Loading...
2018-12-20MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance __X__ Lisa Holland __O__ Steven Yearsley __O__ Gregory Wilson __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __O__ Jessica Perrault __X__ Bill Cassinelli __X__ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of December 6, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing for Bainbridge Franklin (H-2018-0057) by Steve Bainbridge, Located at 2075 and 2155 W. Franklin Rd. Continued To January 3, 2019 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.68 acres of land with a C-G zoning district B. Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018-0090) by A Team Consultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. Continued to February 7, 2019 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 multi-family building lots and 7 common lots on 3.99 acres; and 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit For a multi-family development consisting of 60 multi-family residential units within 15 multi-family structures on 3.99 acres of land in an existing C-C zoning district; and 3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to change an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan C. Public Hearing Continued from December 6, 2018 for Alicia Court Subdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning Services, Located 4036 E. Granger Ave. Recommend Approval with Modifications to City Council – Scheduled 01-22-2019 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 D. Public Hearing for Entrata Farms (H-2018-0125) by FIG Village at Parkside, LLC, Located 3880 and 3882 W. Franklin Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled 01-22-2019 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 19.07 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and 2. Request: a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 238 dwelling units on 18.18 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district; and 3. Request: a Preliminary Plat consisting of 67 building lots and 3 common lots on 18.18 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district E. Public Hearing for Villasport (H-2018-0121) by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located the SW corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd. Recommend Approval with Modification to City Council – Scheduled 01-22-2019 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor and outdoor arts, entertainment or recreation facility earlier than 6:00 AM on 11.39 acres in the C-G zoning district; and 2. Request: Modification to a Development Agreement to modify an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan Meeting Adjourned at 9:15 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 20, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 20, 2018, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Sonya Allen, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Lisa Holland _______ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald ______ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20th, 2018, and will begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda McCarvel: Thank you. At this time the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We do have a request for continuance on Item 4-A, the hearing for Bainbridge Franklin No. H-2018-0057. So, that item will be opened only for the purpose of continuing and so there will be no testimony taken on that application this evening. So, could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Holland: So moved. Cavener: 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] Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 4 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 2 of 64 A. Approve Minutes of December 6, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have one item on the Consent Agenda, to approve the minutes of the December 6th, 2018, Commission meeting. All those -- could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: 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 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. There is a sign-up tablet in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent that group, they will be given up ten minutes and there is a timer on your screen and a quiet bell will signal the end of your time. 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 for Bainbridge Franklin (H-2018-0057) by Steve Bainbridge, Located at 2075 and 2155 W. Franklin Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.68 acres of land with a C-G zoning district McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2018-0057, Bainbridge Franklin. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 5 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 3 of 64 Fitzgerald: I move to continue file number H-2018-0057 to the date of January 3rd as requested by the applicant. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue item H-2018-0057. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018-0090) by A Team Consultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 multi-family building lots and 7 common lots on 3.99 acres; and 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit For a multi-family development consisting of 60 multi-family residential units within 15 multi-family structures on 3.99 acres of land in an existing C-C zoning district; and 3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to change an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan McCarvel: So, we will move on and continue the public hearing from November 15th, 2018, Item H-2018-0090, Alpina Townhomes -- Townhouse Subdivision and we will begin with the current staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. There is two applications before you tonight. There is a request for a development agreement modification that does require Council action, that does not require Commission action. There is a preliminary plat and conditional use permit before you tonight. The site consists of 3.99 acres of land. It's zoned C-C and located at the northeast corner of North Linder and West Ustick Roads. This property received annexation and short plat approval back in 2014 as Sugarman Subdivision, but never developed. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat. This is just -- let me detour here for just a second. This is a copy of the previous site plan -- and I will get into this revised site plan later. I apologize, I am presenting for someone else tonight and it looks like that the preliminary plat didn't get in here, but it appears that the lot lines are shown on here, so we should be good on that. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat, a development agreement modification, and conditional use permit application to develop their proposed multi-family lots with 60 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 6 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 4 of 64 dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 15 units per acre. On November 15th the Planning and Zoning Commission continued this project to allow the applicant time to coordinate the design of the project, so it would better -- provide better integration with the surrounding underdeveloped county property. Items for discussion included a cross-access with adjacent properties. A public street extension with ACHD. Possibly floating the mixed use community designation onto the northern property to allow this property and surrounding properties to develop with a mix of uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So, I'm going to back up for a minute. It looks like that's the one that you reviewed last time it was before you and since that time the applicant has submitted a revised plan as shown. Since the last public hearing the applicant has met with ACHD and the surrounding property owners. Those conversations have resulted in modifications to the site plan plat, which has been included as part of the public record and as shown. Changes to the plan include reorienting several of the buildings to the northwest and southwest corners. Removal of the access to Linder Road. More open space and amenities and cross-access drive aisles along the north project boundary. Further Ada County Highway District indicated that a public street is not desired with the construction of a development and staff did -- did receive an e-mail from the buyer of the Vogel property supporting the location of the northern driveway location. In discussions with the applicant cross-access will be provided to the east property boundary for interconnectivity. The applicant has also provided a conceptual road layout that depicts how the adjacent properties could potentially redevelop -- develop and provide interconnectivity and that's shown there before you. In reviewing the record the Commission was supportive of floating the mixed use community designation across the Vogel property to ensure a broad mix of uses develop in this area. In the Commission deliberation it was discussed that commercial could develop along Linder Road, with better access away from the intersection. Based on those discussions, the applicant has not incorporated another land use within the proposed development. Staff finds that the applicant has addressed most of the concerns discussed during the last meeting. Staff is supportive of the new plan. However, conditions of approval have not been incorporated into the staff report due to staff's recommendation for denial of the project. If the Commission determines a single use is appropriate for this site and recommends approval of the project, staff has prepared conditions of approval for the Commission's consideration. Written testimony has been received from Dave Manning on this project and staff is recommending denial, as I mentioned. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Sonya, is the main condition that you're recommending denial over just the lack of multiple uses? Allen: Yes. Yeah. It is a mixed use designation. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Arnold: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record Steve Arnold. A Team Land Consultants. 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. As Sonya has reiterated, we did -- since the time of our last hearing we did meet with ACHD. We looked at the option of a driveway -- or a public road on Linder and onto Ustick and it was reiterated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 7 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 5 of 64 that those were much too close for public street connections. They have given me the direction that there will most likely be a street that aligns with the road on the south side of Ustick as depicted in my conceptual layout there and that the next full access would be at least 600 feet north and that's how I kind of laid out that vision and what I have seen how the area developed. As a part of the layout we also did meet with the owners to the north and discussed where to locate the drive aisle and at that time, too, we discussed about eliminating the driveway out to rot Linder, so that we could get another right-in, right-out further to the north onto their property. As part of the redesign we did drop two of the -- the duplex building and the six-plex building and replaced it with the four-plex and, then, increased the open space in that general area. The overall amenities for the rest of the site that -- we are still keeping the putting green, the community garden and the dog park gazebo area, along with increasing the amenity there towards the west. Those were the main changes. I think staff reiterated most of everything that has occurred on the property. We have read through all the draft conditions and it was my understanding that staff was now recommending approval of the modification pending the Commission approving floating that mixed use as mentioned. So, with that being said I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Steve, can you repeat that last -- the last thing you said? You were under the impression that you were -- that they were going to approve it based on -- Arnold: In the -- in the staff memo that was prepared -- Cassinelli: Uh-huh. Arnold: -- it said -- it stated that staff was supportive of the modifications and the new site plan. Cassinelli: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Steve, one question for you. I know one of the things we asked when this was before us for the first time was having conversations with the neighbors of what their potential development plans would be and how they might integrate in. Could you share a little bit more about, you know -- I know you removed some of the commercial piece that was on here. Did they indicate that on the northern piece that they would want to do more commercial? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 8 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 6 of 64 Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I don't think their -- their main focus is on the commercial. In our -- in the discussions I met with actually the buyer and the developer who is buying it and will be developing it and we went over some of these concepts with them and at the time they were supportive of them. They are here tonight to offer testimony as well. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, just for clarification, so as Steve has said, it says that the staff is in support of the new plan. Can you clarify, just so we are all on the same page in regards to -- we understand that there is conditions of approval that are not in the current staff report, but does that change your recommendation or is there just -- you're okay with the new plan if we want to move forward with the floating of the mixed use? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, yes, staff is supportive of the revised plan if the Commission determines that single use is appropriate on the property. McCarvel: All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Do we have any public testimony? Johnson: Madam Chair, they are no sign-ins. McCarvel: No sign-ins. That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on this application? Certainly. Come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Ferney. Greg Ferney. 4549 North McKinsey Lane in Boise. 83703. McCarvel: Will you step closer to the mic. Ferney: Sure. I apologize for that. Anyhow, I am one of the developers on this particular property to the north and so I was not -- I have another two individuals that I'm doing this with. I was not present at the meeting with Mr. Arnold, but what I would propose for today -- certainly based upon the staff's recommendation is we feel like we need a little bit more time with Mr. Arnold, both of -- our engineer and architect in order to have the proper flow and make sure that certainly the development that he does will be -- if nothing more at least neutral to what we are proposing as well. So, at this point right here we would just ask for additional time to do that with Mr. Arnold. Thank you. McCarvel: I do have a question for you. About what is the percentage of you thinking on that development for commercial and -- versus residential? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 9 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 7 of 64 Ferney: That's a very good question. We have two different paths that we are looking to go down right now. One, candidly, would have much less commercial on that particular site and it would be more residential in nature, depending upon, again, which path that we are going to go down, you know, one would be certainly more commercial, one would be more residential, but that's kind of in the beginning stages right now and so we just need additional time, you know, not even very long, but just so that we can make sure that we are all on the same page and develop that -- you know, our 13 acres that goes well with what Mr. Arnold is wanting to do as well. McCarvel: And how much time are you thinking? Ferney: If we could have -- I know we got the holidays and Christmas and New Year's, but we need to have our engineer to put -- and the people to put together the site design already for ours, I'm hoping if we had three weeks that we would be able to -- that would be ample time. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other questions for this person? No? Okay. Thank you. Ferney: Thank you. McCarvel: Anyone else in the room wishing to testify on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come -- oh. Sure. Brown: For the record Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood. As I look at the site and -- and if I was asked to try to put commercial there, it's kind of really difficult -- commercial or even an office and the reason being is the access. You can't have access to Linder Road. The highway district's making us be 660 feet away from those intersections anymore with access. Me and my wife had a gift and flower shop in Meridian and we did better when they can see our place and how you get to the front door and we ended up being in the little farmhouse there off Fairview and we had so many people that just -- you would think that going right straight into the barn and going over 25 feet was pretty easy for them to find us, but it was difficult and as I look at that, having that other kind of use is kind of difficult, but that's probably why it hasn't developed. Just my experience. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Arnold: Madam Chair, I guess in response to one of the buyers there, I did meet with the other two. At that time they were in concurrence with that. What I would request that the Commission finds that this use is appropriate for that corner, perhaps instead of table it, condition us to have something, you know, ironed out with the owners prior to the City Council meeting and -- because it's basically all -- I could locate that northern cross- access pretty much anywhere on our site and it doesn't affect unit count, parking or anything, for that matter, or fire. I don't know if I presented that earlier. I did meet with fire and they were in agreement with the elimination of the driveway on Linder. So, it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 10 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 8 of 64 doesn't affect anything, other than what may or may not happen to the north. So, I would request that if the Commission finds that use compatible, that you condition as an additional condition that we coordinate an agreed upon location. I apologize, but I thought we had that before coming here. McCarvel: Well, I'm thinking -- I mean the other big part of this is not just the access, but their willingness to let that commercial -- the commercial use float up to their property, but -- I mean that's one of the -- and I agree that the commercial probably doesn't work best down in this corner, but with you guys having the properties that kind of need to work together to make that all happen. But we can decide that in deliberation, so -- any other questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Steve, one of the things looking back on -- I think from a couple -- last month, you had also -- we were talking about up front -- right there, right in the corner of Ustick and Linder, to have some commercial in there. An office building, something of that nature. Is that -- we did talk about that; correct? Arnold: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yeah, we did -- there was that discussion and, then, in closing it was brought back up and I wanted to ascertain from the Commission at that time as to -- you know, my drawing is going to come back, I'm going to show all of -- of multi-family use and it was my impression from the Commission at that time that that wasn't -- that was an acceptable use. Granted it was never voted on, but it was the direction. Otherwise, I would have looked at different options that possibly putting commercial, but, again, it's not the best location for it due to the access. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more quick question about parking. It looks like you're proposing 143 parking spaces when there is 120 required and our UDC code requires one covered space per unit, I believe, of the two parking spaces. Can you help us see -- are any of these planned to be covered spaces, too? Arnold: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, 50 percent will be covered as code requires. We usually don't indicate that until usually at design review. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. All right. There being no other questions for the applicant, could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Fitzgerald: So moved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 11 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 9 of 64 Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing -- okay. Yeah, sure. Fitzgerald: I will remove my motion, Madam Chair. McCarvel: All right. Thank you. Fritz: My name is Cindy Fritz and I am at 4400 West Pasadena Drive, Apartment 45, in Boise, Idaho, and I represent the owner -- or current owner of the north property. So, I was at the hearing as well two weeks ago and my remembrance of that is that you were requesting both properties to kind of work together and ensure that there was mixed use on both properties. You know, we had talked about maybe putting some commercial on the corner and that it would have access through some of this connectivity that you were requesting. I think I would agree with sitting back and letting both properties kind of work together and ensure maybe we can have mixed use on both properties with the connecting roads and I think it would be in everybody's best interest to ensure that we have kind of one plan and that was something I also heard from you guys is let's sit back and instead of doing this piece by piece, let's look at it as one piece, so we can have kind of a good thought process. Thank you for your time. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. McCarvel: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would move we close the public hearing on 2018-0090. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-0090. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- Steve, I really appreciate the work you did and I think you took our comments and went back to them. I tend to think that this is going to be hard to put commercial, really, on that hard corner, but I also -- I don't want to delay you anymore, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 12 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 10 of 64 but I do think you -- having a conversation between the two parties is important in this piece of property, especially with the connectivity to the projects to the northeast, too. So, that's my -- I would like to see what the whole thing looks like when they are -- after they get done having a conversation. McCarvel: Yeah. I would tend to be in agreement. I think this has sat -- sat vacant for a long time and undeveloped and I think it's too small pieces of property that probably work together better as one just because of the access and the mixed use designation. So, I think just taking a -- just tapping the brakes just a little bit -- Fitzgerald: A little bit more time. McCarvel: -- and letting both properties workout and present their cases. Cassinelli: I would agree on the time aspect. I would disagree a little bit on the -- on the commercial aspect on the hard corner. If you look to the north to McMillan and Linder, all four corners there are commercially developed and access doesn't seem to be an issue, but I do -- we did talk about that at the last hearing on this, that we wanted them to work together. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: They have had little conversations, but they are not -- I think the whole idea is to really sit down and plan it as -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- as almost one -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- project. McCarvel: Because this piece of property on its own doesn't have the access that I think commercial would require, but if they work together I think that -- Cassinelli: If they work together they can get it. They can get that 660 feet. Fitzgerald: And that's -- Madam Chair, I think that's my -- I -- the commercial needs to go here somewhere, I just don't know if the hard corner would be the best place for it. It -- maybe it floats up here to give them more access. So, I -- but I think it goes back to the conversation that needs to happen. McCarvel: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 13 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 11 of 64 Fitzgerald: So -- McCarvel: Okay. Would somebody like -- Commissioner Holland. Holland: Madam Chair, I was just going to -- I was going to echo both the comments that were made, too. I -- I -- I like mixed use developments and I think it would be good to make sure we have some commercial element in there -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: -- especially being near proximity to the school that's just to the north of both of those parcels there. I -- I like a lot of elements of the way that this was designed and I think we all agreed on that last time, too, that there is some great green space or some great creative amenities. The development project in itself I don't think there is a huge concern with it. It's just more of the interconnectivity and making sure that we have got a true mixed use project between the parcels surrounding this site. So, I echo what you all said. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, would somebody like to make a motion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, do we have a date certain? Don't -- January -- McCarvel: I think they have asked for -- Pogue: Madam Chair, I would remind you to open the hearing if you intend to continue. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. So, it would be January 17th or February -- 2016. That's doesn't help. Fitzgerald: When we reopen the public hearing we will ask Steve. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move that we reopen the public hearing on H-2018-0090 with the intent of my motion to continue it, but to get feedback from the applicant on what date would work best for him. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 14 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 12 of 64 Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Cassinelli: Do we need both -- do we need both -- McCarvel: I will let them -- yeah, we will let them chat for just a half second. Arnold: Madam Chairman, when is the next available hearing? Fitzgerald: January 17th. Arnold: Let's do that. Fitzgerald: Does that work? Arnold: Give me your direction as to what exactly you want me to do or -- I want to make sure that I have got some good direction what the Commission is looking for. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I don't want to speak for the whole Commission, but I think, Steve, what we are looking for is a mixed use. I mean whether it's commercial above and that's what they are going to bring to the table or we have got to put some commercial in your space and so somehow there is going to be an inner mixing of commercial in there. McCarvel: With good access. Fitzgerald: With good access that will allow that to happen. And I -- I think the pieces got to work together to make that happen in a way that roads work, access works for you and them and that you could bring us a project that fits. Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, so I have talked to them about what -- actually doing some of the design work. I'm not sure if I'm still doing that or not, but what -- what percentage or what would the Commission like to see commercialwise if we floated it -- a portion to the north where there is better access? Because I think that's key is I will figure out from ACHD, which I already -- I pretty much know where they are going to allow me a full access driveway. Once I determine that, what -- I mean are you looking for an acre, half acre? Cassinelli: Is that a staff -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: Sonya, can you -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 15 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 13 of 64 Fitzgerald: Do you have any input here? What -- in -- in the overall what percentage on a commercial mixed use for the record, what does staff like to see the mix -- percentage mix be? Allen: I would have to consult the Comprehensive Plan. They should -- they should provide it consistent with the mixed use designation. McCarvel: Yeah. And I think that's just kind of what we are worried about, is this is all residential, no mixed use, and, then, if their plan is to come in with 90 percent residential and just a little bit of commercial, that's probably not what we are anticipating -- what -- you know, we would like to see, so -- we will get you a number here in a second. Allen: Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40 percent of the development area. So, typically three different types of uses are proposed. I think if they can do at least a couple or -- or some kind of commercial. Offices maybe on the property to the north we would be good. Arnold: So, Madam Chair, the reason I ask is we have got three acres now and it says a minimum of 20 percent of that should be a residential use. So, if I were to take that acreage and it's -- it's a minimum, it doesn't give a maximum, you know, I would probably -- I would figure out a market demand. We have -- I have actually talked to a couple of users that might be interested, but what I was -- had talked about with the two other partners was, you know, coming in with maybe some towns of some lighter density along the east boundary and, then, transition from our multi-family, you know, kind of go up and do maybe a little -- mirror a little bit of what we are doing and, then, come in with some, you know, medium density towns and, then, where -- closer up to the access off of Linder is where we would do perhaps commercial and office and that was the -- the three different uses I understand meets the definition of the mixed use. Because currently right now in the comp plan their property can only come in for up to seven to eight units per acre. It's a -- it's called out for as a medium density. So, it -- you know, if we slide this -- if we moved the some -- the mixed use designation I have got to take and do some multi- family on theirs, as well as commercial. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think you're -- you're buzzing around the right -- what I would guess would be the right mix. I don't know exactly what that looks like until I see something and that's why you guys are planners and I'm not. Arnold: And that's why I -- Fitzgerald: But I think that -- yeah. I think you're looking at a mixture of -- and there has to be a significant impact -- or a significant amount of residential in there, but I don't want Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 16 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 14 of 64 to see you come back with medium density residential and, then, this -- this is two uses, there is no commercial at all. Is that -- Arnold: Oh, I get you. Fitzgerald: So, I mean I like there has got to be something that plays into that, whether it's a neighborhood type community, little coffee shops and offices, or something that -- that's going to -- it's going to serve that neighborhood, if that makes sense. Arnold: That makes sense. And that's kind of the thought. If you will look at my circulation plan, I mean that's why I have got the two public streets off of Linder -- it was kind of -- internal there would be kind of the -- a neighborhood with some boutique commercial type things. + Fitzgerald: Something the people can walk to. Arnold: Correct. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: But, again, tying that all in with the -- with the development to north. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Absolutely. Holland: Madam Chair, the only other note I would have, too, is I know commercial tends to like to have frontage, so as long as there is still visibility for them, as much as possible off Linder, since it's a pretty major corridor. Arnold: Right on Linder. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Steve, thank you. You're a trooper. We appreciate it. Arnold: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I got -- Steve, I have one quick question for you. Sorry. In your -- he's -- you know, the gentleman has left now I think, but the 17th you will have -- he was talking about two different plans. You will have -- that's enough time for him to get -- and for you guys to confer and come up with something. McCarvel: And give staff ten days. Cassinelli: And staff ten days. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 17 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 15 of 64 Arnold: I believe so. Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. I don't think we -- I mean we don't have to continue again, do we? Arnold: No. I think if -- by the 7th we should be able to get something to the city staff. Of January. McCarvel: Ten working days. Ten working days, right, Sonya? Allen: Typically, yes, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would like to clarify something on the record. I misstated the minimum percentage of residential. I believe I said 40. It's actually 20, like you have stated. Anyway, I just -- McCarvel: Is there a minimum in there for commercial? It's just two other uses. Allen: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Arnold: It just states, as I understand it, fairly vaguely about the number of uses. McCarvel: Okay. So, to give staff ten working days you would need to have everything on their desk by the 3rd. Fitzgerald: Not very much time. Arnold: How about the next week? McCarvel: The next one? Arnold: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. So, February 5th -- Arnold: I can meet with the owners next -- after the Christmas holiday and I should be able to get something to them -- to the staff. McCarvel: By the 3rd or -- or do you want to do this February 5th? Give everybody a little breathing room. Arnold: I would like to shoot for the 3rd. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: I don't know, Madam -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 18 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 16 of 64 McCarvel: There is a lot of holidays -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Steve, I -- I want to see something that -- I don't want to see something thrown together over the -- yeah, where you're trying to push it together just to get it to staff. I -- you know, what I think we are all hoping for is -- is something's that's going to tie in and something that's really going to be nice for that -- that whole section of land there and I'm just not -- I'm not saying you can't do it, I just -- with -- with everything else and the holidays -- yeah, it looks like he's -- he's back in, but -- I know you want to get it done. I know you want to get it done. Arnold: I think the buyer is motivated and, you know, we are, obviously, motivated, too. So, I think they are going to be motivated to get in with us and work and I -- we should be able to do the actual design of it. It doesn't take but more than a couple days. McCarvel: Because we kind of thought you guys were all more in agreement than what we are seeing here tonight. So, you got -- you guys want to confer just a second. Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Steve. Arnold: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move that we continue H-2018-0090 to the hearing date of February 5th to allow the parties to get together and coordinate their design efforts, potential float of the MUC up to that property to the north and, then, we could have a more complete package. McCarvel: Perfect. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair, the 5th is a Tuesday. Fitzgerald: Oh. McCarvel: February 5th -- 7th. Cassinelli: 7th. Fitzgerald: 7th. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 19 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 17 of 64 McCarvel: 7th. Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: We can give it straight to Council. Fitzgerald: Sweet. I revise my motion to February. McCarvel: February 7th. Got you. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue Item H-2018-0090 to February 7th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thanks, guys. C. Public Hearing Continued from December 6, 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 McCarvel: Thank you. Next on the agenda is continuing public hearing number H-2018- 0107, Alicia Court Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 3.08 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and is located at 4036 East Granger Avenue. This property was annexed and preliminary platted in 2003 with the final plat recorded -- or, excuse me, approved in 2006. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with six single family residential lots and two common lots as shown. The gross density of the proposed plat is 1.94 units per acre with a net density of 2.3 units per acre, which falls below the target density of medium density residential designation. The applicant is requesting a step down in density from Council as allowed in the Comprehensive Plan without an amendment to our future land use map. The proposed plat is consistent with the dimensional standards listed in the UDC for the R-4 district. 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. That is this lot right here at the bottom. Access to the site is from the extension of West Alicia Street. The applicant is proposing to construct a common driveway for access five of the six lots. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1, is requesting a council waiver to keep direct access to East Granger Avenue. If the Council does not provide an access waiver for Lot 1, the applicant will need to redesign the plat Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 20 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 18 of 64 to provide local street access to that lot. With the extension of utilities to this property, the applicant is proposing a pathway maintenance road from Granger Avenue to the common driveway that is proposed for this project and that is the shaded area right here. A maintenance road will serve dual purposes, allowing the city to perform maintenance of the utility mains within the proposed 30 foot wide utilities easement and to provide a pedestrian connection to the west. The applicant is requesting that the maintenance road be constructed of decomposed granite and not paved as recommended by staff. Because the proposed pathway has a 90 degree turn in it, staff has concerns with a blind spot for police and -- police being able to look at it. Basically visibility. And recommends the maintenance route and utilities be relocated between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1 and that would be right here in this location. Be more of a straight shot into the development. The entire easement should be placed within the common lot. Lastly, staff recommends the entire utility easement be contained within a common lot and landscaped with shrubs and ground cover. The UDC requires a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along Granger Avenue. There is an existing landscape buffer that was installed with the Red Feather Estates No. 2. The 20 foot wide landscape buffer was placed in an easement with approval of the Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2. The UDC requires that all street landscape buffers be placed in a common lot that is owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 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. There is an existing fence along the frontage of Granger Avenue that is proposed to remain as part of the development. The UDC requires that fencing be located outside of the 20 foot easement in this case. The provided landscape plan shows a portion of the existing fencing within ten feet of the existing property line. The applicant shall move the fencing outside of the recorded landscape easement as shown on the recorded plat for Red Feather Estates No. 2 or apply and receive approval of alternative compliance to vary from the standard set forth in the UDC. Additionally, the applicant shall provide fencing along the pathway access road as provided in the UDC. The applicant has provided sample building elevations for the proposed development. Homes consistent of a mix 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 Granger provide architectural interest and modulation. Written testimony has been received from Penelope Riley, the applicant's representative, and I will let her go over that with you. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Constantikes: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. Representing the applicant this evening. Just a brief recap of this subdivision. As you know, it's an in-fill development on three plus acres and it's a remainder piece from the old Red Feather Estates No. 2 Subdivision. Generally the proposed subdivision is for six residential lots with one lot being the existing home facing East Granger and two common lots. There will be additional common lots with the final plat, obviously, in order to place existing landscape buffer that's an easement into common lots as staff has requested. Mail facilities are proposed to be provided in one shared location near the entry of the shared private driveway at the terminus of Alicia Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 21 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 19 of 64 Lane, which is the street that comes from Dawson Meadows. That will keep all of the mailboxes off of the cul-de-sac. The expanded cul-de-sac design was actually a suggestion by the fire department, so it would allow both fire access and parking for guests and keep any kind of guest parking out of Dawson Meadows. The applicant is requesting that Alicia Court Subdivision be approved, essentially, as proposed. There are several discussion items and recommended changes to the proposed subdivision in the staff report that I would like to discuss this evening. Staff has gone over the density step down. I didn't find a formal procedure for that, so I guess we just are asking for a step down in residential density. I did want to reference the fact that given the site is in- fill it was eligible for additional density, but the rationale for the density as proposed was to provide a density variety in the neighborhood and to be sensitive to the fact that this parcel has essentially been undeveloped for more than 12 years. We are asking for retention of the existing access for 4036 East Granger and staff has covered that in the staff report. ACHD has taken this item up and has no objection to retain the driveways on East Granger for this property, given that the home is constructed to take access off of Granger, there is no logical way to provide an alternative access to this home and we are requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the waiver or exception to the policy manual as proposed with the Alicia Court Subdivision. The shared private driveway ACHD provided the applicant with two options with regard to how access was provided to these new parcels. The first option was to construct a private street. The second was to provide -- to construct a shared private driveway as we have proposed and to provide a public turnaround easement for the cul-de-sac and the private driveway, so that if people get lost and drive down the shared driveway they can turn around and come back out and they are allowed to do that. So, we will be exercising that second option as provided by ACHD. They are asking for verification from the Meridian Fire Department, which we will provide to -- to ACHD. With regard to the location of the utility corridor and pedestrian pathway, this pathway is proposed between Lots 1 and 3 as a common lot number two and this lot is proposed to be 20 feet wide. Originally this parcel was proposed to be a site for clubhouse and recreational facilities for Red Feather Estates. That plan apparently was later abandoned when improvements weren't constructed with Red Feather Estates No. 2, a utility easement was granted to the City of Meridian in alignment with East Ganger where it turns westward and the services were stubbed into the site beyond the 20 foot wide landscape buffer. This was actually very insightful, because it eliminated the need to dig up the landscape buffer in order to stub services into the site. The staff report references public safety as a concern for the proposal location of the utility corridor and pathway. To understand this better I reached out to the Meridian Police Department and discussing the pathway with the police department I explained the 20 foot wide width of the proposed common lot and the fence height restriction of four feet of solid fencing to Lieutenant Colaianni. The feedback I received was that the police department did not have any heartburn with the proposed path location and geometry and that the pathway at this location would not create a public safety hazard. The project team proposes to keep the pedestrian pathway and utility corridor in its proposed location, as there does not appear to be a public safety hazard. The utility corridor width and surface -- an updated layout for the utility corridor was proposed this evening -- is being proposed this evening. I have an electronic version of it and I did e-mail it to staff. I don't know if you were able to pick it up. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 22 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 20 of 64 Allen: Do you have it on a thumb drive? Constantikes: We have -- actually, there is two -- if you pull that up I might be able to tell you which one it is. It's going to be Exhibit 1 and 2. That's the technical specifications. The next two items on that flash drive are the two exhibits that the project engineer prepared. Yeah. So, this is an exhibit prepared by the project engineer and, then, the second item is a cross-section that shows how it will lay out. So, what we are proposing to do is directly connect to the stub sewer and water that are into the site. This utility layout will have a 20 foot wide common lot with sewer and water within the common lot separated by 11 feet, which is what the Public Works Department requires and a 16 foot wide surface for pedestrians and City of Meridian maintenance vehicles. With easements five feet on both sides of the common lot, the total combined common lot and easement area available for the City of Meridian will be 30 feet. Fence posts can be installed to be removable in the event that the utility line needs replacement and there is sufficient room within the common lot and the easement area to stockpile soils if needed. According to the project engineer, this layout has been approved previously in the City of Meridian. Surface for the 16 foot wide travelway is proposed to be decomposed granite. The surface has been approved by the city of Boise fire department in Harris Ranch. Specifications for this surface have been provided to staff. That was the first document that was open. Performance requirements for any kind of weight bearing needs can be met with this system. Other attributes for the use of decomposed granite include that it is permeable and will not contribute to runoff. It's easy to maintain and has a lifespan that's equal to, if not greater than standard asphalt. It's a natural material that comes in a variety of colors and will be aesthetically pleasing and complement the neighborhood, the existing and developed neighborhood. The material, if excavated for utility repair, can be reused by being reinstalled. With the installation to manufacture specifications this surface is 98 percent, I believe, solid and it can support vehicles, including fire trucks and vac trucks used by public works departments. With regard to landscape updates, we didn't really request keeping the easement, we just didn't address it. We were not sure how to navigate that, since those were pre-existing easements. But the -- the project landscape architect will update the landscape plan to meet staff requirements for shrubs and ground cover and to place those landscape buffers in common lots. Excuse me. The shrubs and ground cover recommendation for the landscape buffer adjacent to the pedestrian pathway will be added. And, then, we will convert the buffers along Granger to common lots as recommended by staff and either remove the fencing that's located inside the landscape buffer or relocate the fence at the southeast corner of the site to outside of the new common lot lines. And, in conclusion, I'm going to follow the conditions of approval as provided in the staff report to make it as easy as possible. The project team is requesting that Item 1-A and B be deleted and that these two conditions be replaced with approval of the pathway and utility corridor in its proposed location of Lot 2 with a 20 foot common lot and five foot wide easements on each side, with a removable fence post as shown on the engineer's illustration, with a 16 foot wide decomposed granite surface constructed to support public utility vehicles and vac trucks. Bollards will be installed to prevent any kind of public access to this 16 foot wide travelway. Items 1-C and 1-D are as written. Item 1-E, we are just requesting acknowledgement that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 23 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 21 of 64 ACHD has provided Alicia Court Subdivision with the option of retaining the private shared driveway with a public turnaround easement and I did note earlier that the applicant will provide the highway district with the Meridian Fire Department verification. Item 1-F as written. Item 1-G, we request that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed City Council exception or waiver, whichever term you want to use, to allow Alicia Court to retain the driveways for 4036 East Granger Street at their location -- their current location as approved by the highway district. Item 1-H we are formally requesting the step down in density. Items 1-I and 1-J and 2-A as written. Item 2-B, we do request that the proposed decomposed granite surfacing be approved, rather than the recommended asphalt. And under items 2-C, D, and E the landscape plan will be revised to reflect the landscape buffer in the 20 foot wide common lot along East Granger to be owned and maintained by Alicia Court Subdivision HOA and move the existing fence outside the common lot. Item 2-F as written. And with that thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Penelope, can you tell me the -- on the crushed granite what -- what's the reasoning behind it? Because I -- it's something -- we don't see it a lot and so finding people to replace it, repair it, that's -- so, just give me some background on why. Constantikes: Sure. It was originally proposed by the landscape architect. It's used a lot in California. It's not a new product. It's -- it's decomposed -- it's crumbled granite and, then, it has a stabilizer in it. The manufacturer specs were submitted. So, it's just as good a surface as asphalt. It's natural. It's permeable. It doesn't generate runoff. It can be reused. And the architect was thinking about making sure that we were as sensitive to the surrounding area and the aesthetics as possible, so it's probably more expensive than asphalt, but we thought that it would be a nice way to dress up the connection between our subdivision and the surrounding subdivisions and provide a surface that utility trucks can use and pedestrians can use, but still have some environmental and aesthetic benefits. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: With regards to that surface, do you have any -- do you have any images of it on -- on a thumb drive or any -- Constantikes: I do not. And I apologize for that. I don't, but I will make sure that we have one before we get to City Council. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 24 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 22 of 64 Cassinelli: Because I have something in my mind that is probably not right. Constantikes: The nice thing about the decomposed granite is you can get it in different colors, so you can blend it with the surrounding environment and it just -- it kind of looks like a -- maybe a flagstone pathway without the joints, just has a nice smooth surface or you roll it to compact it. So, it's a rolled surface. I apologize I can't provide you with a picture. McCarvel: I do -- the staff report recommends that the pathway be between Lots 3 and 4. Could you, again, state your major objection to that versus where you have it? Constantikes: Certainly. Staff's objection to the location as proposed was that it was a public safety hazard. So, I reached out to the police department. McCarvel: I know what their statement was -- Constantikes: Yes. McCarvel: -- but what is your objection to doing it there? Constantikes: To moving it? McCarvel: Yeah. To having it between three and four verses -- Constantikes: Somewhere between 80 and 100 thousand dollars in -- in utility construction. It's already stubbed into the site, it just seems to be a natural place for the pathway to terminate where East Granger is across the street. It's a -- it's a good -- it's -- it has better flow probably than moving it northward. So, that's where the utilities are stubbed. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Constantikes: Thank you, ma'am. McCarvel: Thank you. Do we have any public testimony signed up? Johnson: There are no sign-ins, Madam Chair. McCarvel: That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on this application? Anymore questions for the applicant or would we like to close the public hearing? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 25 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 23 of 64 Fitzgerald: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2018-0107. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0107. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: I -- quite honestly, I -- when I asked the question about the positioning of that pathway I kind of thought the same thing that I think aesthetically it probably looks better where it is, just because it does give a little definition, probably, between the existing home and what -- and those homes, rather than cutting through the middle, but I guess the placement of the utilities probably works easier for them I guess there and I -- I think the way they have got that angle of that turn is probably not an issue for safety. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And it's -- it's still going to Granger, if you look at where it comes in on the -- it comes right directly into that road. So, I think it makes sense. McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- I'm not opposed to the crushed granite versus the asphalt. It kind of I think defines it out as it's not a public use road, being something different than the asphalt, instead of just having the block -- the holes -- the coating on the -- thank you. Thank you. So, I would be -- I'm okay with that. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner -- Holland: I don't have any concern with the overall layout or the way that the pathway goes through. I have seen a couple of developments that have used the crushed -- either crushed granite or something similar and it seems to look pretty esthetically pleasing. I don't see any concerns with using that material either. I think one of the other things they talked about was maintaining the driveway on Granger. Since they are already accessing Granger right now I don't see a huge concern with continuing to let them have that access, but I know that's not something that's up to our Commission. It's up to Council. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, it kind of lines up with Sharon Avenue going to the south of the site. I mean I -- that's -- it's a use that's already being used to -- it's an existing use. So, I have no problem with that either. McCarvel: Yeah. And I'm guessing nobody has a problem with the step down in density. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 26 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 24 of 64 Fitzgerald: No. Cassinelli: You're not going to get an objection for me on that. We are just -- we are looking to approve it with the pathway as presented? Fitzgerald: I think -- I don't -- I don't find a problem with it. Cassinelli: No, I don't -- is that the only other -- is that the only other change that -- McCarvel: Was their positioning of that landscaping on the easement -- Fitzgerald: A and B is the -- they wanted to eliminate it on the -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: I have no problem with that. McCarvel: Can you tackled the motion? Fitzgerald: No. McCarvel: The time you get numbered. Fitzgerald: At the end of the day I -- I think it -- it's good in-fill. I think it looks good. I think that they have taken comments from our Public Works and the fire and police department. I think it works well. How to make a motion I don't know. Cassinelli: Sonya, what's the 1-A and B? Fitzgerald: It's to place the pathway and the utilities between Lots 3 and 4. So, it would move the utilities over -- not on -- not under the pathway, but put them in between the two lots. Cassinelli: So, that's what the -- that's what -- Fitzgerald: That's what A and B is. Cassinelli: That's what A and B are? Fitzgerald: They are regarding the utility easement. Cassinelli: I'm trying to find it here, so -- so, it would be deleting those two. Fitzgerald: And, then, the granite driveway on 2-B. And, then, 1-G is Council, but we can give our thumbs up if you really desire. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 27 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 25 of 64 Holland: Madam Chair, there was also a request to adjust Item 1-E, I believe, which right now states that the applicant shall either revise the plat to meet the requirements of ACHD or receive approval for ACHD commission to keep Alicia Court with the common driveways proposed. I'm trying to remember exactly what they have requested, but something about acknowledging ACHD -- Fitzgerald: I think it's the fire department's approval that they can do that. Was that what it was? Holland: I think so. McCarvel: Yeah. I think that can stay, because it -- it states meets requirements or receive approval, which they -- Holland: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, are you working your way to a motion or -- Cassinelli: If you know -- if you have got it in your head all the -- if you can do it right. All the letters -- deleting and -- McCarvel: Continue on, Mr. Fitzgerald. Holland: I can take an attempt if you want me to. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. I will try to back up. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Help me correct it if I mess it up, all right? Fitzgerald: Okay. Holland: Thank you. McCarvel: Here you go. Cassinelli: What do we have, a cheat sheet? Fitzgerald: Oh. Awesome. Holland: Does that make you want to do it? Fitzgerald: No. I will let you do it. Go right ahead. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 28 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 26 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number H-2018-0107 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20th, 2018, with the following modifications: That condition 1-A and B, be deleted and replaced with the approval of the pathway and utility corridor quarter as proposed in the -- the renderings that were submitted tonight to our Commission meeting. That 1-G be revised to allow the applicant to maintain the driveway on Granger. That 1- H would allow the step down in the lower density residential without needing to do any other further steps on that. That 2-B, the applicant be allowed to use the proposed decomposed granite surfacing, rather than the recommended asphalt. And I believe there is also a recommendation or request -- and can I have discussion before I put this in the motion? McCarvel: Sure. Holland: One request was to have the landscape plan be revised to reflect the landscape buffer and a 20 foot wide common lot along Granger to be owned and maintained by Alicia Court Subdivision, to move the fence to outside of the common lot. Fitzgerald: Versus 30? McCarvel: 2-D. Holland: 2-D. Fitzgerald: Oh, instead of it being -- McCarvel: It says the HOA. Fitzgerald: Yeah. It says maintain by the Alicia Court HOA. Holland: I don't see a big difference. McCarvel: Yeah, I don't see -- Fitzgerald: I don't either. Holland: I don't think that needs to be in the motion. All right. So, that's my motion. Fitzgerald: That was awesome. Cassinelli: I will second that. Fitzgerald: I will third it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 29 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 27 of 64 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded and thirded to recommend approval of H- 2018-0107 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Entrata Farms (H-2018-0125) by FIG Village at Parkside, LLC, Located 3880 and 3882 W. Franklin Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 19.07 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and 2. Request: a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 238 dwelling units on 18.18 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district; and 3. Request: a Preliminary Plat consisting of 67 building lots and 3 common lots on 18.18 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district McCarvel: With that we will move on to open the public hearing for Entrada Farms, H- 2018-0125 and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning, conditional use permit and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 18.18 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 3880 and 3882 West Franklin Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is the railroad tracks and single family residential uses zoned R-8. To the east is multi-family residential zoned R-15 and undeveloped land that was recently approved for a self service storage facility zoned L-O. To the west is rural residential and agricultural properties, zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the south is Franklin Road and single family residential uses zoned R-8 and R-15. A multi-family project was previously proposed on this site earlier this year that was denied by City Council. The proposed project is deemed to be substantially different than the proposed -- excuse me -- the previously denied project. The Comprehensive Plan on future land use map designation for this site is high density residential, which is 15 units per acre or more. The applicant is requesting approval of a step down in density from high density residential to medium high density residential, which is eight to 15 units per acre, resulting in a proposed density for the development of 13.09 units per acre. Annexation and zoning of 19.0 acres of land from -- excuse me -- with an R-15 zoning district is consistent with the requested step down in density to medium high density residential. A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family development consisting of 238 dwelling units on 18.18 acres of land in an R- 15 zoning district. A site plan is proposed as shown and conceptual building elevations were submitted that depict how the site is proposed to develop with a combination of two and three story townhome style multi-family structures in groups of four, six and eight Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 30 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 28 of 64 attached units, both front and rear loaded. I will just show you the concept elevations for those. Two story units are proposed along the west boundary of the site adjacent to the existing residential and agricultural property and that is the four-plexes here that you see and so the eight-plexes there on the right and the Tucker six-plex elevations there. Those are combination of two and three story units, so the two story end units would be facing the west property boundary in the locations where those are proposed. A combination of two and three story units -- two story on the ends, with three stories in the middle, are proposed along Franklin Road and those are the Tucker six-plexes as shown here. Three story structures are proposed internally and those are the Peyton six-plex and eight-plex units. Qualified open space and site amenities are proposed far exceeding UDC standards. A minimum of 3.19 acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 6.15 acres is proposed. Pretty much double what our minimum requirements are. A minimum of five site amenities are required. The following are proposed. An outdoor pool complex with clubhouse, restroom facilities, property management office, two different children's play structures in different areas, three covered picnic shelters, pavilions, with barbecues and picnic tables. A dog park, half basketball court and two open grassy fields larger than 50 by 100 feet in area. Benches and pathways throughout the site. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown, consisting of 67 building lots and three common lots on 18.18 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district that is proposed to develop in two phases, starting with the front portion of the development nearest Franklin Road. You can see this dotted line right here that shows the different phases. Phase one is right here. Phase two is at the rear. Access is proposed via Franklin Road and via the extension of West Perugia Street at the east boundary. That Perugia will extend east-west through the site and stub at the project's west boundary. The applicant will be constructing a crossing over the Kennedy Lateral at the project's east boundary. An emergency access is proposed via Franklin Road near the east boundary of the site and also near the north end of the site to the west and those locations -- the north end of the site is right here where my cursor is at and, then, the one at -- near the east boundary is right here. The entry street, as well as Perugia will be public streets. The internal streets will be private for addressing purposes. Written testimony has been received from the applicant James Doolin. He is in agreement with the revised staff report. Staff recommends approval contingent upon Council's approval of a step down in density as requested by the applicant. Staff finds the proposed development is premier and that it provides open space, site amenities and parking far exceeding UDC standards. It provides a housing type, townhome style multi-family units that will contribute to the variety of housing types in this area, which is atypical to the usual garden style apartments that we see. It will provide much needed housing within a ten mile area in close proximity to future shopping and employment uses and is consistent with the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Bill is going to be so proud of me. McCarvel: I know. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 31 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 29 of 64 Fitzgerald: How many parking spaces? Because it looks like this is all parking garages and out front. So, that's -- it looks like a lot of units with not a lot of parking. Allen: There are quite a few extra. I'm sorry I didn't have that in my presentation. Give me just a moment here. McCarvel: There was quite a few. Cassinelli: I am proud. Allen: So, based on 238 two and three bedroom units, a minimum of 476 spaces are required with half of those being covered in a carport or garage. So, all the parking spaces, just as a side note, are in garages on the first floor of the -- of the townhomes here. Townhome style development I should say. They are multi-family units. A total of 603 spaces are proposed, consisting of 274 driveway spaces, 254 garage spaces and 75 guests parking spaces for a total of 127 spaces over the minimum required. Fitzgerald: And Bill is not clapping. McCarvel: I know -- that's -- I'm waiting for Bill to clap. Cassinelli: What's always been -- what's always talked about is in a lot of these kind of developments the garages don't wind up getting used for parking, they get used for storage. Fitzgerald: There is a storage unit next door. Cassinelli: It's -- Fitzgerald: I'm joking. McCarvel: Yeah. No, I think -- yeah. Between the garages and the driveways and the additional parking -- Cassinelli: I think we are hitting it. McCarvel: I think -- yeah. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Shall we move on from the parking? McCarvel: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 32 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 30 of 64 Cassinelli: And a couple other questions. Sonya, specifically why did Council -- what was their reason for denial? Was it strictly the density, the number of units? Allen: There were several different reasons. It's -- it's included in the applicant's narrative. They felt like it would be too much of a strain on city services all -- all to come in in one phase of the development. Now it's two phases. They felt like the density was a little too high. This is just what I'm recalling, so bear with me, but they also had issues with the -- they were afraid that it would be under several different management companies with it being subdivided like this. The applicant has addressed that and it's going to have one management company for the entire development. So, the main things that I think that were -- Cassinelli: I've pulled it up. I'm seeing it there. So, another question. On the -- it -- it appears as though there are three story units along Franklin, not two and three story that abut Franklin. Three stories in the interior. So, will there -- is the plan to have three story units right along Franklin? