (H-2018-0115) by S chultz D evelopment, L ocated at 2445 E. Amity 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 12/4/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 235 of 267 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/6/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-D Project Name: Warrick Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0115 Active: I" Signature I Wis h To Wish Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral Sign In Date/Time Name Y TestiSteven 2630 E Amity Meridian, ID 12/4/2018 6:27:20 Stark X X Road 83642 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 HEARING DATE: 12/6/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0115 Warrick Subdivision LOCATION: 2445 E. Amity Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation & zoning of 36.22 acres of land with R-4 (19.94 acres) and R-8 (16.28 acres) zoning districts; and Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots and 19 common lots on 36.22 acres of land. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT (REVISED) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 36.22 Future Land Use Designation LDR (low density residential – 3 or fewer units/acre) Proposed Future Land Use Designation Request for “step” up in density to MDR (medium density residential – 3 to 8 units/acre) without a change to FLUM Existing Land Use Rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) SFR (Single-family residential) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-4 and R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 149 residential lots – 130 building/19 common Phasing plan (# of phases) 4 Number of Residential Units (type of units) 130 (SFR attached/detached) Density (gross & net) 3.59/5.7 Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 5.72 (or 15.8%)/park, Ten Mile Creek with multi-use pathway, micro-path, arterial buffer Amenities Multi-use pathway, swimming pool, clubhouse, benches Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Ten Mile Creek runs along east boundary Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: August 6, 2018; 3 + Applicant Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 236 of 267 Page 2 B. Community Metrics History (previous approvals) None Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One (1) access proposed via E. Amity Rd., an arterial street Traffic Level of Service Better than “E” (= acceptable) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Extension of E. Scrubpine St. from the west; stub streets proposed to the south and east for future extension Existing Road Network Public Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers None Proposed Road Improvements Dedicate additional right-of-way (ROW) to total 48’ from centerline of Amity and widen Amity to 17’ from centerline Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 2.2 miles to Fire Station #4  Fire Response Time 4 minutes (under ideal conditions)  Resource Reliability 79% (does not meet the targeted goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 2 (resources would be adequate to supply service)  Accessibility Project meets all required road widths & turnarounds; limited to 30 building permits until a secondary access is completed.  Special/resource needs This project will not require an aerial device  Water Supply 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour is required Police Service  Distance to Police Station 3.5 miles  Police Response Time 4+/- minutes  Calls for Service 412 between 11/1/2017-10/31/18 (within 1 mile of site)  % of calls for service split by priority % of P3 CFS – 0.5% % of P2 CFS – 57.5% % of P1 CFS – 40.8% % of PO CFS – 1.2%  Accessibility No issues  Specialty/resource needs No additional staffing, equipment or other resources needed  Crimes 8  Crashes 0 West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs)  Capacity of Schools/# of students currently enrolled Hillsdale Elementary – 650 capacity (751 enrollment); Victory Middle School – 1000 capacity (928 enrollment); Mountain View High School – 1800 capacity (2303 enrollment) Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services  Sewer Shed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s  WRRF Declining Balance  Project Consistent with Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 237 of 267 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Water  Distance to Water Services  Pressure Zone  Estimated Project Water ERU’s  Water Quality  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan  Impacts/Concerns Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 238 of 267 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Schultz Development, PO Box 1115, Meridian, ID 83680 B. Owner: Paul Warrick, 2445 E. Amity Rd., Nampa, ID 83642 C. Representative: Matt Schultz, Schultz Development, PO Box 1115, Meridian, ID 83680 IV. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE DATES Planning & Zoning City Council Legal notice published in newspaper 11/16/2018 Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/13/2018 Nextdoor posting 11/13/2018 Public hearing notice sign posted on property 11/21/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://meridiancity.org/planning/files/CompPlan-180220-Web.pdf) The site is designated LDR (Low Density Residential), which allows for the development of single-family homes on large lots where urban services are provided. Uses may include single- family homes at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. The Applicant requests a “step” up in density to MDR (Medium Density Residential) without an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The MDR designation allows 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. The gross density of the proposed development is 3.6 units per acre. In residential areas, the Comprehensive Plan provides for other densities to be considered without requiring an amendment to the FLUM; however, the density can only be changed one “step” (i.e. from low to medium, not low to high). The gross density of the proposed development is 3.6 units per acre which is only 0.6 unit per acre more than allowed in the LDR designation. Staff is amenable to the request as it’s only a slight increase. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://meridiancity.org/planning/files/CompPlan-180220-Web.pdf)  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D)  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B)  “Develop pathways to connect Meridian with Boise, Nampa, Kuna and Eagle.” (6.01.02C)  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03C) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 239 of 267 Page 5  “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)  “Evaluate the need for new residential development to provide permanent perimeter fencing, and fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties.” (3.05.02G)  “Require appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).” (3.06.02G)  “Require new residential development to meet development standards regarding landscaping, signage, fences and walls, etc.” (3.05.02C)  “Require usable open space to be incorporated into new residential subdivision plats.” (3.07.02A)  “Incorporate creek corridors as an amenity in development design.” (5.09.01E) C. Annexation Area: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the west, south and north and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one (1) existing home and several accessory structures on this site that will be removed. E. Proposed Use: The applicant proposes to construct (24) single-family attached dwellings ranging in size from 1,350 to 1,550 square feet on the perimeter of the park and along Amity Rd.; and (106) single- family detached dwellings ranging in size from 1,350 to 4,000 square feet. Single-family attached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 zoning district; and single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The proposed attached and detached homes will provide diversity in housing types as desired in the Comprehensive Plan. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district; and 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district. The proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the applicable district, except for the street frontage of Lot 25, Block 4 which should be revised to reflect a minimum 30 foot frontage unless access is to be provided via the common driveway in which case the minimum frontage standard doesn’t apply. Future structures should comply with the minimum setbacks of the district. Lots for attached homes shall depict zero lot lines (setbacks) on the interior/shared property line. G. Transportation: Per the ACHD report, Amity Rd. is planned to be widened to 5 lanes between Locust Grove Rd. and Eagle Rd. between 2022 and 2026. The proposed development is estimated to generate 1,227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 240 of 267 Page 6 vehicle trips per day; 129 per hour in the PM peak hour, based on the Traffic Impact Study which will function at better than “E” which is an acceptable level of service. A westbound center turn lane is required to be constructed on Amity Rd. at the site access (Fonthill Way). Additional right-of-way is required to be dedicated to total 48 feet from centerline of Amity Rd. and widen the pavement to 17 feet from centerline with a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder abutting the site. Zeller St., which stubs at the east boundary, is required by ACHD to be relocated approximately 375 feet to the south between Lots 11 and 12, Block 7. H. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): One access is proposed via E. Amity Rd., an arterial street; a stub street (i.e. E. Scrubpine St.) at the west boundary is proposed to be extended; and stub streets are proposed to the south and east for future extension in accord with UDC standards. ACHD is requiring the Applicant to submit a road trust for ½ the projected cost of construction of a crossing over the Ten Mile Creek to be constructed when the adjacent property to the east develops. Local streets are proposed for circulation within the development. The proposed access is consistent with Comprehensive Plan action item #3.06.02D and UDC 11- 3A-3 which restricts access points on arterial streets; only one access is proposed via the arterial street (i.e. E. Amity Rd.). I. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Two 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 for the common driveway(s) 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. J. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit (i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad) in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Two- and three-car garages are proposed with parking pads in front of the garages in accord with UDC standards. K. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Micro-paths between building lots and pathways through the large common area are proposed within the development; and a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek; coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren, Park’s Department. The proposed pathways/sidewalks provide connections to adjacent cities and developments in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 241 of 267 Page 7 L. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed along E. Amity Rd. and throughout most of the development with only a few segments of attached sidewalks, in accord with UDC standards. M. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed throughout most of the development landscaped with Class II trees; parkways are provided to accommodate the required mitigation trees and are not otherwise required. N. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Amity Rd. as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-6, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 50-foot wide buffer with a 20-foot wide berm is proposed, landscaped in accord with UDC standards and the Comprehensive Plan. Parkways along local streets within the development are proposed consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E as proposed. Landscaping along pathways is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C as proposed. 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. A total of 130 caliper inches of trees are proposed to be removed from the site that requires mitigation. Mitigation calculations are included on the landscape plan in accord with UDC standards; mitigation trees are proposed to be provided within parkways along local streets within the development. O. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Based on 36.22 acres of land included in the preliminary plat, a minimum of 10% (or 3.62 acres) qualified open space is required; a total of 5.46 acres (or 15%) is proposed consisting of a 2.5 acre park; common area containing pathways; half the street buffer along E. Amity Rd., an arterial street; a 50’ x 100’ (+) common area; and common area with a pond, which exceeds the minimum standards and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Parkways with detached sidewalks are also proposed within the development to accommodate mitigation trees which adds to the open space beyond what is proposed and depicted on the qualified open space exhibit in Section VII.D. P. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on 36.22 acres of land included in the preliminary plat, a minimum of (2) qualified site amenities are required to be provided. Proposed amenities consist of the following: pedestrian pathways throughout the development and a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek corridor, a community swimming pool, clubhouse, a sitting area and additional qualified open space (20,000+ s.f.) above the minimum required from the quality of life, recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system categories. The proposed amenities exceed the minimum required by the UDC and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; however, staff recommends children’s play equipment is also provided within the development. A detail of the play equipment should be submitted with the final plat application. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the clubhouse and swimming pool. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 242 of 267 Page 8 Q. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Ten Mile Creek runs along the east boundary of this site. As a natural waterway, it’s required to remain open as a natural amenity and should not be piped or otherwise covered and should be improved and protected with development in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC 11- 3A-6. The Beasley Lateral also crosses this site and is proposed to either be relocated, meander north and west through the site, or diverted completely to the southeast corner pond and the creek; the Applicant is unsure at this time. R. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Six-foot tall closed vision fencing is proposed at the rear of building lots adjacent to common areas that are entirely visible from streets; and 6-foot tall open vision fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas and pathways that are not entirely visible from streets. There is existing vinyl fencing along the west boundary of the site installed with Whitebark Subdivision; and fencing will be installed along the southern boundary with the adjacent Southern Highlands/Sky Mesa developments. No fencing is proposed between the multi-use pathway and the Ten Mile Creek. The UDC (11-3A-6) states that fencing along natural waterways (i.e. the Ten Mile Creek) shall not prevent access to the waterway; in limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council, Director and/or Public Works Director. Council should determine if a fence is necessary along the creek to preserve public safety. S. 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 as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D; if applicable, compliance is required. T. Open Water Ponds (11-3G-3B.8) An irrigation pond is proposed on Lot 1, Block 7. 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. U. 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. V. Floodplain 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. W. 