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, no, the Tucker six-plex -- six plus units that are before you right now are what are proposed along Franklin. Cassinelli: So, there will be three stories -- Allen: All three story units are internal to the development. Cassinelli: The Tucker six-plex I'm seeing are -- are three. Allen: They have three stories on the ends. Cassinelli: And the -- so, the way it's -- the way it will be oriented is everything along Franklin will be two story? Allen: No. So, you see the site plan here -- Cassinelli: Uh-huh. Allen: -- there are six-plex units and they are two stories on the ends and, then, three story in the middle. Cassinelli: Okay. So, that there will be three stories along Franklin? Allen: Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. Allen: These units right here before you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 33 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 31 of 64 Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. W ould the applicant like to come forward. Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. Sonya, could you go back to the picture with the site plan that you have? There. If you look at our site we have an entrance there on Franklin, but I would like you to look along our easterly boundary where we have the Kennedy Lateral that's between us and the existing apartments. If you notice those three story buildings, how -- we have oriented our buildings so that we are not facing each other. We -- each one of those buildings is at an angle or in between the two buildings. We have tried to do that so that impact on those existing residents that are in those multi-family units aren't affected. The same is true along our east -- or westerly boundary. Those are two story buildings. The -- the backyards to them are like in a single family subdivision if you were doing it from the street. You have -- their rear yard is -- is their open space. Then we have the same Tucker building that's along Franklin Road where we stepped down -- where it says Lot 31 and Lot 30 where those -- where those are at, it -- it steps down to the two story and what we tried to do is anticipate that basically on either side of us is this medium density. So, that medium density could come in with something that's in a single family product that someone else might have and try to be friendly to those -- those other uses that are there by having the two story ends on that -- that end of the property. What's kind of unique about the design -- and I provided a -- so, on this open space map as you look at it, there is a series of these parks, so you have talked about along Franklin Road. Basically that street that is between Franklin Road and all of those lots ends up working like an alley would, because the garages all face that street, but you have street front looking buildings where the front of the building that's facing out onto Franklin has a door and it looks like the frontage of the building. It does the same thing on the other side where that local street that goes through there that connects and connects from east to west through our site is also doing the same thing, is that there is front doors that face onto that street that gives that a streetscape and a street presence, that makes that more tenable than having the other. The reason that we have the Tucker buildings there along Franklin is that it breaks up the up and down with -- yes, there is three story buildings in the middle, but those two stories make that -- instead of just once solid wall, it breaks it up and so that was the purpose in doing those. You come into the entrance street -- how do you move to the next one, Sonya? Can I do that? Allen: You got it. Brown: Can I make that bigger? Allen: Let me drive. Brown: Please drive, Sonya. I'm okay with you driving. So, here is our entrance and you're looking at that Tucker building, you're seeing the frontage on Franklin Road, that becomes a very -- almost single family look to that development, even though those are large buildings, you have that step down in the roof that is on that two story and you see Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 34 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 32 of 64 that our entrance coming in and our entrance comes into a park space. Go to the next one, Sonya. So, here is, again, Franklin Road and what it would look like from Franklin Road, because we have landscaping along the front and, again, how those buildings are stepping up and down along Franklin, even though they are three stories tall. The next one. So, over here to the right-hand side you have those three story Tucker buildings that step down on the ends and our entrance and we come into the clubhouse and pool that are right there as you come in. You can see that the front doors along that -- that public street that I talked about have, again, a street frontage that have a street look to it. We have a fitness room that's inside. That was one of the things the City Council asked for that's inside that clubhouse. It's also where the maintenance people will be for the development. There is a tot lot behind and a pavilion for a picnic and, then, a whole series of parking there on the north side. The next slide, please. Here is looking -- coming from the development from the east into our site and what you would see. The road is over here on the left-hand side. There is basically a building right in front of us, but, again, the clubhouse. Next one. This is the north side where the parking that I described -- looking back onto the clubhouse. Sonya's reading my mind. There we go. So, here is the two story buildings along the westerly boundary and the street that's stubbed to them as you're looking at that. Here is a look at the two story buildings that would face to the west with their backyards and just a streetscape of, again, internal to the subdivision. Next. One more. Go back to the first one. The idea in the design was to try to make the open space -- one more back. There is pathways and sidewalks within the entire development. So, whether you're in the very north end of the site or just across the street, that everybody can walk from anywhere that they step out of. So, you can step out of this park-like space that is in front of your -- your unit onto a park. You can get on a sidewalk and that sidewalk can take you to the clubhouse and pool area that's in the development, so that you can walk north-south without having to get in your car and drive to one end to the other. The desire was to have that -- that open space and have as close to it what a single family people, people expecting in their kinds of developments and yet a multi-family. That's the reason that we picked this townhouse style of multi-family unit versus what you -- typically you're seeing where you have stacked people on top of each other where someone lives on a second floor and there is people on the first floor and, then, you have to have a big huge parking lot for that space. We have taken that space and made it green and have open space with it versus having it be asphalt and parking for everything and, yet, we are providing the parking, because we do go to that three story. You have to go to that three story if you're parking underneath your building and that's part of the reason that these end up being three story is that you have that parking that's underneath and you're taking advantage of that versus having a parking lot that you're not having. So, that's why you're not seeing the parking stalls that you would normally see in a -- in a multi-family. I would stand for any questions that you might have about the design or anything about the development. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 35 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 33 of 64 Fitzgerald: Kent, everything that is internal appears to be living to the MEW in the middle; is that correct? Doors facing the -- the common area in the middle? And, then, the ones on the very tip and on the outside are the only ones that have like a backyard; is that correct? Brown: That's correct. Fitzgerald: Just want to make sure I'm -- that black -- Brown: Well, those MEW spaces, you basically -- in the other design that came before you before you approved it, they were long parks going north-south and they -- they were the entire length of the project. These end up making them a little more personal in the fact that by going east-west with your streets -- these streets that go east-west are mostly just alley. They are -- Fitzgerald: They are alley-loaded product. Brown: They are alley load, because your garages are there and, then, you have park space that's out your front door and so you have something to look out the front of your place. So, visitors come, there is parking that's at the end of those MEW spaces, so that people can access -- access them there. Yes, they can come to the back door and they do restrict it, so that people aren't using them for storage. That's part of what the HOA and the management company is looking for and, actually, if they see someone that's supposed to be parking in one, then, cite them and they have to be able to do that so that they can watch that. That's -- we kind of fall apart if the -- if you lose the garage spaces. I mean it would just be a disaster. That's -- that's real critical for this -- this project. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Kent, can you point out -- you mentioned that you were going to put two story units along the Kennedy Lateral facing the existing apartments that are there. Can you point -- Brown: The two story buildings are along the westerly side. Cassinelli: Okay. Brown: The -- the ends of the buildings that face on the westerly side, they step down -- yeah. Right there. That's -- that's a Tucker building that steps down on the ends. Cassinelli: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 36 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 34 of 64 Brown: The others there are three story buildings across the Kennedy Lateral from -- Cassinelli: Those are -- you put three stories there? Brown: Those are -- those are big block -- they got to be 24 unit or more -- Cassinelli: Silver Oaks is three story; correct? That's what I was -- okay. Brown: So, our emphasis -- we know what our neighbor to the -- to the east is and what their units are. The concern ended up being as what is the future. There is -- there is 62 acres of unannexed ground to the west of us. The rest you guys have the charter school that's been approved over there that's been before you. That 62 acres has a medium density residential zone planned in the comp plan for it. It's not supposed to be mixed use, but that's -- it's calling it out as being medium density. So, we took an effort to look at that. This stub street is the local street to us stubs to the biggest parcel that's in that area. It's 20 -- 21 acres and it is the northern part -- or the tip part of our project as a neighbor. We also -- that one northerly little MEW s area to the north, just before the -- the little street that goes to the very north, we have a stub there for cross-access at the northern part of our project, too. Cassinelli: That's going into the existing apartments on the east over the Kennedy Lateral? Brown: We are connecting down here at the local street is the only place that we are connecting to the ones that are on the east of us. Cassinelli: Okay. Brown: If you look at that local street. We have also tried -- at those intersections we have the chokers in there, so that that doesn't become a freeway, if you will, through there -- that that slows the traffic down in those -- those chokers. The Perdham Drain that is in gray in the corner, it comes off and is at an angle, so if you look at the parcel that is to the west of us, the 21 acres, it's kind of split by this Perdham Drain that runs off at an angle from us. So, the location of where that street is is far enough north from an engineer's standpoint that somewhat can actually connect to it without running into the ditch and that's why it kind of snakes up there instead of going straight. Any other questions? McCarvel: I think -- we did have a report from fire. They -- they seemed to be okay with all the road widths and the turns in there, so that would be my only concern that those are really technically kind of alleys back -- all back through there. So, long winding way to go for a fire truck. Brown: We went to each and every governmental agency that the City Council talked about before and, yes, the one concern was -- when we originally submitted earlier this year, there was the -- in one phase they took it that that was coming and being built all at Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 37 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 35 of 64 once, which would be really kind of difficult for you to even accomplish, but realistically these don't really start becoming units until 2020 with it -- with getting approvals even earlier this year and building that phase and the infrastructure that's required, the thing that excited me -- me about becoming involved with this is that this is where the city has said that you want that growth and the road Franklin has been approved. I recently submitted applications in Nampa and put apartments in over off of Idaho -- Idaho Boulevard -- Idaho Center Boulevard and with what's going in next to the cheese factory, there is 2,000 planned jobs for two businesses that are new businesses going in that area. This road is built and completed all the way to Black Cat and improved in front of the site. So, it's not restricting any of that access and a clean and great connection to the freeway for people to work and live in this area, which generally, as you have seen me before, we have, you know, lots of people complaining about traffic. Well, traffic and putting this in this location is just not the case and the utilities are already stubbed to the site as a part of doing those road improvements. McCarvel: So, this is all one owner, though, or is it -- Brown: This -- this will have a property management company that is one -- McCarvel: One. Yeah. Brown: -- that will take care of all of them and will manage both leasing and, then, they will have a management company for the maintenance of the facilities everything on the exterior. McCarvel: You're going to restrict no parking on any of those little alleys back there? Brown: No. McCarvel: Absolutely none. Okay. Yeah. That would be my only concern is, you know, it's a long windy way to go for a fire truck, but as long as the parking is strictly enforced there. Brown: I submitted the street names to the street name committee. We are using skiing terms, so there is like Chairlift and Bunny Hill and Rope Toe and -- so, everything's got a street name, but that's what we have proposed in here. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up for public testimony tonight, Chris? Johnson: No, Madam Chair. McCarvel: That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 38 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 36 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on H-2018-0125. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-0125. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: As far as high density projects -- I can never get overly excited about them, but I like it. I like the -- the park like feel. The -- you know, they certainly, you know, they kind of knocked it out of park on the open space and parking and things. My -- the only thing I -- the only thing I'm not wild about is having three stories up against Franklin. I would prefer that to be two stories and then -- pretty much on any of these kind of large scale projects I like to -- I like to see it start out low and, then, be three story on the interior. That would be my -- and as far as approving it as is, I would -- I would -- that would be my -- one thing that I would want to get behind. McCarvel: Okay. Appreciate that. I kind of feel, though, against Franklin -- I mean just the scale of everything, since you're up against a big five lane road, I don't think it's quite as -- I don't think it would be quite as impactful as it might be on a smaller road. I think off Franklin it could handle it. I do appreciate them doing the two stories on the west in consideration of what's probably coming on their side and all the staggering on the east, so nobody's really got a wall to look at. Cassinelli: And I agree that -- that looks good. There is single family. I don't think it's right across the street. It's down just a little bit, but there is single family right -- so, two story, you know, abutting Franklin just down about -- probably about a hundred feet. So, that's why I just think three story -- I mean Franklin can handle it, I guess, yeah, but I would still rather see the two. That's my -- that's just my personal opinion, but -- Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: You know, on the -- the two-three story mix -- I like the buildings that have the two stories on the side and the three story kind of in the middle where it -- it looks a little bit more layered. Frankly, I wish that all the buildings looked like that, instead of having some of the three story and -- I think it's a nice mix. I'm not opposed to having three story Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 39 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 37 of 64 buildings, but I do like the -- the two-three mix. I think the biggest concern I would see is -- is not that this area is -- the zoning on it I think is for the medium high density housing. The challenge is that we have -- there has been a lot of approvals of other multi-family units right around this site and I think that's probably where Council was coming from when this came forward before, because I believe Baraya, just reading what they put in the ACHD staff report, Baraya across the street had 334 single family and 260 multi-family and, then, the Avondale had 369 multi-family to the east of the site and this would be, you know, an additional 238 dwelling units. It's just a lot to come in and all at once on the market and so I think that might be one of the biggest concerns I have is just -- not that I don't want to see it be the medium high density, it's just having it all show up at the same time is challenging when it comes to transportation and looking at another 1,700 trips per day. When you look at the COMPASS report and what their traffic safety rating is, they gave it an R for pedestrian and bicycle safety and they say a G or PG rating typically supports bicyclists and pedestrians. I know we can't necessarily go out there and say they need to have -- VRT have a transit plan there, but at some point, hopefully, VRT would work with these developments to have better accessibility for bus stops or ability for pedestrians to get to some of those employment centers. So, I guess that's one of my biggest concerns. I don't have a real problem with the way that this site is laid out. I think they have been very generous with the open space and the amenities and it looks like a nice balanced community. I think it's just a challenge of all the density coming in and all at one time for me. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I -- I was not here for the original discussion, but whatever the -- I know the Council had a challenge with the density and kind of where that went. I tend to think that this is walkable to massive employment. Like we are going to see that Ten Mile interchange park grow. I mean Paylocity is there. I mean there is -- there is several businesses that are opening up and so there will be places to work and I know that that's a part of that Ten Mile plan is to have ValleyRide be a part of that, so I think that's part of that discussion. But I think this is where this fits. It's up against the railroad tracks. It -- there is not a ton of residential there already and so -- and it is matched up against another high density project that's been there for a while, but it does have that -- I do agree with you on the second and third story, because I -- as we go forward we are going to have to park things underneath buildings instead of out in big surface area parking areas, because that is one thing that drives me crazy, so I do think you have to -- it's a trade off. Instead of having asphalt heat sinks, you have three story buildings that they are off setting with that two story to make it look like there is some definition from the road space. So, I'm -- I appreciate the design. I like the live to the -- to the MEW style where there is some sense of community and people can walk and be part of their neighborhood. So, I would be in support as of right now. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 40 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 38 of 64 McCarvel: Yeah. I would be support of it as well and I guess to Commissioner Holland's point I do like the two and three story up on Franklin does give it the variation and stuff that we normally request when on a highly visible area. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just to make sure I know -- I -- I'm not opposed to the development. I think it actually -- it's -- I agree with your comments that I think it is the right place for having that higher density housing and I like the walkability and the accessibility to Ten Mile. I think some of the challenges are sort of the timing of it. That was my only comment. Fitzgerald: Totally understand. Holland: One other question. I know in ACHD's report they had mentioned having a -- a right-in lane that would be a deceleration lane of some sort to get in and out of there. Was that in the condition requirements? Allen: Staff's conditions also include complying with ACHD's conditions. Holland: Thank you. Allen: There is just a side note. There is a transit stop they are locating for the CommuteRide pad near the southwest corner of this site along Franklin Road. They have been working with Valley Regional Transit on that. Holland: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I had a question for Commissioner Holland. So, your objection is just all this coming online at the same time, not necessarily in total, but it's just the timing. Holland: Yeah. I think that the -- the timing is a challenge. I don't think it's this developer's specifically problem, I think it's just you have got three different developments going on at the same time and long term it will work out great, you have got employment centers nearby, VRT is, obviously, working -- I'm glad to hear that there is going to be a CommuteRide station within the development. I don't know that I'm opposed to the development. I think it's just a challenge of timing and that may be something Council talks about as well. McCarvel: And correct me if I'm wrong, but I would just say with the natural permitting of things and as the natural build up on the schedule of inspectors and all that kind of stuff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 41 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 39 of 64 kind of naturally push this stuff to a timing that will -- that they can handle. I mean they can -- you know, they can only be so many places at once and I think even though it's all coming on at the same time, it -- it will naturally spread itself out, because there is only so many city employees to get to -- for inspections and that kind of thing. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: To that point I think even market conditions will yield -- approve what's supposed to go there and let the market work out what's good to go and what be built and I think you have to -- to, hopefully, provide the applicant the best case scenario and let the market dictate what's going to happen in our area with the need for something that they will bet on with money what they are going to build and what they are not. So, that -- at least that's where I come down on that. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Just for another comment, we were talking about COMPASS and VRT and -- and all. I will take this minute to chastise yet again ACHD in their short sightedness. That should not have been a -- Ten Mile from the freeway north, it should have been -- it should have been three lanes in either direction with a center turn. It should have been seven lanes. If any of you have ever driven that at 5:00 o'clock without a thousand units coming online, you know what I'm talking about, and it's only going to get worse. Little we can do in this. I can't -- you know, we can't stop beyond -- Fitzgerald: At Ustick it stops; right? I mean are -- and that's -- Cassinelli: At Ustick it stops, but it's so backed -- I mean it backs up now from Franklin to the freeway at 5:00 o'clock. It's solid. Without another -- I mean thousand trips plus each -- at that hour, but -- Fitzgerald: My only comment there -- Cassinelli: Again, that's -- you know, my comment there is just to kick them in the teeth -- it's just to kick ACHD in the teeth. Absolutely. McCarvel: Duly noted. Fitzgerald: I will support you on your teeth kicking. Cassinelli: And it's not the last time either. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 42 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 40 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more quick question for staff. Sonya, there was a memo that was included from the applicant asking to have an update to the staff report about the amenity packages listed on pages two, eight, and 27 saying that they were incorrect. Do we need to make a note of that in the motion or was that corrected in the staff report? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, it was corrected in the revised staff report, so, no, you don't need to make an amendment. Holland: Thank you. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland, with that comment would you like to move forward with a motion? Holland: I would be happy to have someone else make the -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council -- to the City Council of file number H-2018-0125 as presenting in the staff report for the hearing December 20th, 2018. McCarvel: Would anybody like to second that motion? Holland: I will second it. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2018-0125. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Chris, do you need to -- roll call? Johnson: I got it, Madam Chair. McCarvel: You got it? Thanks. Motion approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Villasport (H-2018-0121) by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located the SW corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 43 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 41 of 64 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor and outdoor arts, entertainment or recreation facility earlier than 6:00 AM on 11.39 acres in the C-G zoning district; and 2. Request: Modification to a Development Agreement to modify an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan McCarvel: With that we will open public hearing for H-2018-0121, Villasport, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. There is also a request for a development agreement modification that is going before City Council on this application that does not require Commission action. This site consists of 11.39 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is located at the southwest corner of East Ustick and North Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north and east our commercial uses, zoned C-G. To the south are residential uses, zoned R-15 and R-8 and commercial zoned C-G. And to the west is residential zoned R-2. This property was annexed back in 2005 with the Sadie Creek Commons application, a preliminary plat and conditional use permit was also approved that has since expired. A development agreement was approved as a provision of annexation that conceptually approved a 150,282 square foot commercial development consisting of retail, a restaurant and office uses and that is a copy of the previously approved concept plan that's included in the current development agreement. Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is mixed use regional. A modification to the existing development agreement is proposed to remove the subject property from the terms of the existing agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed development. A new concept plan and building elevations are proposed that demonstrate how the property is proposed to develop with 99,000 square foot, two story building for an athletic club and spa and a 15,300 square foot retail building and associated parking. The athletic facility and spa is right here, this shaded building in the middle. The retail building is here on the right side next to Eagle Road. A conditional use permit is requested for extended hours of operation beyond that allowed in the C-G zoning district, which restricts business hours from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when the property abuts a residential use or a district. The staff report did incorrectly state that the proposed hours are 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The applicant has clarified that the actual hours are 4:00 a.m. to midnight for indoor activities and 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for outdoor activities, with outdoor music only operating from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There are specific use standards listed in the UDC for indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Staff is recommending the site plan is revised to comply with those standards per the conditions listed in section eight of the staff report. Written testimony has been received from David Durfee. He objects to the hours of operation specifically earlier than 6:00 a.m. and Tamara Thompson, The Land Group, the applicant's representative, submitted a response to the staff report and I will let her cover that with you. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 44 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 42 of 64 Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner McCarvel. Cassinelli: Sonya, that -- that parcel right on the corner of Ustick and Eagle on the southwest corner, that's -- obviously, that's not part of the -- of this plan and I don't see -- kind of waiting for you to see -- I don't see any -- I don't see any access coming off of this to that. Is that a condition in there? We have got that -- there is -- there is that last remaining parcel. Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, they are proposing an access driveway out to Ustick Road right here. That would provide access to that parcel. Cassinelli: Okay. Allen: Kind of the -- in the map you can see -- that -- that access does require Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A3, our access standards, since they already have an access. Further to the west on Centrepoint via Ustick. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: And, Sonya, there -- Centrepoint is lighted; correct? That's a lighted access point? Allen: Yes. I believe it is. McCarvel: And, Sonya, is that outdoor pool back there along that -- Allen: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: Madam Chair, there are two outdoor pools, actually. This one right here is more of a -- restricted to adults and, then, there is another pool facility over in here. McCarvel: Okay. And is that the one I read in -- Allen: So, the pool area that's closest to the residential use is the adult facility and that is within the -- it's close to the residences. McCarvel: Right. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 45 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 43 of 64 Allen: Per the specific use standards. McCarvel: By how much? Allen: The applicant could probably speak to that. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: I don't know the exact calculations. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like come forward. Thompson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. We are pleased to present our applications to modify the existing development agreement and a conditional use permit to allow for a Villasport Athletic Club and Spa on the property. The property is highlighted in blue here, so it does not include the hard corner. I noticed in the staff report that it mentioned the property had the -- the pumpkins and the tree sales and stuff and that activities is actually on the corner piece and not on -- on these pieces. So, I have a little better plan here if you remove all those -- all the parcel lines and everything you can see here. So, ACHD came by years ago and did the intersection improvements at Ustick and with that they added two accesses on Ustick. Does this -- there we go. This one is actually on the corner piece and this one would be on -- there is two parcels here on -- for -- for these parcels. What our proposal is -- and I will -- and I will get to that in a little bit -- is to actually close both of those accesses and put a shared access that splits the property line. So, this one's fully within this parcel right now and -- and that we would have a shared access at that location. So, that answers one of your questions, but when we get to the site plan I will show you a little bit better. So, again, it's 11.39 acres is what the proposal is for the areas in blue, excluding the hard corner, and, fun fact, this is the fifth busiest intersection in the state of Idaho if you count intersections at freeway exits as well. So, it's third if you just count regular intersections. But if you go to the freeway it's the fifth busiest in the entire state. The property is unique in shape. It has Centrepoint that runs through the western portion of it and that's a public roadway and, then, it has the Milk Lateral that bisects the property roughly east to west. The future land use designation of the property is mixed use regional and that is the color in red on the plan. So, even the properties to the south of us are that same mix -- comp plan, the future land use designation. The property is zoned C-G and per the zoning, the city's Unified Development Code, the C-G of the three C zones is the largest scale, with the broadest mix of retail, office service and light industrial uses. So, this is clipped out of your code. Sonya showed you this. This is the 2005 development agreement plan and recent -- more recently in 2013 a development agreement modification was processed and approved by City Council, but the property owner at that time, due to various conditions and -- that were placed on the -- on the development and on the market at the time, did not go through -- go forward with that site. So, this -- this one is the -- that one. Just if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 46 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 44 of 64 you saw any reference to 2013 I wanted to -- to bring that up. The -- the site has a 15 plus year history of entitlements on it. The -- and, like I said, this development agreement was improved in 2005 and, interestingly, in 2005 I'm the same one that processed it, which is kind of fun. The site was entitled prior to the southern subdivisions. Those subdivisions were -- the R-8 was 2009 and the R-15 was 2015. Existing conditions out on the site. So, actually, I want to go back and show you the roads real quick. So, on these we have Cajun -- sorry about that. We have Cajun as an access point to the south. There is an existing cross-access agreement for that access point and Piccard is -- runs on the entire southern edge. So, we our bounded by Ustick, Eagle Road. Piccard is on the south and -- and, then, Centrepoint Way. So, when I go to these pictures I will reference those streets. So, the existing conditions. This is where Cajun comes into the site from the south and this is the southern property line. So, you can see there is an existing wood fence and the trees were -- were planted on the residential side and they are -- they are nice and big. They have been there for -- for at least five years, so -- or at least four years. They are -- they are nice and big. And, then, this is just going to the south about another 50 feet to where Piccard runs and so in this picture we are looking west again. So, both of those pictures are looking west. This one's down Piccard. And here is where -- we are looking east on Piccard and at that corner of where Centrepoint comes into the property and at that corner there is a large open space with -- with some trees as well. That -- the depth of that -- the deepest portion of it is about 70 feet and it's a little triangular piece, but the deepest portion is 70 feet. And, then, this is just going a little bit to the north from that point, so you can still see the open space here and, then, the back side of that fence again looking towards Eagle Road in this picture. And, then, this is turning just a little bit and looking towards Ustick from that same point and the thing I want to point out here is along Ustick are overhead power lines and Idaho Power came in recently and put in kind of a mini substation and so we have looked at various locations for the Villasport facility. One of those was up on Ustick with these power poles -- power and pools don't mix and it -- it just didn't fit within all the easements and everything there, so we moved it to the -- to the southern portion of the site and that's back to there. So, with me tonight I have the senior vice-president of corporate development of Villasport and I also have the representative from the property owner. Randy Black, Junior, is here. I'm going to turn this over to -- to Mike to let him tell you more about Villasport to get you comfortable -- comfortable with their operations and, then, I will come back up and talk a little bit more about the site plan. Fassler: Thank you, Tamara. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Mike Fassler and I'm here to represent Villasport, who would be the major tenant of this proposed project. Villasport is a family -- McCarvel: Could you give your address for the record, please. Sorry. Fassler: Sure. My address would be 150 Pelican Way, San Rafael, California. 94901. I'm here to represent Villasport, which would be the major tenant of this proposed project on the site at Ustick and Eagle Road. Villasport provides a family-oriented, resort-style athletic club and spa. It has proved to be a -- a beneficial community asset in the five communities that we now operate. We operate two clubs in the Houston area. We also Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 47 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 45 of 64 operate our first club in Colorado Springs that dates back to 2006. We have one club in San Jose, California. And a club in Beaverton, Oregon. We are currently under construction in two other locations. Roseville, California. And we also are in construction in Katy, Texas. Villasport tries to promote a healthy lifestyle where family fitness and community come together. We offer fitness, sports, social events and educational programming for the community. So, here on the slide shows you an example. This is from our Beaverton club. It shows you the facade of the building. It also shows you that we are -- our aim is to provide that -- that resort style experience right down the street from your house. So, you don't have to go far. We also are -- we also provide services for the entire community. Here is an example of the indoor swimming pool. This would be a recreational pool inside, as well as we have a lap pool inside and, then, there is an indoor-outdoor spa, which is great. Kids love it. Especially in the wintertime. They can go outside. And our focus is definitely on family. Our aquatics program is comprehensive. We have two lap pools, one indoor, one outdoor, and we have two recreational pools, one indoor-outdoor as well. The aquatics program provides swim safety, instructional fitness classes for all ages, including a youth and master swim team. There are more examples of the outdoor pools. So, you see the play -- play apparatus for the kids to enjoy the recreational pool and, then, this is the more serene adults only side where there is a -- there is a whirlpool and there is a lap pool as well. And with the adults outdoor lap pool, one of the reasons we need the 5:00 a.m. start is that a lot of times parents -- people work in the community, they start lap swimming earlier on -- so, it wouldn't be recreational swimming at 5:00 a.m. or before 6:00 a.m., it would be lap swimming. And these are just more examples of that resort experience that we offer for the whole family. Included in our offerings is a spa. The spa will be open to the public. It provides full spa services. Manicures, pedicures, massages, facials, et cetera. Furthermore, the -- the concept of the -- the club is -- is to offer high end facilities for everyone. So, you will see this example of the men's lounge and locker room, as well as the sauna. We have over a hundred pieces of cardio equipment that we offer at our clubs. We also have five group X rooms, offering more than 180 classes per week. Here you will see an example of -- we have an NBA regulation size gymnasium for basketball and, then, a separate gymnasium dedicated just to kids. And, again, some more shots of the group X classes that we offer. Kids are a high important focus of what we offer. We have over 10,000 square feet offered -- dedicated just to the Villa Kids. This is where kids ages six weeks to 12 years old go through different rotations. There will be five or six different rotations, depending on the club. They spend 25 minutes each rotation. There will be an art -- art studio. There will be an activity studio. There will be another studio for dancing. They will also do exercises inside the gym and, then, there is outside play apparatus -- a play area that they will use. And this is just some more photos of some of them enjoy -- some of the members enjoying the experience. Here is the Villa Cafe. An important piece of what we do is we offer nutritional foods and grab and go items for -- for members, as well as the community. So, this is open to the public. So, the neighborhood can walk down, grab a cup of coffee or something -- or grab a light snack on the way to work. Another important piece of what Villasport does is offering community programs. We offer -- we have birthday rentals for facilities. We do a Santa breakfast. We do an egg hunt. We do a school expo where private and public schools come together annually to show what programming they offer to the local community. Here is just a photo of what the building elevations would look Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 48 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 46 of 64 like. Understanding prototype. And here is the layout as well of the building. So, it's a two story building. There is 32,000 square feet up and about 58,000 square feet down, including the indoor swimming pools and all the gymnasiums and fitness equipment and locker rooms. There is a family locker room. There is a men's locker room and a women's locker room as well, with the spa in the middle. Now, we are back to the conceptual site plan. So, one important thing to note is the swimming pool location. Tamara talked about before already is right there and I will give it back to Tamara. So, thank you. Thompson: Thank you, Mike. Again, for the record Tamara Thompson. So, our site plan, we have -- like Sonya had mentioned, the -- this is a multi-tenant retail building that would be phase two. So, phase one would be the Villasport property itself. From the -- from Centrepoint Way we have a parking lot over there. So, on that -- on the concept plan in 2005 we had office buildings in this location and, then, if you see here the current access -- sorry -- is right here, but the property line -- we have worked out with the -- from the property owner that owns that hard corner to split that property line with the -- with a new access point. It does a couple things there and it moves that access point further back from the intersection and it provides a better access for -- for both of them and closes up one access point on Ustick. So, we will be talking with City Council about that. To get to your distances -- so, the use standard really talks about properties and the -- the outdoor uses in relation to a residential district. In this case we have open space and a road that's between the two uses and code doesn't really go into that, but in most cases, if there is a public street in between your uses, then, those setbacks don't -- don't apply and what we are asking for here -- we have -- there is two -- this is an outside area on the Villa Kids side and our closest residential structure is 107 feet from that location and our closest residential structure from the closest edge of the pool is 109 feet. So, what we are asking for is -- and I believe that code is written as if these would be properties backing up to where you're adjacent to like backyards. What we are asking for is that -- and I don't know if we call it an alternative compliance, but our -- our setbacks, we are still a hundred feet away with -- because we have that road there. There is a public street, open space, and this use is seasonal. It's -- it's not year round. We -- we have cold weather here, so it will be a seasonal -- seasonal pool. And, then, so -- and I have listed the area that has the kids, where there would be more activity is -- is over 200 feet away from the closest residence. And one of the things in the staff report that I was trying to look up is the definition of activity center. The Meridian City Code does not have a definition for activity center and so I was just looking through Google Earth to see how other areas that I would consider activity centers -- how those were addressed and it seems to be applied without consistency. So, here is just an example of Fuller Park where you have got baseball diamonds adjacent to two neighborhoods and they don't have that hundred foot separation. The Settlers Park, same thing. And, then, you also have community pools within subdivisions and those don't have the hundred foot separation requirement. So, code -- code really doesn't give us much direction on -- on that activity center and here -- here is one more of that. So, with that our -- and I know my time is up, so I'm going to go through this real quickly. We have reviewed the staff report. We agree with staff's findings, with a few modifications. Staff is recommending approval and the conditions that we are asking relief from -- or that we are providing an alternative compliance with -- because there are public streets separating uses -- is -- let's see. For the first one, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 49 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 47 of 64 1.1A, the reference in that section states seven and it should be eight. So V1.1. And 1.1C and 2.1A go together and that is the specific use standards for the arts, entertainment, and recreation facility, indoors and outdoors. We are asking for a small modification there in that our separation wouldn't be from the residential district, but, instead, the residential use. Or structure. And 1.1D and 2.1D, those are similar in that the -- the separation be separated from the residential structure, not the district. And, then, to update the hours of operation in that -- that we are asking for 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on the exterior -- on the outdoor swimming areas and, again, that is seasonal and the 5:00 a.m. is -- would be for swimming laps only. And, then, any type of outdoor speakers would be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. And, then, we have 1.1F. And, again, this is the same thing that we just request that reference be made to the residential structures and not residential district. And to clarify in 2.2, hours of operation for indoor activities, would be 4:00 a.m. to midnight. And just for reference, the Gold's Gym, which is across Eagle Road in the old Rosauers center, that is a 24 hour facility with residential behind it. And, lastly, 2.2K is -- talks about an offsite sidewalk and offside improvements are, first, difficult to negotiate those with -- with other property owners, but, second, I believe that that property, which -- and I can show you where it is. It is -- I believe it to be right in here and I also -- we have heard from this property owner and that they are processing applications for an office building currently and if they -- if they haven't been submitted to the city they will soon, but this -- any sidewalk locations in this area should be part of that development and not this one, since we would have to go off site for that. And with that I appreciate your time and we respectfully request your approval tonight and I will stand for questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I can't get away without -- what -- as far as the lap pool and having that opened at 5:00 a.m., why can't -- at that hour they use the -- there is an indoor lap pool. Why seeking the change in hours? Thompson: You know, anything to do with -- with operations I think I would like to get Mike -- Mr. -- Mr. Fassler up to answer those questions. Cassinelli: Certainly. Fassler: Hi, Commissioner. Happy to answer the question. So, a lot of -- a lot of our members do prefer to swim outside during the summer months when the weather is better and so that's why we would need the lap pool starting at 5:00 a.m. Again, seasonal, so that the lap pool would only be open April through October, during that time of year. It will be adults only, so it's 18 and over in that area. It's not -- there is going to be no speakers, it's just going to be laps fairly quiet and there is also -- between the residential -- just to point out, again, between the residential structures and the -- the pool area there Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 50 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 48 of 64 is currently a wooden fence. There is going to also be another fence that we will put up and there is going to -- there is mature trees and open space, as well as a street before the noise would even reach across. Thank you. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: I do have one more question for -- is there any pedestrian -- I mean is there going to be a pedestrian signal at Centrepoint between that extra parking and the facility? I'm guessing it's probably just a stop sign and pedestrian -- but there is no lights or anything there. Thompson: Right. Madam Chair, there -- there would not be any type of a signal at this location. The warrants wouldn't be met. This intersection is signaled, but it would just be a crosswalk across here. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Do we have any public testimony on this, Chris? Johnson: Madam Chair, you have four people wishing to speak. First is Mike Tisdale. McCarvel: Mike, are you in the room? Johnson: Next is Brandon Clyde. McCarvel: Okay. Johnson: Batting zero here. Jared Schofield. Schofield: Thanks for your time. I'm Jared Schofield. I live at 1566 North Leslie Way, one of the properties that immediately adjoins the proposal. I have several items to address with you today. Really, one of the big concerns with the community is, obviously, the time impacts with early operation. My backyard direct -- directly faces the proposed pool and swimming area. I also have small children. So, do my next door neighbors. There are also several small children in the other neighborhood immediately beside this, which I believe this development will have great impacts to that community. Obviously, it's a parking lot directly behind my property, so I have several concerns there. One, obviously, in their design they -- I'm -- Tamara, I appreciate you having the wall designed into that that matches the existing wall that's there as a sound barrier, but it will take several years for the vegetation -- the trees to be -- grow up to a height where there actually is any kind of sound blockage, in addition to just that wall and with the height of the facility and water slides that will actually be elevated well above the height of the wall, there really will be no -- it really negates that sound barrier usage. Also parking lot -- lighting within the parking lot, obviously, that may become a nuisance directly into the backyard, as this has been traditionally a very rural area. That's the reason why a lot of us are there. Another issue is, obviously, the safety. As Tamara very well pointed out, this is the fifth busiest intersection within the state and due to the increase of high density Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 51 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 49 of 64 in the area, this has now become an extremely dangerous area where several times we cannot even access off of Leslie Way to get onto Ustick or onto Eagle. It is almost impossible to make a left turn off of Leslie Way onto Ustick at this time due to the increase in traffic flow and I believe with the current proposal it's going to increase that dramatically, as well as, you know, into the surrounding communities almost and onto Centrepoint overflow traffic potentially and people cutting through their neighborhood as well, creating traffic hazards for their children within that neighborhood as I see it. Villasport is a members only facility and, in my opinion, does not really add value to our community, as it is a high end facility and doesn't really benefit the middle class neighborhood that it is being put into. Also impact to the overall property values of the neighborhood. Obviously, we don't have anything within the Boise valley of this nature to know how the true impacts may affect us, but it is a concern on that front as well. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Schofield -- McCarvel: Oh. Fitzgerald: -- can you answer a question for me real quick? Give me your thoughts on why there is the safety challenge for kids with this particular development -- for your guys's street on Leslie, which is a street over -- Schofield: Not so much for my street as per se, but other people. It has become -- with Leslie Way being a bypass from Leslie or from Ustick out to Eagle, it has become a raceway when the traffic becomes bad on Eagle and Ustick. Because of that we have a very large increase of traffic down that corridor, which historically had little to no traffic with the increase of traffic and traffic being backed up past Centrepoint to Leslie, that creates a flow of people taking a shortcut to get to Eagle through Leslie Way. Fitzgerald: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Schofield: You're welcome. Johnson: Final sign in is Steve Grant. Grant: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way, just adjacent to J.R. who just spoke. I have several concerns that -- some of which have been addressed by Tamara in the past. The wall -- there is an existing wall, it's -- it's about four feet off of our property line. It's a masonry wall and we have -- we have asked and they have agreed to extend that to -- down to -- or to -- yeah, to Ustick. One concern is that because it's a masonry wall it has to have footings and that's why it's set off of the property line and when -- when the original wall was built the -- the -- the builders at that time put -- put us in -- you know, made us sign an agreement to maintain that -- that wall, which I'm not quite sure how that would work when and if it ever needed maintenance, but the issue -- they also provided us a landscaping agreement, because Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 52 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 50 of 64 the wall -- you know, you want to landscape your own yard and I would hope that that could be agreed on with -- with the existing -- or the new property owners. Lighting is -- J.R. addressed a little bit. We would like that lighting in that parking lot to be shielded, so that the light is directed down. I believe Tamara has also agreed to that. I share J.R.'s concerns about safety when all the development came in behind this, which is mostly residential, the -- there is increase in traffic that people cut through, because you can't turn left off of Eagle onto -- onto Leslie Way, because of the barrier on Eagle, we see most of that traffic being diverted, if it gets congested, which it does, you know, in early morning and at rush hour in the evening, people, you know, use that as a bypass. Also I don't know how in the world you're going to have a left turn off out of that -- the proposed onto Ustick. I mean it's so close to the Kohl's parking lot and that's just -- I can't see how it could be anything but a right turn only, but that would also force all the people who want to go left down to Centrepoint. And, then, another concern is that the, you know, there is no -- there is no -- I mean a crosswalk is fine, but it seems to me when you have got little kids with their parents going across Centrepoint by that light, that's a big concern for safety as well. I object to the hours of operation. I would propose that instead of 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with outdoor -- the speakers that that be limited to 9:00 and I would be okay with that. I don't know how other folks feel about it, but that seems more reasonable and more in line with what people would -- I guess normally expect. I don't have any objections to the project with the concerns noted, but I do agree with J.R. that the landscaping foliage would take a number of years to mature enough to be effective and it would need to be increased to have it more dense. I would answer any questions if you have any. McCarvel: Thank you. Grant: Thanks. McCarvel: Anyone else in the room that wishes to testify on this application? Wardle: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Shaun Wardle. 2239 East Greiner Street in Meridian. For those of you that know me, you know that I probably couldn't come to a public hearing and not make some testimony. So, I appreciate your time. A couple of reasons that -- that I'm interested in this particular application. I was actually on the City Council when this came through -- this project came through originally and so I have watched it over the years and -- and wondered how the commercial development, as well as the residential development was going to -- to mesh together and I really do feel that this particular use is appropriate within a neighborhood and that brings me to my second issue. Professionally my family and I operated the Idaho Athletic Clubs until about two years ago and so have some specific knowledge in terms of how a community can gel around a health and fitness club and we, as a community in Meridian, as well as other areas, have kind of struggled with what's appropriate in terms of timing and when do people want to work out and so one of the things that I see in this particular code is the economic reality is that people want to work out early. We have members that -- we had facilities that were 24 hours. Our Meridian facility opened at 4:30 and we had people in line at 4:15 to work out and so that's an economic reality in terms of what Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 53 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 51 of 64 happens with this type of a use. So, just wanted to give a little bit of testimony about that and talk a little bit about the appropriate use and think it would be a good project and would stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to testify on this application? Sir. Vrba: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jeff Vrba. I live at 3005 North LeBlanc Way in Meridian, Idaho. So, it's basically two houses from the corner of where their 109 foot mark is at. A couple main problems I see with the -- a big facility like that going in right there. There has been a death at the corner of Eagle and Ustick this past year. There is multiple accidents every time. That intersection is a lot of traffic through there. Adding the extra traffic of people wanting to go to another fitness center. Centrepoint itself, you get maybe three cars through there before the light turns. You don't get a lot of time turning in and out. Their -- their road that they are planning on putting in there, it's useless to get off of Ustick Road on there, so you will have to go down to Centrepoint. For us to get home, the only way we can get into our subdivision is through Centrepoint. I come in from Micron every day and travel down Eagle Road, take a left on Ustick, have to go down to Centrepoint, take a left, to get into my subdivision. With the additional traffic that's going to be coming from this type of facility being put in there, the intersection of Eagle and Ustick is going to be really busy. Their secondary road there -- there is actually an island in the middle of Ustick there, so there is not going to be anybody able to turn off of Ustick into that -- use that road there. So, the only use for that would be people coming up Ustick from Meridian that way. Coming down -- coming up from the interstate heading north on Eagle Road there, that other lane, you can't get in there from Eagle Road. You have to go up to the intersection, make a U-turn and come back and try to get in there. So, the only reason that other will benefit anybody is coming from Eagle down. Looking at their facility, the footprint that they put out, they say it's two stories, but if you look at it it's closer to three stories tall with the flooring in it and, then, their extra decoration in front, there is another higher, so the footprint of the building, I -- backing up against my house I don't want to have to look out my door and all I do see a building out there. The original building, Kohl's, that's out across the street, they are a single floor. The building is pleasing in the area, even looking out that way. The lighting in the area is great. We don't have a lot of light coming in there. They mentioned, yeah, you got a fitness center across the street that's open 24 hours. There is nothing outdoors in there. That is a whole complex there that's all business related and stuff. So, it's not like it's a big issue there with that. So, basically, looking at their map, the only way to get into their facility easily is down at Centrepoint and coming down Centrepoint there is not -- you got 40 homes that we have there, plus another 50 or 60 that might be coming from the other apartment complexes that are over there. There is too much traffic trying to get out of there now, let alone trying to add more coming in that way. The noise -- McCarvel: Sir, your time is up. You need to wrap up your thoughts. Vrba: The noise ordinance, it's there for a reason. I will fight tooth and nail to get that to stop and not change. I don't want to have to open my windows and hear people just 200 yards away screaming and shouting all night long. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 54 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 52 of 64 McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Sir. Park: Commissioners, I'm David Park and my address is 191 P.O. Box in Meridian. I represent Jackson Square HOA and -- McCarvel: Can you pull that mic just a little closer to you. Park: This? McCarvel: Yeah. Thank you. Park: Or get down a little more. McCarvel: Thank you. Park: There you go. I'm comfortable. Do I need to repeat? McCarvel: No. Dean got it. Park: I really didn't come here tonight to testify, I came to get the information, but based on the information that we have heard so far I echo the concerns of the other residents that have been here. Centrepoint Way cannot handle another two to three hundred cars that will be coming in there if there is that many. Cajun Road where the fence is there is not a road yet. It will need to be extended through there and the question is how are you going to get in there and like Mr. Vrba just said, the only way to get in is to come in off of Eagle and come around there. If you come down through Centrepoint, make a left turn onto Piccard to go down there, now you're adding all that traffic into the residential side. We already have problems in there now with Jimmy John's, which is a sandwich delivery place. Those guys go speeding through there all times of the day and there are some speed bumps there, they slow down for those, but they roll right through the stop signs. We have been to Jimmy John's several times and management says, okay, I will talk to my people, but they don't do anything about it. So, with that congestion that we have and, then, with the additional congestion of everybody coming in on Centrepoint, it's going to be a nightmare trying to get in and out of that location. Most of the residents in the housing development there, which is Jackson Square, are retired folks. They are going to be really upset with music and outdoor speakers going at 11:00 o'clock at night. So, that's going to be a big concern for the retirement community of people that are in there. We have concerns about the denigration of our property values. While the athletic facility looks great and, you know, it looks like something that could be beneficial. It's going to have a negative impact on the residents in that area. So, for those reasons we are highly concerned about this going forward. McCarvel: Okay. Park: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 55 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 53 of 64 McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back. Thompson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson, again, for the record. So, I took I think good notes and I will try to address as many comments as possible. For the first two gentlemen that spoke along this property line over here, so from the residential portion they have a six foot block wall that separates -- these -- these properties are actually in the county that separates the R1 county properties from the R- 8 properties and in our development agreement the 2005 development agreement, that was agreed to to continue that wall to the corner and that would -- that would continue to be a part of this develop -- the new development agreement. We are not proposing to take that out. So, just to reiterate that. And, then, with the other development we actually had buildings and uses in -- in this area. This parking lot is anticipated to be employee- only parking. I mean there is not going to be someone out there that, you know, is checking to make sure it's not, but it's -- it definitely is not -- it's for employees and most people with small children will be parking over there. We will be widening the road from the way it is right now and we did a traffic study, it was submitted to ACH -- ACHD in July of this year and we addressed their comments in September, but I saw in the staff report we still don't have a staff report from them. So, they -- they are busy like everyone else, but -- but in the traffic study I can tell you that getting the light synced for the signal for the -- for the development is part of it, plus this road would be widened as well. So, with development it seems a little counterintuitive sometimes, but improvements are made with -- with development. This approach -- or this access to Ustick is right-in, right-out only. There is a median here and the -- the accesses that ACHD put in when they widen the intersection a decade or so ago, you will see those were -- those actually -- and I can just go to that if you want to see. The -- they line up exactly across and that's before -- well, that's a long way back. I have a lot of slides here. There we go. You can see they line up exactly across from -- because that's how -- that's how they typically put them in is straight across. But now that there is a medium in there that is no longer needed. So, those -- those two would close up and -- and the third one that we put in that's a little bit further back from Ustick because of the -- the turn lanes here, that that shared access would be right-in, right-out only. Let's see. As far as residential shields -- so, interestingly, I processed the entitlements for the Edwards out at Cole that has seven miles of neon that wrap that Edwards building and that was a big deal that, you know, neighbors were concerned about lighting. Lighting is always a concern. But we do have good light standards now where they have residential shields on them and we can block that light at the property line and we do photo metric studies with our developments that -- that will ensure that. Let's see. The increase in traffic. Traffic is always a concern, especially in the Eagle Road corridor. The -- first the ambient noise that is created by this. When we did these entitlements the first time, the -- the Lowe's had just gone in and a lot of those neighbors came to our neighborhood meeting and they were concerned about sound and light and noise and it was amazing that they actually admitted that putting a building in helped with their sound tremendously from the ambient noise of just the -- the road and so the Lowe's helped the neighborhood back behind there and the building here will do the same thing, it will help block that, and to get back to traffic, we have a development Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 56 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 54 of 64 agreement currently. There is entitlements for this property. It's not going to remain a vacant field for much longer, but we do have entitlements for 150,000 square feet of retail. Having a retail facility here with loading docks and you're going to have the same parking lot lights, it is a larger facility with 150,000 square feet that, they will -- all those concerns are -- are still there and those are definitely something that we have been mindful of and we have addressed those in our -- in our proposal. The -- the traffic improvements that -- that will go in as far as the widening of CenterCal, different -- there is quite a large ACHD impact fee that will go with this building that will help to create regional improvements. As far as members only, the use of the pools and the athletic facility does have a membership component to it and -- but there is many things with the facility that are open to the public. The -- the cafe -- what you saw is open to the public and the spa services are open to the public and, then, they do have guest passes and they have different membership drives, you know, so it is -- it is affordable. I looked at it. I'm -- I consider myself in the middle class and -- and I could afford it. Let's see. Lighting. Oh, as far as Jimmy John's. So, in our traffic study, that was something that was looked at as far as, you know, where -- where access is -- is located. Most cars for access heading north on Eagle Road would use the light at Centrepoint. And, again, that would be -- that timing would be worked out with ACHD to alter that timing. And, then, for Jimmy John's and for these users, there is going to be this connection here now that you could get to -- and that's part of the conditions of approval is the cross-access agreement and that -- that agreement, like I said before, is in place, but it's been something that has -- that connection hasn't been made, because development hasn't occurred. But this connection does come through to this location and, hopefully, we could keep a lot of that traffic off of the residential streets and through the commercial development where it's more appropriate. And, again, noise and sound and lighting. Those are all things we can mitigate with -- with -- with -- with different buffers. I do have actually a last -- a picture. This is kind of the pool area and as far as the sound goes, they have all these little canopies and umbrellas and those -- those are huge sound buffer as well on the -- on the interior and, then, property values. Property values is something -- I have been doing this for over 20 years, which is weird to say some things over 20 years, but the property values always come up and it's -- it is something that I'm always curious about and I go back and check on things and it's never come to fruition. In fact, having an unknown and having a vacant piece of property is more of a property value -- devaluant than it is to have a quality development, which is -- which is certainly what this is, a very quality development and a good neighbor. So, again, the -- the retail uses are much more intense and those loading facilities are much more intense than a seasonal outdoor swim facility. And with that I will just wrap up with that we have read the staff report with the conditions that I -- the modified conditions that I mentioned before that we respectfully request your approval tonight. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? You said Centrepoint is going to be widened. I'm assuming at least a left-hand turn and maybe a right lane out or what are we looking at? Thompson: I believe the left-hand turn -- yes. I don't know about the right-out. McCarvel: That's what's coming out from the other side. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 57 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 55 of 64 Thompson: Yeah. McCarvel: And how far back does that get widened then? Just the left turn space or all the way back to Piccard or where the -- Thompson: I didn't bring that report with me and I don't -- I don't recall. McCarvel: Okay. Thompson: I don't recall. But all that -- you know, it was something that ACHD gives the whole scope of everything and -- and -- and, like I said, we submitted that July. They came back with comments. We resubmitted to address their comments in September and -- and we are waiting on that -- that to be finaled. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Tamara, would you guys be interested -- or not interested, I'm sure, but willing -- if there was a desire for like a brick wall to be along Piccard as a -- additional buffer, instead of a six foot picture frame fence? Is that something that you would be willing to do if -- I mean as an additional sound barrier? Because we can't berm it as much, because it's too close to the property line I would guess -- to do additional sound buffering there. Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner, the entire -- the entire length is considerable and -- Fitzgerald: It is. Thompson: -- and I would -- we did talk about that before and it's -- it's cost prohibitive to do that entire area. I think what would be -- you know, this -- this really -- it's not the entire area that is the concern. As far as on this area, we would be willing to work with staff on some sound mitigation measures and there is a handful of them that -- that could be -- that could be implemented. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: Probably all the way back just to the corner of the building maybe. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Or something that would provide some additional -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 58 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 56 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: On that aspect is there -- had it been -- has it been looked at to change the dimensions of that building to make it more of a rectangle instead of a square and, then, maybe that -- I think you mentioned was a kids play area on the -- on the east side, that grass, bring that to -- bring that to abut Piccard Lane to create space there. Thompson: Over -- over here? Cassinelli: To move it away -- to move the building -- to create more space there between the homes there on the -- on the south side and bring that -- bring that play area alongside that fence. To reorient some things there to -- to add some extra buffer space between the building and the homes. Thompson: Yeah. I see what you're saying. So, Madam Chair, Commissioner, a couple things. I didn't get into the height of the building, which -- which was brought up. Our building -- this building is 36 feet high on the backside. For the C-G zone the height can be 65 feet. So, we are -- we are not even close to the maximum height that is allowed in that zoning designation. We have looked at several different ways to develop the site and we have many constraints. The -- the Milk Lateral that runs through here gives us a pinch point. We are going to be undergrounding that. But we still have to work within the easements that the irrigation district has and, then, creating the cross-access to get down and it just -- it gets really pinched in that area and we have looked at -- at a lot of different -- different scenarios and this one is -- is where we have come with keeping at least a hundred feet separation from the nearest residential uses. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Oh, go ahead. Holland: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing for Item H-2018-0121. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2018- 0121. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Allen: If I may, staff would recommend striking 2.1K. The -- the last sentence on that where it's noted that there is a 30 foot long gap in the sidewalk along Cajun Way off site. That -- you know, in retrospect that really doesn't make sense, because there will -- or there should be an access driveway there. So, I'm sure that's why it wasn't constructed Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 59 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 57 of 64 before. So, staff would recommend waving just the second part of that -- or the last sentence I should say. The first part, a pedestrian walkway shall be extended from the sidewalk along the east side of Cajun Way along the driveway into this site to the main building. Entrance should remain. Cassinelli: What number is that? Allen: 2.1K, page 16. McCarvel: Okay. There is a lot to love about this. I think with just a few tweaks we can get there. I'm hoping. I would love to move it to way farther south in Meridian. But I do think with Center Way being widened as it should, because there really would need to be a left turn lane out of there and that parking lot with really no other buildings and nobody expecting pedestrians, I would -- I just -- I would love to see an electronic flashing pedestrian path cross way there, even if it is just intended for employees. You -- there is no way to stop that and it -- with landscaping and trees I just don't think it's anticipated for most drivers to be people crossing there. And I think -- I mean with the trees and stuff that are already there and that being just a summertime lap pool, I think the distance is okay. I just -- I'm wondering about the hours. I mean I do realize a lot of people like to do the early morning, but maybe they can do the inside or at least that there be very strict absolutely no music. No -- I mean just strictly laps out there. I think some of the traffic -- especially that stuff like Jimmy John's, like she said, I think that would actually reduce some of that traffic if they could go out through this commercial area. But I think, you know, you're going to have something big there. It's -- and I think this use is a nice change for the intersection. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I like the project. Certainly I understand the residents' concerns with -- with traffic. We know all development opportunities tend to bring more traffic. But I appreciate that the applicant's working to widen Centrepoint Way and they will work with ACHD on the timing of the light to make it more efficient, which ultimately should help benefit the residents' abilities to exit the -- the neighborhood more easily, too, if they work to sync those lights a little bit better. You know, the only major thing I think we need to work on is what the hours of operation are, since it's a conditional use permit request. I don't have a big concern with the facility operating, you know, from 4:00 a.m. to midnight for the indoor activities. I don't see a huge concern with that. I think the main concern would just be with the outdoor activities and if they do -- I don't have a concern with someone using the lap pool necessarily at 5:00 a.m. But as long as it was restricted just to the adult lap pool and not having kids out there, I think that should be a condition potentially that we put in there. I think the 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. sounds reasonable for the -- the outdoor music. Fitzgerald: Agree. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 60 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 58 of 64 McCarvel: Or was at 9:00 p.m. I thought -- Fitzgerald: I thought it was 9:00 to 11:00 requested and I think -- Holland: In the staff report it says up -- up above that it was outdoor music only operating from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: I think it's a nice amenity for Meridian. There is not a lot of spaces where people can go access outdoor pools, unless they have them in their neighborhood units or if they want to, you know, go to a YMCA type facility, but I think it's a nice amenity that looks like it's got some good programming and would be a good fit for Meridian on that corner. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I totally agree. I think it becomes a community center type place with uses that will benefit the community, whether it's cafe or it's programming for schools around the neighborhood -- around the area. I do agree with you, I think that some of the cross- access will ease some of the traffic issues and widen, you know, Centrepoint Way will take some of the concerns around there. I would be interested in the comments on -- like some kind of a wall or something. I'm not sure if that fits in with the neighborhood or not. Maybe that's not a problem. But I do -- I think the project is beautiful. I think it will be an asset to the area, but I think if the conversation -- I agree it's an hours question remains. Cassinelli: Down to me? I like how we are going in order every time. I -- I -- I am not fond -- to get the timing out of the way first, I wouldn't be up for the exception to 5:00 a.m. I think anybody coming in early there is an indoor pool, you know, even if it's in the middle of July or August. If you're there at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. use the indoor one. I think we got to keep that -- if we start making exceptions on those sorts of things, it's going to become a problem. So, I don't want to do that. Sonya, I have a question for you. On the -- on the setbacks from residential district, what Tamara was showing us was -- she was measuring it from a home. Where would it put it -- or what's the edge of the residential district? Is it on the north side of Piccard Lane? Allen: Just a moment, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: While you're looking at that, all in all, I mean I -- I don't think traffic's going to be a huge killer, especially what could go in there. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 61 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 59 of 64 Cassinelli: Noise -- you know, regular -- regular noise, not out -- that notwithstanding the exceptions they are looking for -- the pools and whatnot during the normal -- what -- what's already code, I don't think that's a problem. The homes on Leslie Way, they are actually having -- they are fortunate in this design that there is nothing going in on that little lot there, you know, some of their views is not going to be blocked and this building will knock down some of the noise from Eagle Road and Ustick. So, those aren't the issues. My -- the -- the only ones I have are -- are the hours. I don't -- I wouldn't support making an exception on that and, then, I want to look at the -- I want to look at the building and how close it is Piccard Way there. So, Sonya, what are you -- Allen: Commissioner Cassinelli, the zoning goes -- I believe it goes clear to this fence line right here. Cassinelli: So, it would be a hundred feet from that fence line to the building, is that -- that's what it would be -- that's what would be code? Allen: There is -- there is several different sections of code -- or more than one. There is a couple I believe. One of them is that the outdoor event or activity center, which includes, but it's not limited to the swimming pools, shall be located within 50 feet of any property line. The swimming pool language is what I put in. The code actually reads: The outdoor event or activity center shall be located within 50 feet of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. That is per our specific use standards. Fitzgerald: And I thought we were 7,200 feet. Cassinelli: On the pools? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: Okay. I guess I'm more concerned about the building. Allen: Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm unable to scale this right now. Cassinelli: Okay. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, your concern on the hours, do you have any concerns on the indoor activities on timing? Cassinelli: No. Because I mean the noise -- that's not going to get to the outside. It's the -- it's -- you know, people -- people swimming at 5:00 a.m. Fitzgerald: So, can swim at 6:00, but not 5:00? Cassinelli: Well, 6:00 is -- 6:00 is what's allowed right now. You know, we are not here to change that. We are -- we are -- you know, we are being asked for an exception to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 62 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 60 of 64 that and I think 5:00 is -- I wouldn't want to be the one living there when -- and now there is somebody jumping in the pool of 5:00 a.m. Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, looking at what's in the -- the staff report recommendations, condition -- for the conditional use permit, the 2.1D, it says in there right now the outdoor event or activity center should operate between the hours of 6:00 o'clock and 11:00 o'clock. So, it looks like they are asking for a one hour exception on there. I'm okay whether it's 6:00 o'clock or 5:00 a.m. I think they are asking for a one hour exception on it, just to note that. The other thing, too, is looking at where the property lines are, I don't have a concern with changing the language to say that it's from residential structure property lines to where this building is, because you do have the roadway that separates it and you have got the green space that separates it. You don't have any residential neighbors that would be adjacent to the property line itself of the proposed structure. If you look at the map there is really only two residences that would be behind the visibility corridor of that -- that building itself. I mean it will -- they will all see it for sure, but there is two that are the closest on there when I'm looking at the map. Fitzgerald: The challenge is -- not challenge or -- is that we could put a 65 foot building in there. That's the -- in C-G zone. Whether that's the right answer or not, but that's -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: That's the -- considering I guess the challenge when you have a commercial zone on a hard corner like that. Holland: One other comment if I may, too. The way that the building is situated right now faces the side yards of those two houses, which I think also makes a different impact, too, so they are not going to necessarily be looking out their front window at it. Cassinelli: On the -- still on the timing. I mean anybody that's there at that hour, the indoor pool is available. They can use that. I don't see that we -- I don't see that they -- I mean it's -- that's -- this isn't -- the -- the 5:00 a.m. is not a -- it's not a deal killer for the facility. They are not going to -- they are not going to lose members. They are not going to lose money over that one hour. That's not -- that's not the issue. McCarvel: For just the outdoor pool. Yeah. Cassinelli: What's that? McCarvel: For just the outdoor pool. Yeah. Cassinelli: I mean some people swimming laps for -- for an hour that -- that's -- that's not going to stop somebody from becoming a member, because they still have a -- there is still a pool. There is still somewhere for them swim laps at 5:00 a.m. It's just indoor, not outdoor. So, my other -- my other issue, my other concern is the -- is -- is the setback of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 63 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 61 of 64 the building, that it's right up against the property line. So, it doesn't meet the -- I mean right -- right now, unless we, you know, make -- make the exception on that, we are -- McCarvel: Yeah. I'm -- I think I'm okay with that setback, just because, like I said, the angle of those houses and there is a mitigating factor, the -- that lateral, I mean they just don't have much to work with there. They have got to protect that easement along the front of the building. There is not a lot of room for them to go there. Holland: Madam Chair, just to recap some of the applicant's requests to make sure we are not missing anything. A couple of the requests they had was 1.1A, just changing the number, because I think it was just a -- a reference point. It should be seven, not eight. I don't see any concerns with that. I think it's just a correction. They wanted to change the language in the staff report on 1.1 and 2.2, noting that they -- changing from residential structure, not district. I think that's what Commissioner Cassinelli is wrestling with over here is the language of whether we are talking about the structures themselves or the district itself. Cassinelli: Correct. And that -- I mean that -- that's a big difference. That's a huge difference there. Holland: And, then, I think the only other things they are talking about are striking note 2.1K, which staff agreed with as well, just the second half of that condition where the note was written in there. And, then, we have also talked about working with having the applicant work with staff to create a sound buffer between the pool and the house area and, then, also working with staff and ACHD on a crosswalk that would connect that parking lot. I think that's -- that's pretty much what we have discussed, unless there is something else we need to talk about, too. Fitzgerald: No. I think you're -- I think you hit them all. McCarvel: Yeah. I think the hours I think we are all kind of in agreement to leave that at 6:00 a.m. Holland: I'm happy to throw out a motion, unless we want to keep discussing, but -- McCarvel: Roll with it. Fitzgerald: So, quick question. So, 2.2 talks about 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. versus 4:00 a.m. to -- am I understanding that correctly? Versus 4:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for the whole spa? Just -- I'm making -- I'm making sure I'm clear on that. Holland: It's my understanding they would like to have the actual hours for the indoor facility from 4:00 a.m. to midnight and the outdoor facility we would allow from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for the outdoor, with the music only operating from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Fitzgerald: Okay. And I'm just making -- Sonya, on 2.2, that's not what we want; correct? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 64 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 62 of 64 Allen: Madam Chair, the staff report is incorrect. Fitzgerald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. So, we need to restate -- Allen: What Commissioner Holland just stated is correct. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we strike 2.2 -- or replace it with what you just said, which is here. Allen: Just -- just tell me -- Fitzgerald: In your motion. Allen: And I can -- yeah. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: All right. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0121 as presenting in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20th, 2018, with the following modifications: One, that we adjust the staff report for 1.1A, stating the number seven instead of number eight. That we would adjust the language in the staff report to talk about the separation from residential structures versus the district. That we would strike the note in item 2.1K and just leave the first part of that sentence as we discussed. That the applicant work with staff to create a sound buffer that would mitigate some of the concern of noise pollution between the pool and the houses neighboring. That the applicant would work with staff and ACHD on creating some sort of crosswalk and ease of pedestrian access to the facility from the west parking lot and that the hours of operation can be adjusted, so that the facility can be operated from 4:00 a.m. to midnight for indoor activities, 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for outdoor activities, with outdoor music only operating from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. I think that's it. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Cassinelli: Before we take a vote I had just a question on that motion. So, you're -- what you stated there is changing it from residential district to actual the residence. Fitzgerald: Structure. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 65 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 63 of 64 Holland: To the -- the property line of structures. Cassinelli: I just wanted to make clear. I wanted to make the clear before I cast my vote. Thank you. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve -- we are doing both in the same motion? Fitzgerald: Recommendation. McCarvel: The conditional use permit -- okay. To approve H-2018-0121 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Good count. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Any other messages from staff before we adjourn? Okay. Fitzgerald: Happy Holidays. McCarvel: Merry Christmas. Fitzgerald: Merry Christmas. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 20th, 2018. Cassinelli: I will second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 3, 2019 – Page 66 of 128 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 64 of 64 APPROVED RHO NDA McCARVEL - CHAIR AN A T Ap AY C - CI L E R K J-1 (3 1 DATE APPROVED Cif n( 6 C' E IDIAN�. Z IDAHO SEAL 2 T��ofinc> rRFn`j" 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of December 6, 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 December 6, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 12/10/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 3 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 Changes to Agenda: • Item #4A: Bainbridge Franklin (H-2018-0057) — Request for continuance to January 3rd. Item #46: Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018.0090) Application(s): Development Agreement Modification — Does not require action by the Commission ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.99 acres of land, zoned C -C, located at the northeast corner of N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads. History: This property received annexation and short plat approval in 2014 as Sugarman Subdivision (AZ -14-007) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -C Summary of Request: The applicant requests a preliminary plat, a development agreement modification and conditional use permit application to develop the proposed multi -family lots with sixty (60) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 15 dwelling units to the acre. On November 15th, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued this project to allow the applicant time to coordinate the design of this project so it would provide better integration with the surrounding underdeveloped county properties. Items of discussion included cross access with adjacent properties, discussing a public street extension with ACHD, and possibly floating the mixed-use community designation on to the northern property to allow this property and surrounding properties to develop with a mix of uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Since the public hearing, the applicant has met with ACHD and the surrounding property owners. Those conversations have resulted in modifications to the site plan/plat which has been included as part of the public record. The changes to the plan include re -orienting several of the buildings to the northwest and southwest corner; removal of the access to Linder Road; more open space and amenities; and cross access drive aisle along the north project boundary. Further, ACHD indicated that a public street is not desired with the construction of the development and staff did receive an email from the buyer of the Vogel property supporting the location of the northern driveway location. In discussions with the applicant, cross access will be provided to the east property boundary for inter- connectivity. The applicant has also provided a conceptual road layout that depicts how the adjacent properties could potential develop and provide interconnectivity. In reviewing the record, the Commission was supportive of floating the MU -C designation across the Vogel property to ensure a broad mix of uses develop in the area. In the Commission deliberation, it was discussed that commercial could develop along Linder Road with better access away from the intersection. Based on those discussions, the applicant has not incorporated another land use within the proposed development. Staff finds the applicant has addressed most of the concerns discussed during the last meeting. Staff is supportive of the new plan however; conditions of approval have not been incorporated into the staff report due to staffs recommendation for denial of the project. If the Commission determines a single use is appropriate for this site and recommends approval of the project, staff has prepared conditions of approval for the Commission's consideration. Written Testimony: Dave Manning Staff Recommendation: Denial Notes: Item #4C: Alicia Court (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: The property was annexed and pre-platted in 2003 with the final plat being approved in 2006. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to develop the site with 6 single -family residential lots and 2 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 1.94 d.u. per acre with a net density of 2.3 d.u. per acre, which falls below the target density of the MDR designation. Thie applicant is request a "step down" in density from Council as allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plat is consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district. 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. 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 existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 is requesting a Council waiver to keep direct access to E. Granger Avenue. 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. With the extension of the utilities to this property, the applicant is proposing a pathway/maintenance road from E. Granger Avenue to the common driveway that is proposed for the project. The maintenance road will serve dual purposes: 1) allow the City to perform maintenance of the utility mains within the proposed 30 foot utility easement and 2) provide a pedestrian connection to the west. The applicant request that the maintenance road be constructed of decomposed granite and not paved as recommended by staff. Because the proposed pathway has a 90 degree turn in it a, staff has concerns with blind spot for police and recommends the maintenance roan and utilities be relocated between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1 for a more direct route into the development. The entire easement should be placed within the common lot. Lastly, staff recommends the entire utility easement be contained within a common lot and landscaped with shrubs and ground cover. The UDC requires a 20 foot landscape buffer along E. Granger Avenue. There is an existing landscape buffer that was installed with the Redfeather Estates No. 2. The 20 foot landscape buffer was placed in an easement with the approval of the Redfeather Estates No. 2. UDC 11-313-7 requires that all street landscape buffers be placed in a common lot that is owned and maintained by the home owner's association. 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. 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. The applicant provided a sample of elevations prosect for the development. The homes consist of a mix 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 and modulation. Written Testimony: Penelope Riley, Applicant's representative Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Item #4D: Entrata Farms (H-2018.0125) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Conditional Use Permit ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 18.18 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 3880 & 3882 W. Franklin Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: RR tracks & SFR, zoned R-8 East: MFR, zoned R-15 & undeveloped land approved for a self-service storage facility, L-0 West: Rural residential/ag, zoned RUT in Ada County South: SFR, zoned R-8 & R-15 History: A MFR project was previously proposed on this site earlier this year that was denied. The proposed project is deemed to be substantially different than the previously denied project. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: HDR (15+ units/acre) Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval of a "step" down in density from HDR to MHDR (8-15 units/acre) resulting in a proposed density for the development is 13.09 units/acre. Annexation and zoning of 19.07 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district is requested consistent with the requested step down in density. A CUP is requested for a multi -family development consisting of 238 dwelling units on 18.18 acres of land in an R-15 district. A site plan & conceptual building elevations were submitted that depict how the site is proposed to develop with a combination of 2 - and 3 -story townhome style multi -family structures in groups of 4, 6 and 8 attached units, both front and rear loaded. Two-story units are proposed along the west boundary of the site adjacent to the existing residential/agricultural property [Delinda 4-plex and 8-plex & Tucker 6-plex elevations (end units)]; a combination of 2- and 3 -story units (i.e. 2 -story on the ends with 3 -stories in the middle) are proposed along Franklin Rd. (Tucker 6-plex); and 3- story structures are proposed internally (Payton 6-plex & 8-plex). Qualified open space & site amenities are proposed far exceeding UDC standards. A minimum of 3.19 acres of qualified open space is required; a total of 6.15 acres is proposed. A minimum of 5 site amenities are required, the following are proposed: an outdoor pool complex with clubhouse/restroom facilities/property management office, 2 children's play structures, 3 covered picnic shelters/pavilions with BBQ stations & picnic tables, a dog park, a''/2 basketball court, 2 open grassy fields larger than 50' x 100' in area, benches and pathways throughout the site. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 67 building lots & 3 common lots on 18.18 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district that is proposed to develop in 2 phases starting with the front portion of the development nearest Franklin Rd. Access is proposed via Franklin Rd. and via the extension of W. Perugia St. at the east boundary; Perugia will extend east/west through the site and stub at the projects west boundary. An emergency access is proposed via Franklin Rd. near the east boundary of the site and also near the north end of the site to the west. The entry street as well as Perugia will be public streets, the internal streets will be private. Written Testimony: James Doolin, Applicant (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval contingent upon Council's approval of a "step" down in density as requested - Staff finds the proposed development is premiere in that it provides open space, site amenities and parking far exceeding UDC standards; provides a housing type (i.e. townhome style multi -family units) that will contribute to the variety of housing types in this area (atypical to the usual garden style apartments); will provide much needed housing within the Ten Mile area in close proximity to future shopping and employment uses; and is consistent with the TMISAP. Notes: Item #4E: Villasport (H-2018.0121) Application(s): (Development Agreement Modification — Doesn't require Commission action) ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 11.39 acres of land, zoned C -G, located at the SWC of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd, Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North & East: Commercial uses, zoned C -G South: Residential, zoned R-15 & R-8; and commercial, zoned C -G West: Residential, zoned R-2 History: This property was annexed in 2005 with the Sadie Creek Commons application; a preliminary plat & CUP was also approved that has since expired. A DA was approved as a provision of annexation that conceptually approved a 150,282 s.f. commercial development consisting of retail/restaurant/office uses. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -R Summary of Request: A modification to the existing DA is proposed to remove the subject property from the terms of the existing DA and enter into a new agreement for the proposed development. A new concept plan & building elevations are proposed that demonstrate how the property is proposed to develop with a 99,000 s.f. 2 -story building for an athletic club and spa, a 15,300 s.f. retail building and associated parking. A CUP is requested for extended hours of operation beyond that allowed in the C -G district (i.e. 6 am to 11 pm) when the property abuts a residential use or district. The staff report incorrectly states the proposed hours are 5 am to 10 pm; the Applicant has clarified that the actual hours are 4am — midnight for indoor activities and 5 am to 11 pm for outdoor activities with outdoor music only operating from 9am to 10pm. There are specific use standards listed in the UDC for indoor/outdoor recreation facilities; staff recommends the site plan is revised to comply with those standards per the condition listed in Section VIII of the staff report. Written Testimony: • David Durfee (objects to hours of operation, specifically earlier than 6 am); • Tamara Thompson, The Land Group (Applicant's Representative) — response to the staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval w/the conditions in the staff 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- 2018-0121, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2018- 0121, as presented during the hearing on December 20, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0121 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2018 Previous Site Plan Revised Site Plan Conceptual Street Layout Conceptual Elevations Existing Concept Plan Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Previously Approved Concept Plan Proposed Concept Plan Proposed Concept Building Elevations Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 h Project File Number: H-2018-0057 Item Title: Public Hearing Bainbridge Franklin (H-2018-0057) By Steve Bainbridge, Located at 2075 and 2155 W. Franklin Rd Request: Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.68 acres of land with a C -G 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 for B ainbridge F ranklin (H-2018-0057) by S teve B ainbridge, L ocated at 2075 and 2155 W. F ranklin Rd. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 33 of 143 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 46 Project File Number: H-2018-0090 Item Title: Public Hearing for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H- 2018-0090) By A Team Consultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd and N. Linder Rd Request: Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 multi -family building lots and 7 common lots on 3.99 acres Request: Conditional Use Permit For a multi -family development consisting of 60 multi -family residential units within 15 multi -family structures on 3.99 acres of land in an existing C -C zoning district; Request: Modification of an Existing Development Agreement to change an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018-0090) by A Team Consultants, L ocated NE of W. Ustick Rd. and N. L inder Rd. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Memo to Commission Cover Memo 12/17/2018 S taff Report S taff Report 12/17/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 34 of 143 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Alpina Townhouse Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0090 Active: ✓ There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho December 17, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission CC: City Clerk, Bill Nary FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor RE: Alpina Townhome (H-2018-0090) December 20th, P/Z Commission Meeting On November 15th, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued this project to allow the applicant time to coordinate the design of this project so it would provide better integration with the surrounding underdeveloped county properties. Items of discussion included cross access with adjacent properties, discussing a public street extension with ACHD, and possibly floating the mixed-use community designation on to the northern property to allow this property and surrounding properties to develop with a mix of uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Since the public hearing, the applicant has met with ACHD and the surrounding property owners. Those conversations have resulted in modifications to the site plan/plat which has been included as part of the public record. The changes to the plan include re-orienting several of the buildings to the northwest and southwest corner; removal of the access to Linder Road; more open space and amenities; and cross access drive aisle along the north project boundary. Further, ACHD indicated that a public street is not desired with the construction of the development and staff did receive an email from the buyer of the Vogel property supporting the location of the northern driveway location. In discussions with the applicant, cross access will be provided to the east property boundary for inter-connectivity. In reviewing the record, the Commission was supportive of floating the MU-C designation across the Vogel property to ensure a broad mix of uses develop in the area. In the Commission deliberation, it was discussed that commercial could develop along Linder Road with better access away from the intersection. Based on those discussions, the applicant has not incorporated another land use within the proposed development. Staff finds the applicant has addressed most of the concerns discussed during the last meeting. Staff is supportive of the new plan however; conditions of approval have not been incorporated into the staff report due to staff’s recommendation for denial of the project. If the Commission determines a single use is appropriate for this site and recommends approval of the project, staff has prepared conditions of approval for the Commission’s consideration as follows: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 35 of 143 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DA PROVISIONS: 1. The existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2014-088000) shall be replaced a new development agreement. 2. A new Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of the application approval. The new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) and the developer. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application will not be accepted until the new DA is recorded. 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 approval and subsequent recordation. The DA shall, at a minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the site plan, plat and elevations approved with H-2018-0090 and the provisions included herein. b. The applicant shall provide cross access to property to the north (parcel #S0436336051) and the property to the east (parcel #S043636156) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. A recorded copy of the cross access agreement shall be provided with the first certificate of zoning compliance application. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. The applicant shall comply with the preliminary plat dated 12/14/2018. 2. Ten (10) days prior to the Council hearing, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that comports to the revised preliminary plat. 3. The final plat shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat in accord with the requirements listed in UDC 11-6B-3C. 4. Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 5. Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 6. Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 7. 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. 8. Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 9. Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 10. Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 11. Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C (streets). 12. Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 13. Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 14. Provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the design standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. 15. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 36 of 143 16. Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 17. Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the Architectural Standards Manual. 18. Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 19. Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 20. All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A- 6B as applicable. 21. 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. CONDITONAL USE PERMIT 1. The applicant shall comply with the site plan dated 12/14/2018 with the following modifications: a. The back out areas for the parking areas shall be removed from the Linder and Ustick Road street buffers in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.6. b. The applicant shall install a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the east boundary in accord with UDC 11- 3B-9C or seek Council waiver. c. The applicant shall close the existing access to Linder Road in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. d. The applicant shall provide cross access to property to the north (parcel #S0436336051) and the property to the east (parcel #S043636156) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. A recorded copy of the cross access agreement shall be provided with the first certificate of zoning compliance application. e. The applicant shall comply with the site amenities and open space as depicted on the revised site plan, dated 12/14/2018. f. Depict the location of a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B. g. Include locations of covered parking in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6. h. The site plan shall depict a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail and directory map of the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. 2. The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27, including but not limited to the following: a. The applicant shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features, per UDC 11-4-3-27G. b. Floor plans shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that clearly depicts a minimum of 80 square feet for the patios in compliance with private useable open space standards. 3. The conditional use may only be transferred or modified consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11- 5B-6G. The applicant shall contact Planning Division staff regarding any proposed modification and/or transfer of ownership. 4. The conditional use approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F1 or 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 37 of 143 5. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit application. 6. The landscape plan shall be revised prior to the City Council hearing as follows: a. Landscaping is required to be provided along the foundation of all street facing elevations in accord with the standards in UDC 11-4-3-27-F. b. Include a calculations table demonstrating compliance with the qualified open space requirements listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. c. A landscaped planter island is required within the rows of parking on each side of the drive aisle on the east side of the clubhouse/swimming pool in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C. d. Fencing details should be included on the plan if fencing is proposed. Any fencing proposed along the southern boundary should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7 for fencing adjacent to common open space. 7. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit application. 8. No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 38 of 143 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 11/15/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 BRUCE FRECKLETON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER, 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0107 ALPINA TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PROPERTY LOCATION: The project is located on the northeast corner of W. Ustick and N. Linder Roads I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CJf1E NDIAN,_- -- The applicant, A Team Land Consultants, has submitted the following applications: L An application for a preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 3.99 acres of land in the C -C zoning district; 2. An application for a conditional use permit for a multi -family development consisting of sixty 60) multi -family residential units within fifteen (15) multi -family structures; 3. An application to modify an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Acreage Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use(s) Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Lots (# and type; bldg/common) Phasing plan (# of phases) Number of Residential Units (type of units) Density (gross & net) Details 3.99 MDR (Medium -Density Residential) Vacant 60 multi -family units in 15 structures C -C (Community Commercial) C -C (Community Commercial) 15 multi -family, 7 common Single Phase 60 multi -family units 20 net density Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 39 of 143 Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) Amenities Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: History (previous approvals) B. Community Metrics Details 0.42 of an acre proposed at 11% including 11/2 of the buffers along W. Ustick and N. Linder as well as dog park and putting green Dog park, putting green, gazebo None June 13, 2018 with 3 people in attendance Received annexation and short plat approval in 2014 as Sugarman Subdivision (AZ -14-007) 6 6 Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Fire Response Time 3 minutes Staff report (yes/no) Yes 7 Requires ACHD No 1, meaning current resources would be adequate to supply Commission Action service. yes/no) Accessibility Roadway access, traffic Access (Arterial/Collectors/State One access to W. Ustick and one Access to N. Linder, both 7 Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) arterial roadways 1000 gallons per minute, fire sprinklers in the units will be Traffic Level of Service Ustick Road — better than E, Linder Road — better than E 7 Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross None 7 Access West Ada School District Distance (elem, ms, hs) Existing Road Network NA Existing Arterial Sidewalks / NA Capacity of Schools Buffers of Students Enrolled Proposed Road Improvements ACHD plans to widen Linder Road, between McMillan and Distance to other key services Ustick in 2019. Fire Service Distance to Fire Station Not provided 7 Fire Response Time 3 minutes 7 Resource Reliability 80%, does not meet the target of 85% 7 Risk Identification 1, meaning current resources would be adequate to supply 7 service. Accessibility Roadway access, traffic 7 Special/resource needs An aerial device will not be required. 7 Water Supply 1000 gallons per minute, fire sprinklers in the units will be 7 required Other Resources West Ada School District Distance (elem, ms, hs) River Valley Elementary — 1 mile; Heritage Middle — 3 mile; 8 Centennial High — 1 and 11/2 miles Capacity of Schools of Students Enrolled Distance to other key services Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 40 of 143 USTR Vil Lou- ofior, I ix- 1! m LAL. I V. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 41 of 143 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/26/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/24/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/2/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/23/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is designated Mixed Use Community (MU -C) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of the MU -C designation is to allocate areas where community - serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single -use and strip commercial type uses. Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre, and shall consist of at least three land use types. The applicant requests a preliminary plat, a development agreement modification and conditional use permit application to develop the proposed multi -family lots with sixty (60) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units to the acre. Staff finds that the proposed development is not consistent with the MU -C land use designation for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density is above the range set forth in the comprehensive plan. 2. The applicant is not proposing a mix land use types. 3. The project doesn't integrate with the surrounding area. There is no pedestrian or vehicle connectivity between the proposed project and the properties to the north or to the east. 4. Staff feels that the current approvals for the site are superior to the proposal and should remain in place. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (Staffs comments in italics): Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi- family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development." (3.07.03B) The development of multi family homes on this site will contribute to the variety of housing types available in this part of the City, however the density is greater than anticipated by the comprehensive plan, there is not a mix of land use types and the applicant isn't proposing any interconnectivity with the surrounding area. Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 42 of 143 Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single -family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." (3.07.01E) The applicant is proposing to construct high density residential on the subject property; however the MU-C designation calls for a mixture of land use types. The applicant has not provided the necessary mix that the designation calls for. Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (3.06.02D) The applicant is proposing to have one access to N. Linder and one to W. Ustick. Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets)." (3.03.020) The applicant has not provided cross-access to any other adjacent properties. Further, stafffeels that in order to do so, a public street will be required to better facilitate traffic from those parcels out to the arterial roadways. Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (3.01.01F) Urban services can be provided to this property upon development. Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets." (2.01.04B) Landscaping is proposed within planter islands in the parking areas on this site as shown on the landscape plan attached in Exhibit B. Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors, or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares." 3.07.02L) The proposed multi family development is located in close proximity to major access thoroughfares (i. e. I-84 and Ten Mile Road Road) within the City. Elevate quality of design for houses and apartments; evaluate the need for design review guidelines for single -family homes." (3.07.020) The multi family structures within the proposed development will be subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines in the Architectural Standards Manual. Further refinement to the design of these structures is required in order for the project to meet the design review requirements. Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers." (3.07.02D) Because of its location in close proximity to the Ten Mile Interchange (which is rapidly developing), as well as major transportation corridors (I--84 and Ten Mile Road), this property is ideal for providing higher density housing options. B. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C district. Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 43 of 143 C. Concept Plan: A concept plan was submitted that depicts the fifteen residential buildings and site amenities. D. Specific Use Standards: Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi -family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff's comments in italics) A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. The floor plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict 80 s.f. of private open space for each unit. Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units are between 500 and 1,200 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 15, 000 square feet or 0.34 of an acre of common open space is required. The applicant is proposing 18,672 square feet of open space, or 0.42 of an acre. For multi -family developments between 50 and 75 units, 3 site amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27D. The applicant proposes a dog run, a putting green, gazebos and benches as amenities in compliance with UDC standards. The applicant is required to provide one amenity from each of the three sections as set forth in UDC 11-4-3- 27. The applicant is missing two amenities. One is missing from the quality of life section and one from the open space section as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3 -feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. The current plans do not meet this requirement and the applicant will need to revise them to meet the requirements of the UDC. The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. E. Access: Access to the site is proposed from W. Ustick Road, and N. Linder Road. ACHD has limited the access to N. Linder and W. Ustick to right-in/right-out only. Staff also has Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 44 of 143 concerns that the applicant is not providing cross -access to either the parcel to the north or the east. Additionally, in order to provide access to the parcels to the east and north a public street will likely be required on the eastern property line. F. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, parking for multi -family uses is based on the number of bedrooms. In this case, each unit contains 2-3 bedrooms, which requires 2 parking spaces per unit and one in a covered space. Based on the number of units (60), the applicant is required to provide 120 parking spaces with 60 covered. The applicant is proposing 143 parking spaces for the development with 120 spaces required. G. Landscaping A 25 -foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along both N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads, both arterial roadways, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11 -3B -7C. With the exception of the double sidewalk in certain section of the landscape buffer, the proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the aforementioned standards. H. Fencing All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. I. Certificate of Zoning Compliance The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. J. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and building design is required to be generally consistent with the elevations and site plan submitted with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. K. Utilities: Enter Utilities Analysis. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the subject MDA and consequently the PP and CUP requests based on the following reasons: The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Mixed Use -Community designation because the proposed density is greater than the range proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 45 of 143 The proposal does not provide a mix land use type in order to comply with the Mixed Use— Community designation. The project doesn't integrate with the surrounding area. There is no pedestrian or vehicle connectivity between the proposed project and the properties to the north or to the east. Staff feels that the current approvals for the site are superior to the proposal and should remain in place. For these reasons, Staff does not feel it's in the best interest of the City to modify the existing development agreement to accommodate the current development proposal. B. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=l 57525 C. Meridian Fire Department: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157209/Pa eglaspx D. West Ada School District: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/I57974/Pa57974/Page l.aspx E. Central District Health Department (CDHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.as]2x?id=l 56405 F. COMPASS: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157016/Pa egl.aspx G. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156946/Pa egl.aspx H. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157259/Pa eglaspx I. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/I57307/Pa eglaspx Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 46 of 143 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan USTICK R0.4CI "+.•._--J LEr D r uxvuurroerfwe.eHr cEnn s se.m ro•,. AMM oFmvxex Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 47 of 143 B. Landscape Plan Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 48 of 143 C. Existing Concept Plan MIA OSVWV. OMM UP I I 118111 t I AL Y1N i Page 11 L1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 49 of 143 VIII. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is not in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land usebe cause the proposal is above the target density for the Mixed Use -Community Comprehensive Plan designation, does not provide a mixture of land uses and does not provide connectivity between the subject property and the propertis to the north and east. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the StaffReport 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 StaffReport for more details from public service providers) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council's attention. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features on this site that need to be preserved. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11 -5B -6E) The Commission and Council shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 50 of 143 Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the C -C district. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC, however the lack of three distinct land use types, the density greater than what is allowed and the lack of connectivity within the MU -C Comprehensive Plan designation is not harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of MU -C for this site. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi- family development should be compatible with existing residential and uses in the vicinity. Further, staff finds that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the character thereof. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect other properties in the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If approved, conditions of approval will be included in Exhibit B of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. L That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. However, the Commission and Council should rely on public testimony from adjacent neighbors to determine if the proposed lighted fields and outdoor speaker system and large volume of Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 51 of 143 traffic generated by the proposed use will be detrimental to their welfare in determining this finding. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 52 of 143 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4C Project File Number: H-2018-010' Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from December 6, 2018 for Alicia Court Subdivision By Riley Planning Services, Located at 4036 E. Granger Ave Request: 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.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from December 6, 2018 for Alicia Court S ubdivision (H-2018-0107) by Riley Planning S ervices, L ocated 4036 E . Granger Ave. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 12/17/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 53 of 143 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Alicia Court Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0107 Active: ✓ There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho BLOCK 1 L-4 I EXIST. CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER & WATER EASEMENT L-316' ACCESS ROAD II 5' EASEMENT i A J i -I- w w L -s I i 5' EASEMENT I I -w w 5' / - s— _ s—��' BLOCK 1 A L-1 (PFI L-11 ALICIA COURT COMMON LOT EXHIBIT SCALE 1"=40' DECOMPOSED GRANITE ACCESS & MAINTENANCE ROAD (LOAD RATED) P/L P/L REMOVABLE REMOVABLE FENCE & POSTS FENCE & POSTS 5.0' 20.0' 5.0' EASEMENT EASEMENT 8.0' 8.0' I I I I 2%t2% I REMOVABLE F 1 �� POSTS II II W/BOLTS II II 8" WATER MAIN 8" SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE 7.8' 11.0' 11.2' BENEFITS 1. DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING SEWER AND WATER STUB OU TS. 2. ALL SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 20' WIDE COMMON LOT AND THUS EASILY ACCESSED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN STAFF. 3. REMOVABLE FENCE WITH REMOVABLE POSTS IN CASE OF PIPE REPLACEMENT. 4. DEPTH OF SEWER AT 8' ALLOWS FOR A 8' WIDE STOCKPILE AREA. (CALCULATIONS BASED ON OSHA REQUIREMENTS) ALICIA COURT COMMON LOT EXHIBIT SECTION A -A -NTS- 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 1 9911310]8 @ W1019191VWe1 CJf1E IDIAI4*,, 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 Acreage Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use(s) Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Lots (# and type; bldg/common) Phasing plan (# of phases) Number of Residential Units (type of units) Density (gross & net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) Amenities Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: History (previous approvals) Details 3.08 MDR (Medium -Density Residential) Single-family home Multiple single-family dwellings R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) 6 single-family, 2 common Single Phase 6 single-family units 2.277 net density None required None required None July 12, 2018 with 7 people in attendance Annexed into the city in 2003 as part of Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 (AZ -03-021; PP -03-024; FP -06-041) Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 54 of 143 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District 5 minutes 11 Staff report (yes/no) Yes 11 11 Requires ACHD No service. Commission Action Accessibility Roadway access, traffic 11 yes/no) An aerial device will not be required. 11 Water Supply Access (Arterial/Collectors/State One access to W. Alicia Street, a local roadway Other Resources 4 Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Cloverdale Road — F, Granger Avenue — better than D 11 Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross None Access Existing Road Network NA Existing Arterial Sidewalks / NA Buffers Proposed Road Improvements ACHD is requiring a public street extension of W. Alicia 11 Street. 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 11 service. 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 Legend 0 FPo}ec1 Lc oc ion i q-w-'D M.0 - aG C'v"C i7 Page 2 Aerial Map PE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 55 of 143 Zoning Map Legend 0i L+ccoor 2 R- 2 R°$ R- R- 0-15 C -G -- C -C R- R- Ti, III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Penelope Riley, Riley Planning Services B. Owner: Wood Family Trust C. Representative: Penelope Riley, Riley Planning Services IV. NOTICING Planned Development Map Legend0 01131Frc_ev' Loc ci*cn i-11 _ i i. -y LfYFit Fscinred Farce4 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. Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 56 of 143 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. 01 E) 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 that 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 L. 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 (I1 -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. Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 57 of 143 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. Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 58 of 143 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 ACRD, 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. Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 59 of 143 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. A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the provisions in Section VIII of this report. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 60 of 143 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR of T 7 7 7 PARCKI, OF LAW) 1,0(74TA'D fN THP SW' F. 4 OF TFIN A,F 11/4 OF' SPCTION 4.. TLI V., 6. -U., CITY ()I, VrTe1Df.-4A' ADA COF,,.k,7Y, MATTO Page 8 — tvirrn-xii. I v Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 61 of 143 B. Landscape Plan 7 V SHRUB PLANTING BLOCK I O BLOCK f LANDSCAPE ISLAND Z. S7 pAOVERALL LANDSCAPE PL AN Page 9 V SHRUB PLANTING LANDSCAPE ISLAND Z. S7 pAOVERALL LANDSCAPE PL AN Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 62 of 143 C. Architectural Elevations Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 63 of 143 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 64 of 143 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. Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 65 of 143 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 11-313-7. 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 11-313-7C. h. Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-313-11C. 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 11-313-13 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. Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 66 of 143 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 11-613-7B (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. Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 67 of 143 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. 2.11 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. Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 68 of 143 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. 2.16A11 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 ACRD. 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/I57208/Pa egl.aspx D. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156945/Pa elg.aspx Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 69 of 143 E. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/I 57287/Page l .aspx F. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=15777O G. Central District Health Department (CDHD): hlW://weblink.meridiancily.org/weblink8/0/doc/156404/Pa eg_ t ayx H. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID): http://weblink.meridiancii y org/weblink8/0/doc/157311/Pa eglaspx Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 70 of 143 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 StaffReport 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. L 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. Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 71 of 143 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 D Project File Number: H-2018-0125 Item Title: Public Hearing Entrata Farms (H-2018-0125) By FIG Village at Parkside, LLC, Located at 3880 and 3882 W. Franklin Rd. Request: Request: Annexation and Zoning of 19.07 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district Request: a Conditional Use Permit for a multi -family development consisting of 238 dwelling units on 18.18 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district Request: a Preliminary Plat consisting of 67 building lots and 3 common lots on 18.18 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district 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 E ntrata F arms (H-2018-0125) by F IG Village at P arkside, L L C , L ocated 3880 and 3882 W. F ranklin 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 12/18/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 72 of 143 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-D Project Name: Entrata Farms Project No.: H-2018-0125 Active: ✓ I Sigi Jaiature Name Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral I Wish To Testify Sign In Date/Time Jan Doolin 12/20/2018 6:09:55 PM X Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho o � LL Elf a O w F co O w o z CD CD v Q cm O N O d W � Z a U3 mui 6i w w W Z o O N Z W N Q O H' r LL W � V W l0 d a O � d o. w O = F-- 0 co N O Z W U m � _ co x z Lu W N = N F -- U3 = U)Lu m w 3 w � z z Q w mO N O N J O �./ ENT RATA FARMS QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE KENNEDY LATERAL EASMENT (NOT INCLUDED) QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 0 0.86 AC O2 1.53 AC O3 0.31 AC O4 1.02 AC O5 0.23 AC O6 0.66 AC O7 0.38 AC O8 0.52 AC O9 0.43 AC 10 0.01 AC 11 0.20 AC TOTAL QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 6.15 ACRES % OF TOTAL SITE 33.8% PURDAM DRAIN EASEMENT 1/2 OF FRANKLIN STREET BUFFER (NOT INCLUDED) (NOT INCLUDED) 9 an T -O ENGINE 100 0 100 200 332 N. BROADMORE WAY NAMPA inAH0 AARR7-.ri191 a -- ^0 ;� £ r - -. 4 �: - ��T_= .� _r.�r 1r a ;ik—X:7�,ti . Page 1 HEARING DATE: 12/20/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0125 Entrata Farms LOCATION: 3880 & 3882 W. Franklin Rd. (N. side of W. Franklin Rd., midway between Ten Mile and Black Cat Roads, in a portion of the south ½ of Section 10, T.3N., R.1W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following applications were submitted for the proposed development:  Annexation and zoning of 19.07 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district;  Conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 238 dwelling units on 18.18 acres of land in an R-15 district;  Preliminary plat consisting of 67 building lots and 3 common lots on 18.18 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district for Entrata Farms Subdivision; and,  Private street II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 18.18 Future Land Use Designation HDR (high density residential) Existing Land Use Rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) MFR (multi-family residential development) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 70 total lots; 67 building lots/3 common lots Phasing plan (# of phases) 2 Number of Residential Units (type of units) 238 (multi-family dwellings); varying designs of townhome style units Density (gross & net) 13.09/14.07 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 73 of 143 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 6.15 acres (33.8%) consisting of ½ the street buffer along Franklin Rd., an arterial street; and common area within site Amenities Clubhouse with a fitness facility and a meeting/gathering space; outdoor swimming pool with restroom facilit ies; (2) open grassy play fields exceeding 50’ x 100’; (2) tot lot playground equipment areas; a 5-station fitness outdoor area; (2) covered picnic areas with free-standing BBQ’s and picnic tables; a half size basketball court; and multiple pathways Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Kennedy Lateral runs along the east boundary; and the Purdam Drain runs along the southwest corner of the site. Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 10/12/18; 1 attendee (the Applicant) History (previous approvals) H-2018-0032 (denied) 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) (1) Full access and (1) emergency access via W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street; (1) access via W. Perugia St., a local street Traffic Level of Service Better than “E” which is an acceptable level of service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access W. Perugia St. stubs at the west boundary; an emergency access is proposed at the west boundary from private street “K” north of Perugia Existing Road Network The entry street, N. Entrata Way, and W. Perugia St. are public streets; all other internal streets are private Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers A sidewalk exists along W. Franklin Rd.; there are no existing buffers Proposed Road Improvements Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 2.8 miles (Fire Station #2)  Fire Response Time 5 minutes (under ideal conditions)  Resource Reliability 80% (does not meet target goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 1=residential  Accessibility Project meets all required road widths and turnarounds. Parking is always a concern.  Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device.  Water Supply 1500 gal./minute for 2 hours required Police Service  Distance to Police Station 4 miles  Police Response Time 6 minutes  Calls for Service Between 11/1/17-10/31/18 PD responded to 464 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.  % of calls for service split by priority See PD comments in Section VIII. D  Accessibility No issues  Specialty/resource needs None  Crimes 161  Crashes 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 74 of 143 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps  Other Reports The PD already serves this area; the applicant has addressed all concerns and there are no outstanding issues for PD Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0 Feet  Sewer Shed N/A - still determining the sewer shed names  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 238  WRRF Declining Balance 13.57 MGD - as of 12/14/18, it was less at the time this application was submitted  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water  Distance to Water Services 0  Pressure Zone 2  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan YEs  Impacts/Concerns See Site Specific Conditions of Approval Grocery Store 1.3 miles away (Albertson’s) COMPASS (Communities in Motion 2040 2.0) See Section VIII.H Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 75 of 143 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: FIG Village at Parkside, LLC – 295 W. Center St., Ste. 201, Provo, UT 84601 B. Owners: 2FP LLC – 1002 N. Happy Valley Rd., Nampa, ID 83689 Mathew LeBaron – 1214 2nd St. S., Nampa, ID 83651 C. Representative: Kent Brown, Kent Brown Planning – 3161 E. Springwood Dr., Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 10/30/2018 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/27/2018 Nextdoor posting 11/27/2018 Public hearing notice sign posted on property 12/9/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan); Specific Area Plan (TMISAP pg. 3-7) TEN INTERCHANGE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN (TMISAP) The subject property is located in the area governed by the TMISAP which focuses on developing an area that has an identity of its own but which links to nearby developments. The plan Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 76 of 143 Page 5 emphasizes the community’s support for higher densities and mixed uses to create a vibrant and economically strong city. The plan also stresses the community’s commitment to good site planning and design as a means of establishing a place everyone can be proud of and one that protects the interests of future businesses and residents. LAND USE: HDR (High Density Residential) – HDR designated areas in the Ten Mile Area are multiple-family housing areas where relatively larger and taller apartment buildings are the recommended building type. A mix of housing types should be included that achieve an overall average density target of at least 16-25 dwelling units per acre with a range of 15 to 40 units per acre. Most developments should fall within or below this range, although smaller areas of higher or lower density may be included. The design and orientation of new high density residential buildings should be pedestrian- oriented, and special streetscape improvements should be considered to create rich and enjoyable public spaces. The Applicant requests Council approval of a “step” down in density from HDR (15+ units/acre) to MHDR (medium high density residential) (8-15 units/acre). The reason for the request is due to Council’s denial of the previous application for this site, which had a gross density of 15.3 units/acre. The Applicant has redesigned the site in accord with the concerns noted by the Council at the previous hearing (see Applicant’s narrative for more information). MHDR (Medium High-Density Residential): MHDR designated areas allow for the development of a mix of relatively dense residential housing types including townhomes, condominiums and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre, with a target density of 12 units per acre. These are relatively compact areas within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and individual project identity. The proposed development is relatively dense and includes townhome style apartments at a gross density of 13.09 units/acre. The FLUM depicts mixed use commercial and employment areas 1/3+ mile to the south and east, yet to be developed, within walking distance from the site. The design of the proposed structures appear to be of high quality and ultimately are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP (see pgs. 3-31 thru 3-51). The proposed MHDR designation on this site is consistent with that to the east and west of the same designation. Pathways are proposed throughout the development for connectivity internally as well as with adjacent uses and area pathways. TRANSPORTATION: A local street is designated on the Future Land Use Map in the TMISAP across this property from the east to W. Franklin Rd. No collector streets are designated on this property although W. Perugia St. will provide an east/west connection between properties north of W. Franklin Rd. and will function much like a collector. Perugia connects to N. Umbria Hills Ave. to the east, which connects to W. Franklin Rd., and will provide access to a future traffic signal. A collector street was formerly designated across this site on the Transportation System Map but was recently removed. The proposed site design meets the transportation objectives of the Plan. DESIGN: Development within the Ten Mile Area should incorporate the following design characteristics: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 77 of 143 Page 6 The proposed site design is compatible with the multi-family development to the east; and should be compatible with future medium high density residential uses to the west when that property redevelops at some point in the future. Buildings are brought up to the street buffer along Franklin Rd. for a uniform street presence with primary building facades facing the street. Six- plex structures, 2-stories in height on the ends with 3-stories in the middle, are proposed along Franklin Rd. that provides appropriate transition, architectural interest, massing and scale within the Ten Mile area. Pedestrian walkways are planned throughout the development to provide for pedestrian interconnectivity within the development as well as with adjacent developments and the Ten Mile area. For these reasons, Staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the design characteristics of the Ten Mile Area envisioned in the TMISAP. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The proposed development demonstrates compliance with the following policies of the Plan:  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B)  “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)  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B)  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D)  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A)  “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)  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D)  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02, pg. 55) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 78 of 143 Page 7  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F)  “Work with ACHD, COMPASS, and VRT on bringing public transportation to and through Meridian.” (3.03.04H)  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B)  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J)  “Develop alternative modes of transportation through pedestrian improvements, bicycle lanes, off-street pathways, and transit-oriented development as appropriate.” (3.03.03D) C. Annexation Area: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the east, 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. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. D. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted with the conditional use permit application that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with a multi-family development (see Section VII.B). A combination of 2- and 3-story townhome style multi-family structures are proposed in groups of 4, 6 and 8 attached units, both front and rear loaded. Two-story units are proposed along the west boundary of the site adjacent to the existing residential/agricultural property [see Delinda 4-plex and 8-plex and Tucker 6-plex elevations (end units) in Section VII.F]; a combination of 2- and 3-story units (i.e. 2-story on the ends with 3- stories in the middle) are proposed along Franklin Rd. (see Tucker 6-plex elevations in Section VII.F); and 3- story structures are proposed internally (see Payton 6-plex and 8-plex elevations in Section VII.F). E. Preliminary Plat: Note: A previous preliminary plat (H-2018-0032) for this site was denied by City Council on July 10, 2018. The UDC (11-5A-3) states that no application that has been denied by the Council shall be resubmitted in substantially the same form for the same use within one year from the date of denial. Because the overall layout and design of the proposed plat has changed substantially from the previous plat and the number of units has been reduced by 40, Staff deemed the proposed plat to be substantially different from that previously denied. The proposed plat consists of 67 building lots and 3 common lots on 18.18 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two (2) phases with the front portion of the site developing with the first phase. See Section VII.C. Compliance with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and determined it is in compliance with those standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 79 of 143 Page 8 F. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and accessory structures on this site that will be removed with development. G. Proposed Zoning/Use Analysis: The proposed R-15 zoning district for the site is consistent with the requested MHDR FLUM designation HDR FLUM designation Multi-family developments are listed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. H. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, Multi-Family Development as follows:  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is r equired to be provided for each unit. Private patios are proposed for each unit that meets this requirement.  Development with 20 units or more are required to provide a property management office, maintenance storage area, central mailbox location (including provisions for parcel mail) that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access, and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The property management and maintenance storage area is proposed to be located within the clubhouse; the mailboxes will be located near the clubhouse as well but are not depicted on the site plan. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location(s) of each of these items.  At a minimum, 250 square feet (s.f.) of outdoor common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units are within this range. Therefore, a minimum of 59,500 s.f. (or 1.37 of an acre) of common open space is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -4-3-27C. The outdoor common area proposed within this development complies with this standard.  For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, (4) amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category (i.e. quality of life, open space and recreation). For more than 100 units, the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. The following amenities are proposed: a clubhouse with a fitness center and a meeting/gathering room; an outdoor swimming pool with restroom facilities; (2) open grassy fields exceeding 50’ x 100’ in area; (2) tot lots with children’s play equipment; a 5-station outdoor fitness area; (2) covered picnic areas with BBQ’s and picnic tables; a half size basketball court; a dog park; and many pathways throughout the development (see details in Section VII.E). Staff finds the proposed amenities provided from each of the required categories are commensurate with the 238 unit development proposed.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27E. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundations as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. The detail of the landscaping proposed along the foundations of each structure shown on Sheet L3.1 in Section VII.D complies with this standard. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 80 of 143 Page 9  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. I. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A-7): Development is required to comply with the dimesnional standards listed below for the R-15 district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found all of the proposed lots comply with the minimum property size requirement. Future structures should comply with the minimum setback standards. Zero lot lines should be depicted on the plat where buildings span across lot lines. To ensure setback requirements for the R-15 zoning and the specific use standard in UDC 11-4-3-27B.1 are met, staff recommends the final plat for this development is recorded prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications. J. Access (UDC 11-3A-3)/Transportation: One full access and one emergency access is proposed via W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street. West Perugia St., a local street, is proposed to be extended from the east boundary through the site and stub to the west boundary for future extension; this will necessitate construction of a bridge/culvert over the Kennedy Lateral. An emergency access is proposed to the property to the west near the north boundary from Street K. Private Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 81 of 143 Page 10 streets are proposed for access internally within the development and for addressing purposes. The proposed access complies with UDC 11-3A-3 and the Comprehensive Plan (3.06.02D referenced above) which restricts access to arterial streets. Franklin Rd. was recently widened from Ten Mile to Black Cat Roads and improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk; therefore, there are no major road improvements required with this development. K. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4) Private streets are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4, including but not limited to the following:  Private streets are required to be constructed on a perpetual ingress/egress easement or a single-platted lot that provides access to all properties served by such private street; preferably a lot when the property is being subdivided as is the case with this application.  All drive aisles are required to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed. In addition, if a curb exists next to the drive aisle, it shall be painted red.  All travel lanes should have a minimum width of 26 feet. The proposed private streets are 26 feet in width as shown on the private road section shown on Sheet 4 of the preliminary plat site plan in Section VII.B. Compliance with the other standards listed above is required; the plat should be revised to include the private streets within common lots. L. Transit: The applicant’s narrative states they have coordinated with Valley Regional Transit to locate a commuter ride pad near the southwest corner of the site along the W. Franklin Rd. in accord with the Comprehensive Plan (action items #3.01.01J and #3.03.03D referenced above). M. Parking (UDC Table 11-3C-6): Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for 2- and 3-bedroom multi-family dwellings as follows: 2 spaces per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage. Based on (238) 2- and 3-bedroom units, a minimum of (476) spaces are required with 238 of those in a covered carport or garage. A total of 603 spaces are proposed consisting of 274 driveway spaces, 254 garage spaces and 75 guest parking spaces for a total of 127 spaces over the minimum required in accord with UDC standards. Bicycle parking is required to be provided based on 1 space for every 25 vehicle spaces provided on the site. Based on a total of 603 vehicle spaces, a minimum of 24 bicycle parking spaces are required. A total of 36 bicycle spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. N. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8, 11-3B-12C): Pedestrian pathways are proposed throughout the development for internal connectivity and connectivity with adjacent developments in accord with UDC standards and the Comprehensive Plan (action item #3.03.03B referenced above). Landscaping is required to be provided adjacent to all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 82 of 143 Page 11 O. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A sidewalk was recently constructed along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street with the road widening project by ACHD. A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along W. Perugia St. and N. Entrata Way, both local streets, in accord with UDC standards. P. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district; landscaping is required within the buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Said buffer is required to be maintained by a homeowner’s association. A larger buffer ranging in width from 28 to 38 feet is proposed to provide more separation between the development and the large power transmission lines along Franklin Rd. The proposed landscaping complies with UDC standards. There are a total of 113-caliper inches of existing trees on this site being removed that require mitigation; a total of 57 trees at 2” caliper each are proposed for mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Q. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G-3): The UDC requires a minimum of 10% qualified open space to be provided within the development as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3. The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 also require qualified open space in addition to this requirement (see analysis above). An open space exhibit was submitted, included in Section VII.E that depicts a total of 6.15 acres (or 33.8%). The proposed qualified open space consists of (2) open grassy areas greater than 50’ x 100’ in area, half of the street buffer along Franklin Rd., and a stormwater detention facility in accord with UDC standards. R. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G-3): The UDC (11-3G-3) requires a minimum of (1) qualified site amenity to be provided for each 20 acres of development area as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3. Based on 18.18 acres of development area, a minimum of (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided to satisfy this requirement. The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 also require site amenities in addition to this requirement (see analysis above). The site amenities described above in #V.H meet this requirement. S. Maintenance: The applicant proposes to have one management company to handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire project to ensure a better overall management of the development. Because this was a previous concern of Council, Staff recommends a provision requiring this is included in the DA. T. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Kennedy Lateral runs along the east boundary of this site; City Council waived the requirement for the lateral to be piped due to its large capacity with the final plat for Umbria Subdivision, the development to the east (FP-06-011). The Purdam Drain runs across the southwest corner of the site; the Applicant requests Council approval of a waiver to allow the drain to remain open and not be piped due to its capacity and location which is not entirely on this property. A retaining wall is proposed adjacent to the drain in order to preserve public safety; however, the UDC does not allow solid fences adjacent to waterways. Therefore, the retaining wall should be replaced with a fence that meets the standards Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 83 of 143 Page 12 in UDC 11-3A-6C as described below. Other irrigation ditches cross this site that are proposed to be piped in accord with UDC standards. U. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All new fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7; fencing along waterways is required to comply with UDC 11-3A-6. A 6-foot tall vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west boundary of the site; a retaining wall is proposed along the east side of the Purdam Drain; and a rail fence is depicted along the east boundary adjacent to the Kennedy Lateral. The UDC (11-3A-6) does not allow a solid fence (i.e. a retaining wall) to be constructed along waterways; therefore, the retaining wall depicted along the Purdam drain shall be replaced with an open vision fence at least 6 feet in height and having an 11-guage, 2-inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said drain as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C. The rail fence proposed along the Kennedy Lateral will not preserve public safety with the lateral remaining open; therefore, it should be replaced with a fence that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and described above. V. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. City water and sewer services are stubbed to this site. W. Pressure Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed. X. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments; design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage facilities counted toward qualified open space are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. Y. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were submitted with the CUP application that include 3 different styles (i.e. Delinda 4-plex and 8-plex, Payton 6-plex and 8-plex, and Tucker 6-plex) of multi-family structures 2- and 3-stories in height (see Section VII.F). All of the units are a townhome design with garages on the first floor and living areas above. All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the guidelines in the TMISAP. Z. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)/Design Review (DR): An application for a CZC and DR is required to be submitted for review and approval of the site design and structures proposed within the development to ensure consistency with UDC standards, design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, the TMISAP, and provisions in this report prior to submittal of building permit applications for the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 84 of 143 Page 13 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed development is premiere in that it provides open space, site amenities and parking far exceeding UDC standards; provides a housing type (i.e. townhome style multi- family units) that will contribute to the variety of housing types in this area (atypical to the usual garden style apartments); will provide much needed housing within the Ten Mile area in close proximity to future shopping and employment uses; and is consistent with the TMISAP. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request for annexation and zoning, conditional use permit, preliminary plat and private streets contingent upon Council’s approval of the requested “step” down in density from HDR to MHDR. Council should also consider the Applicant’s request for a waiver to leave the Purdam Drain open and not require it to be piped. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 85 of 143 Page 14 VII. EXHIBITS (ATTACH AS PDF DOCUMENTS TO THE STAFF REPORT.) A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 86 of 143 Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 87 of 143 Page 16 B. Site Plan (date: 10/16/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 88 of 143 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 89 of 143 Page 18 C. Preliminary Plat (date: 10/16/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 90 of 143 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 91 of 143 Page 20 D. Landscape Plan (date: 10/16/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 92 of 143 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 93 of 143 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 94 of 143 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 95 of 143 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 96 of 143 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 97 of 143 Page 26 E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit (date: 10/9/2018) & Site Amenities Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 98 of 143 Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 99 of 143 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 100 of 143 Page 29 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 101 of 143 Page 30 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 102 of 143 Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 103 of 143 Page 32 F. Building Elevations (date: 10/23/2018) DELINDA 4-PLEX Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 104 of 143 Page 33 DELINDA 8-PLEX Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 105 of 143 Page 34 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 106 of 143 Page 35 PAYTON 6-PLEX Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 107 of 143 Page 36 PAYTON 8-PLEX Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 108 of 143 Page 37 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 109 of 143 Page 38 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 110 of 143 Page 39 TUCKER 6-PLEX Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 111 of 143 Page 40 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 112 of 143 Page 41 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 113 of 143 Page 42 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Annexation & Zoning 1.1 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, site plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, building elevations/floor plans included in Section VII, and the provisions contained herein. b. The Kennedy Lateral was previously approved by City Council with the final plat for Umbria Subdivision (FP-06-011), the development to the east, to remain open and not be piped due to its large capacity. c. The Purdam Drain shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. d. Site amenities and open space shall be provided within the development in accord with the qualified open space exhibit in Section VII.E and amenities shown on the site plan in Section VII.B in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27C, D. e. The applicant shall have one management company handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire project to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. 2. Conditional Use Permit 2.1 Site Specific Conditions 2.1.1 The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi- family developments. 2.1.2 The site/landscape plan included in Section VII shall be revised as follows: a. The retaining wall depicted along the Purdam drain and the rail fence depicted along the Kennedy Lateral shall be replaced with an open vision fence at least 6 feet in height and having an 11-guage, 2-inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said drain/lateral as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C. b. Depict the location of the property management office, maintenance storage area, central mailbox location (including provisions for parcel mail) that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access, and directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27. c. Depict minimum 80 square foot patios for each unit in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. d. All storm drainage facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. 2.1.3 All drive aisles are required to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed; if a curb exists next to the drive aisle, it shall be painted red as set forth in UDC 11-3F-4B.2d. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 114 of 143 Page 43 2.1.4 The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3- 27F. A recorded copy of this agreement shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 2.1.5 All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (pgs. 3- 31 thru 3-51). 2.1.6 The conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the city. 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. 2.1.7 An application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review is required to be submitted for review and approval of the site design and structures proposed within the development to ensure consistency with Unified Development Code standards, design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, and provisions in this report prior to submittal of building permit applications for the development. 3. Preliminary Plat 3.1 The preliminary plat included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. All private streets shall be depicted on a single platted lot that provides access to all properties served by such private streets in accord with UDC 11 -3F-4. 3.2 To ensure dimensional standards and setback requirements for the R-15 zoning district and the specific use standard in UDC 11-4-3-27B.1, as well as Building Code separation requirements are met, staff recommends the final plat for this development is recorded prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications. 3.3 All private streets shall be constructed in accord with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4A, B. 3.4 Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat; or, submit and obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 In order to ensure connectivity, and service to future development, provide water connections at two locations to the west. One at proposed Perugia Street, and one at or north of Street I. 