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. See Section VIII-B Below for Public Works comments/conditions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 243 of 267 Page 9 Pressure irrigation will be provided by the New York Irrigation District via a new regional pump station for 80 acres in the southeast corner of the site. The Beasley Lateral is proposed to be routed from the north boundary at Sky Mesa to an aerated irrigation storage pond, pump station, and overflow to the Ten Mile Creek at that location per the Applicant’s narrative. X. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations and photos were submitted for future attached and detached homes within the development, single-story and 2-stories in height, and the proposed clubhouse based on existing and proposed elevations from Berkeley Building Company included in Section VII.E. Building materials consist of a mix of materials varying from different types/styles of siding to stucco with stone veneer accents (see Exhibit F in Section VII.) Single-family attached dwellings are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual per UDC 11-5B-8B; detached homes are exempt from this requirement. Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes will be highly visible from the arterial street (i.e. E. Amity Rd.), 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 A. Staff: The proposed development exceeds UDC standards for qualified open space and site amenities, proposes a desirable mix in housing types and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC standards. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP applications with a “step” up in density as requested by the Applicant in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 244 of 267 Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation and Zoning Boundary Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 245 of 267 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 246 of 267 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 247 of 267 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 248 of 267 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 249 of 267 Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 250 of 267 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 251 of 267 Page 17 B. Preliminary Plat (dated: 10/2/2018) C. Landscape Plan (date: 10/3/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 252 of 267 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 253 of 267 Page 19 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit (date: 10/24/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 254 of 267 Page 20 E. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 255 of 267 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 256 of 267 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 257 of 267 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 258 of 267 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 259 of 267 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 260 of 267 Page 26 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. 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 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 the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The Ten Mile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered and shall be improved and protected with development. c. A minimum of 5.46 acres (or 15% of the site) of qualified open space shall be provided within the development consisting of a 2.5 acre park; common area containing pathways; half the street buffer along E. Amity Rd., an arterial street; a 50’ x 100’ (+) common area; and common area with a pond. d. At a minimum, site amenities shall be provided within the development consisting of pedestrian pathways throughout the subdivision and a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek corridor, a community swimming pool, clubhouse, children’s play equipment, a sitting area and additional qualified open space (20,000+ s.f.) above the minimum required from the quality of life, recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system categories. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Lot 25, Block 4 shall have a minimum 30-foot wide street frontage unless access is to be provided via the common driveway. b. Relocate E. Zeller St. to the south approximately 375 feet as required by ACHD. c. Depict zero lot lines on the interior/shared lot lines where attached units are proposed. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Relocate E. Zeller St. to the south approximately 375 feet as required by ACHD. 4. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located; coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren, Park’s Department. 5. A detail of the tot lot play equipment shall be submitted with the final plat application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 261 of 267 Page 27 6. For lots accessed by common driveways, 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. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, 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. 8. An irrigation pond is proposed on Lot 1, Block 7. 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 in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.8. 9. All single-family attached dwellings are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual per UDC 11-5B-8B; an application for Design Review is required to be submitted and approved for all single-family attached dwellings prior to application for building permits. 10. The rear and/or sides of 2-story homes on Lots 2-8, Block 1 and Lots 2-3, Block 2 that are visible from the arterial street (i.e. E. Amity Rd.) are required to 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 public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement 11. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to application for building permits for the clubhouse and swimming pool. 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 1.2 As proposed, the water distribution network can supply 1,500 gpm flow at build-out. Each phase will need to be modeled individually at the time of platting. 1.3 Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District, a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6. 2 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 December 6, 2018 – Page 262 of 267 Page 28 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. 2.10 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 263 of 267 Page 29 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. 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/157339/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 264 of 267 Page 30 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/158583/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/158321/Page1.aspx F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157941/Page1.aspx G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157492/Page1.aspx H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157866/Page1.aspx I. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157711/Page1.aspx J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157975/Page1.aspx K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/158582/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 265 of 267 Page 31 IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required 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 and/or rezone, 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 36.22 acres of land with R -4 and R-8 zoning districts and to develop 130 new single-family residential homes. Staff finds that the proposed map amendment complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if a “step” up in density is approved by the City Council as requested by the Applic ant. (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 (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Staff finds that the annexation of the site is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 266 of 267 Page 32 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.) 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. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05- 1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 6, 2018 – Page 267 of 267