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 20, 2018 – Page 115 of 143 Page 44 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 116 of 143 Page 45 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/158714/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159430/Page1.aspx E. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 117 of 143 Page 46 http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159022/Page1.aspx F. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/158766/Page1.aspx G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/158651/Page1.aspx H. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/158560/Page1.aspx I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159258/Page1.aspx 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 19.07 acre property with an R-15 zoning district and develop 238 new multi-family units consisting of townhome style apartments at a gross density of 13.09 units per acre consistent with the requested MHDR FLUM designation, which is a step down from the existing HDR designation. 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-15 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts in UDC 11-2A-1. 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 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 any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Staff finds annexing this property with an R-15 zoning district is in the best interest of the City if the applicant develops the site in accord with the proposed site plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 118 of 143 Page 47 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 analysis in Section V of the Staff Report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Section VIII 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 developer 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 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 exist on this site. C. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6) Required Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the R-15 district (see Analysis Section V for more information). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 119 of 143 Page 48 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and the requested step down in density to MHDR in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Staff finds the proposed use will be served adequately by the public facilities and services listed above based on their comments in Section VIII. Comments were not received from the school district. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 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. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. D. Private Street (UDC 11-3F-5) Required Findings: In order to approve the application, the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds the proposed design of the private streets meets the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 120 of 143 Page 49 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds granting approval of the proposed private streets will not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance or other detriment as described above. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Director finds the proposed use and locations of private streets will not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or regional transportation plan. 4. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The Director finds the proposed residential development incorporates mews in the design. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 121 of 143 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 E Project File Number: H-2018-0121 Item Title: Public Hearing Villasport (H-2018-0121) By Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located at the SW Corner of E. Ustick Rd and N. Eagle Rd. Request: Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor and outdoor arts, entertainment or recreation facility earlier than 6:00 AM on 11.39 acres in the C -G zoning district; and Request: Modification to a Development Agreement to modify an existing development agreement to change the previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Villasport (H-2018-0121) by Sadie Creek C ommons, L L C , L ocated the S W corner of E . Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle 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 12/17/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 122 of 143 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-E Project Name: VillaSport Project No.: H-2018-0121 Active: I" Signature I Wish To Sign In Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral Name Testify Date/Time George 12/20/2018 X Anderus 5:43:49 PM Chris Meridian, Id 12/20/2018 2932 N eagle road X Henderson 83646 5:44:28 PM 3423n centrapoint Meridian, ID 12/20/2018 Mike Tisdale X X way n103 83646 5:44:59 PM Brandon Meridian ID 12/20/2018 2863 N Cajun In X X Clyde 83646 6:02:58 PM Jared Meridian Idaho 12/20/2018 1566 N Leslie way X X Schofield 83646 6:15:15 PM Steve Grant 1534 Leslie Way Meridian, ID X X 12/20/2018 83646 6:15:20 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho EAGLE & USTICK DEVELOPMENT Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission | December 20, 2018 E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Vicinity Map E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Vicinity Map E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T FLUM E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Unified Development Code E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T 2005 DA Concept Plan E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T 2013 Site Plan E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Site Photos E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Site Photos E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Site Photos E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Site Photos E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Site Photos E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Site Photos E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Vicinity Map E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSpa E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSpa E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaCafe E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T VillaSport E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Conceptual Site Plan E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Conceptual Site Plan E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Examples Fuller Park E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Examples Settlers Park E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Examples Saguaro Canyon Subdivision E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Examples Heritage Park THANK YOU E A G L E & U S T I C K D E V E L O P M E N T Umbrellas Page 1 HEARING DATE: 12/20/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0121 Villasport LOCATION: Southwest corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd. in the NE ¼ of Section 5, T.3N., R.1E. Parcels: S1105110067; S1105110100 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests a modification to the existing Development Agreement (DA) to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement for the proposed development; and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate an indoor/outdoor arts, entertainment or recreation facility and spa from 5:00 am to 10:00 pm in the C-G zoning district abutting a residential use and district as required by UDC 11-2B-3A.4. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 11.39 Future Land Use Designation MU-R (mixed-use regional) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped [temporary uses have been operating on this site (i.e. fireworks, Christmas tree sales] Proposed Land Use(s) Athletic club (i.e. indoor/outdoor entertainment/recreation facility) and spa (i.e. personal service) Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning NA Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Milk Lateral runs along north and east boundaries of site Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: July 18, 2018; 6 attendees Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 123 of 143 Page 2 B. Community Metrics History (previous approvals) ROS #6418 created the configuration of these parcels approved by the City in 2004. AZ-05-052 (DA #108008770, Sadie Creek Commons); PP-05-053 and CUP-05-049 (expired); VAR-05-022 (right-in/right-out access via Eagle Rd.); A-2018-0361 (PBA – currently in process to reconfigure the 2 existing parcels) Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Not yet received  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Impact Study (yes/no) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Proposed Road Improvements Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Distance to other key services Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1.2 miles (Fire Station #3)  Fire Response Time 3 minutes (under ideal circumstances)  Resource Reliability 80% (does not meet target goal of 85%)  Risk Identification 4 (current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project)  Accessibility Meets all required road widths and turnarounds  Special/resource needs Requires an aerial device; the closest truck company is 9 minutes travel time (under ideal conditions). This need can be met in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. In the event of a hazmat event, high angle rescue or water rescue, mutual aid will be required. In the event of a structure fire, an additional truck company will be required which will require additional time delays as they are not available in the City.  Water Supply 1500 gallons/minute for 2 hours Police Service  Distance to Police Station 3.3 miles  Police Response Time 3.59 Priority 3; 7.59 Priority 2; 12.56 Priority 1  Calls for Service 946 – mostly related to narcotic violations  % of calls for service split by priority 1.4% Priority 3; 67.9% Priority 2; 28.1% Priority 1; 2.6% Priority 0  Accessibility No issues  Specialty/resource needs No additional needs required  Crimes  Crashes 100 crashes within a mile of site (11/1/17 – 10/31/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 124 of 143 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services  Sewer Shed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s  WRRF Declining Balance  Project Consistent with 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 Grocery Store 0.8 mile COMPASS (Communities in Motion 2040 2.0) 250+/- new jobs Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 125 of 143 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Sadie Creek Commons, LLC – 10789 W. Twain Ave. #200, Las Vegas, NV 89135 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group – 462 E. Shore Drive, Ste. 100, Eagle, ID 83616 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 11/30/2018 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/27/2018 Nextdoor posting 11/27/2018 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 12/7/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The development agreement modification proposes to remove the subject property from the terms of the existing development agreement [i.e. Inst. #108008770, AZ-05-052 Sadie Creek Commons] and enter into a new development agreement for the proposed development. The previously approved conceptual development plan was for a mixed use development consisting of 150,000 square feet of commercial retail, restaurant and office uses (see Section VII.A). The provisions in the DA pertain to that development plan and specifically this site. Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 126 of 143 Page 5 A new conceptual development plan and building elevations are proposed with the subject application that demonstrates how the property is proposed to develop. The new plan proposes a 99,000+/- square foot 2-story building for an athletic club and spa and a 15,300+/- square foot retail building; associated parking for the proposed uses is also depicted (see Section VII.B). A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is proposed to operate an indoor/outdoor arts, entertainment or recreation facility and spa from 5:00 am to 10:00 pm in accord with UDC 11-2B-3A.4. The UDC limits business hours of operation in the C-G district when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours of operation may be requested through a CUP. This property abuts a residential use and district to the south, thus the reason for the request. A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Mixed-Use Regional (MU-R) The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5 in the Comprehensive Plan as shown below. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The proposed development promotes the following action items contained in the Comprehensive Plan:  “Plan for an encourage services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C)  “Develop indoor/outdoor multiple-use facilities (i.e. recreation center, fairgrounds, etc.) for a variety of recreational, educational, cultural and sports purposes and uses.” (6.01.02D)  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 127 of 143 Page 6  “Require screening and landscape buffers on all development requests that are more intense than adjacent residential properties.” (3.06.01G) C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or improvements on this site. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed athletic club is classified as an “arts, entertainment or recreation facility, outdoor” and the spa is classified as a “personal service” in UDC 11-1A-1; both are listed as principal permitted uses in the C-G district per UDC Table 11-2B-2. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed athletic club is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2, Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors, as follows: A. General Standards: 1. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred feet (100') from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception to this standard. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007) The outdoor recreation area as shown on the site plan is within 100’ of the abutting residential district to the south; the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should be revised to depict the recreation area at least 100’ from the residential district in accord with this requirement. 2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet (50') of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. The site plan depicts the pool areas within 50’ of the northern and southern property lines. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should be revised to comply with this requirement. Note: The proposed property boundary adjustment will alleviate this issue on the north boundary. 3. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental, restaurant and drinking establishments, may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. The Applicant’s narrative states the “VillaCafe” located near the front lobby will serve both members and the public. Although the specific use standards don’t support accessory uses that serve the public, because the C-G district allows retail and restaurant uses as principal permitted uses, Staff is amenable to those uses serving both members and the public as a provision of the DA. 4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "Outdoor Speaker Systems", of this title, which states, “Any outdoor speaker system associated with the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from all residential districts. No outdoor speaker systems shall be allowed within a residential district. These standards may be waived through approval of a conditional use permit.” The Applicant should comply with this requirement. B. Additional Standards for Swimming Pools: Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a six foot (6') non-scalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of this code. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 128 of 143 Page 7 A 6-foot tall non-scalable fence should be depicted on the site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that complies with this requirement. D. Additional Standards for Outdoor Stage or Musical Venue: Any use with a capacity of one hundred (100) seats or more or within one thousand feet (1,000') of a residence or a residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)” Because a residential district and uses exist to the south within 1,000 feet, an outdoor stage or musical venue is not allowed, unless otherwise approved through a subsequent conditional use permit. F. Outdoor Speaker Systems: Outdoor speaker systems associated with the use are required to be located a minimum of 100 feet from all residential districts, unless waived through approval of a conditional use permit per UDC 11-3A-13. If outdoor speakers are proposed, they should be depicted on the site plan outside of the 100 foot area. G. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development should comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G district. H. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed to be provided to the site via two (2) accesses from E. Ustick Rd., an arterial street – one via N. Centrepoint Way, an existing local street; and one via a new driveway in alignment with N. Cajun Ln. to the south. Access is also available from the south from Eagle Rd. via E. Seville Ln. from Cajun Ln. Note: The new access driveway via Ustick Rd. does not lie entirely on this property; therefore, the proposed location relies on approval from the adjacent property owner – in the absence of this, the driveway will need to be shifted to the west to be entirely on this site. The UDC (11-3A-3) limits access to arterial streets when access via a local street is available unless approved by City Council. Because access to this site is available via two (2) local streets (i.e. N. Centrepoint Way and N. Cajun Ln.), Council approval of this access is required. Without Council approval, the access should not be allowed and the site plan should be revised accordingly. A cross-access easement exists to this site from N. Cajun Ln., the private street to the south via an easement depicted on the Bienville Square Subdivision plat (Inst. #106169335; #109001537). A cross-access easement should be granted from this site to the property to the south as well as to the out-parcel to the east (#S1105110025). I. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B per the dimensions shown in Table 11-3C-5. In commercial districts, a minimum of one vehicle space is required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Bicycle parking is also required to be provided at one space for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on the overall square footage of the structures proposed (i.e. 114,300), a minimum of 229 vehicle spaces and 9 bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided. A total of 548 vehicle spaces are proposed with 22 bicycle parking spaces in excess of UDC standards. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system (sidewalk) exists within this site along the west side of N. Centrepoint Way in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 129 of 143 Page 8 A detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement and pedestrian lighting and landscaping is required to be provided within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH 55 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3. K. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A detached 5-foot wide sidewalk is required along E. Ustick Rd., an arterial street, east of N. Centrepoint Way (a detached sidewalk exists along Ustick west of Centrepoint); attached 5-foot wide sidewalks are required along all local streets, including N. Centrepoint Way in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. Note: An asphalt pathway exists along each side of N. Centrepoint Way; no sidewalk/pathway exists along E. Pickard Ln./St. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required in lieu of a sidewalk along N. Eagle Rd./SH 55. L. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): All parkways should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The parkway that exists between the curb and sidewalk along Ustick Rd. west of Centrepoint is currently gravel; this area will need to be improved in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. M. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Eagle Rd./SH 55 and E. Ustick Rd., both entryway corridors; and 10-foot wide street buffers are required along local streets as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. All street buffers are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. There are no existing trees on the site being removed that require mitigation. N. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Milk Lateral runs along the north and east boundaries of this site. The Applicant proposes to re-route and pipe the facility in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. O. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): There is an existing 6-foot tall solid wood fence along the southern boundary of the site that is owned by the adjacent property owner and is proposed to remain. A 6-foot tall masonry screen wall is proposed along the west boundary adjacent to residential uses to match that on the property to the south as shown on Sheet L1.50 of the landscape plan, detail 4. P. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required. 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. Q. Pressurized Irrigation (11-3A-15) An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided within the development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. R. Storm Drainage (11-3A-18) An adequate storm drainage system shall be 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 130 of 143 Page 9 S. Structure and Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future athletic club as shown in Section VII.B. Final design of the structure should be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Parking lots for properties greater than 2 acres in size should not have more than 50% of the total off-street parking area for the site located between the building façade and the abutting streets; as an alternative, the parking area should be screened by berms, landscaping, walls, architectural elements or a combination of these elements to produce an appropriate buffer adjacent to public spaces and roadways as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 19B.3. Traffic calming measures should be provided where vehicle circulation is directed in front of the building entries. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5 feet in width is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s) and be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. T. Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of a building permit application. Plans submitted with these applications should comply with UDC standards and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement and the conditional use permit applications in accord with the provisions in Section VII.A. Note: The driveway access via E. Ustick Rd. requires Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11- 3A-3, which limits access via arterial streets when access via a local street is available. In this case, access is available via (2) local streets. If a waiver, is not approved, the site plan should be revised accordingly. Council action is needed on this request. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 131 of 143 Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Existing Development Agreement Provisions & Conceptual Development Plan (AZ-05-052, Instrument No. 108008770) Link to full version of Development Agreement: Sadie Creek Promenade AZ-05-052 Applicable Development Agreement Provisions: 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under City’s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian Unified Development Code § 11-2B which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of up to 150,282 square feet of retail/restaurant/ and office uses in a proposed C-G zone on 7.7 acres pertinent to this AZ 05-052 application. The 36.33 acre site, which includes a portion of this project, was approved for annexation with a Development Agreement in April, 2004 under the name of Kissler Annexation (file no. AZ 03-018). The DA, instrument no. 104107406, requires that any future use be approved either though a site specific CUP application or a Planned Development. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted with the AZ 05-052 application for informational purposes. This entire project consists of 15.33 acres a preliminary plat and conditional use permit was submitted and approved (PP-05-053, and CUP-05-049) which satisfies the CUP condition of the previous DA agreement. Certificates of Zoning Compliance are required for all buildings in this project. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. DEVELOPMENT IN CONDITIONAL USE: Owner/Developer has submitted to City an application for conditional use permit site plan dated September 15, 2005, and shall be required to obtain the City’s approval thereof, in accordance to the City’s Zoning and Development Ordinance criteria, therein, provided, prior to, and as a condition of, the commencement of construction of any buildings or improvements on the Property that require a conditional use permit. No new buildings are approved for construction under this conceptual CUP/PD application. All future buildings shall require approval of design review at staff level prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and/or building permit 6. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. That all future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 132 of 143 Page 11 2. That the applicant be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 3. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non - domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 4. That prior to the issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance all landscaping shall be constructed along the western property boundary and along Ustick Road to the point of connection with Sadie Creek Avenue. These office lots should include either a permanent easement or be redesigned to include landscaping in common lots including masonry block wall on western boundary. 5. That the maximum square footage of one single building shall not exceed 75,141square feet, which is ½ of the maximum requested of 150,282 square feet 6. That all buildings along the western property boundary shall be single story buildings designed to discourage views and access facing the west, unless required for emergency access. Furthermore, these office lots shall have hours of operation consistent with office operations which have been determined to be 6 am – 10 pm. 7. That the applicant shall redesign the site to meet the 300’ standard separation for drive thru uses with this application or variance is obtained. 8. That all access for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision shall be taken from Ustick Road at points determined by ACHD. 9. That Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 of the site plan dated September 15, 2005 are for office uses only. Non retail uses shall be located on these lots. All other lots shall be limited to Office/Retail/Restaurant/Drive thru uses and General Commercial uses listed as permitted in UDC Table 11-2B-2. Any uses (excepting Drive Thru) not listed as permitted shall be subject to conditional approval. 10. That the western most public road referenced to as Sadie Creek Avenue may be renamed as approved by the Ada County Street Naming Committee. The road name has been approved as Centrepoint Way. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 133 of 143 Page 12 B. Proposed Concept Plan (dated: 10/18/18) & Building Elevations (dated: 7/17/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 134 of 143 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 135 of 143 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 136 of 143 Page 15 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Development Agreement Modification 1.1 A new Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of the request for a modification to the existing DA to exclude this property from the existing agreement (Inst. 108008770). A new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s), and the developer. The existing DA shall be amended to remove the subject property from the agreement. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the new 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 approval of the development agreement modification. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The future structures and site design submitted with subsequent Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. c. The athletic club is required to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2, Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors. d. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet (50') of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-2A.2. e. An outdoor stage or musical venue is prohibited on this site as the site is within 1,000 feet of a residential district and such uses are not allowed, unless approved through a conditional use permit as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-2C. f. Outdoor speaker systems associated with the athletic club (i.e. outdoor entertainment/recreation facility) use are required to be located a minimum of 100 feet from all residential districts, unless waived through approval of a conditional use permit per UDC 11-3A-13. g. Construct a 6-foot tall masonry screen wall along the west boundary of the site consistent with that constructed on the adjacent property to the south as shown on Detail #4, Sheet L1.50 of the landscape plan included in Section VII.B. h. Retail and restaurant uses shall be allowed as accessory uses to the athletic club and may serve members of the club as well as the public. i. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted for access from this property to N. Cajun Ln./E. Picard Ln. to the south and to the out-parcel to the east (Parcel #S1105110025). A recorded copy of said easement(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. j. The proposed driveway access via E. Ustick Rd. is not allowed unless a waiver is approved by City Council to UDC 11-3A-3, which limits access via arterial streets when access via a local street is available. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 137 of 143 Page 16 k. Direct access via N. Eagle Rd./SH 55 is prohibited as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4B. 2. Conditional Use Permit 2.1 The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised to comply with the following conditions: a. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred feet (100') from any abutting residential districts as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-2A.1. b. Depict/label a 6-foot tall masonry screen wall along the west boundary of the site consistent with that shown on Detail #4, Sheet L1.50 of the landscape plan. c. If an outdoor speaker system(s) is proposed, the location of such shall be depicted on the plans at least 100 feet from all residential districts, unless waived through approval of a conditional use permit per UDC 11-3A-13. d. The outdoor event or activity center, which includes but is not limited to the swimming pools, shall be located within fifty feet (50') of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-2A.2. e. The outdoor swimming pools shall be completely enclosed within a six foot (6') non-scalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of Meridian City Code as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-2B. f. Depict a detached 5-foot wide sidewalk along E. Ustick Rd., an arterial street, east of N. Centrepoint Way; and an attached 5-foot wide sidewalk along N. Centrepoint Way, a local street, in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. An attached sidewalk shall also be required along the north/south driveway via Ustick Rd. if the access via Ustick is approved by City Council. g. Parking lot design shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19B.3a, which requires no more than 50% of the total off-street parking area for the site to be located between building facades and abutting streets. h. Traffic calming measures shall be provided where vehicle circulation is directed in front of the building entries. i. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5 feet in width is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s) and be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. j. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd., entryway corridors, in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3; landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Correct the calculations table to reflect the required width. k. A pedestrian walkway shall be extended from the sidewalk along the east side of N. Cajun Way along the driveway into this site to the main building entrance. Note: There is a 30+/- foot long gap in the sidewalk along N. Cajun Way off-site to the south that should be completed with this development with consent from the adjacent property owner in order to provide a continuous pedestrian connection. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 138 of 143 Page 17 l. Depict a 25-foot wide buffer to the residential use along the south boundary of the site on the west side of Centrepoint Way as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. l. Depict landscaping within the parkway area along Ustick Rd. west of Centrepoint Way in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. 2.2 The hours of operation of the athletic club and spa are limited to the hours between 5:00 am and 10:00 pm as approved with this application. 2.3 A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement and pedestrian lighting and landscaping is required to be provided within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH 55 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3. 2.4 The proposed driveway access via E. Ustick Rd. is not allowed unless a waiver is approved by City Council to UDC 11-3A-3, which limits access via arterial streets when access via a local street is available. Note: Council review of this access will take place with the associated MDA application. 2.5 A cross-access easement shall be granted from this site to the property to the south as well as to the out-parcel to the east (#S1105110025). A copy of the recorded easement(s) shall be submitted with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 2.6 The property boundary adjustment (#A-2018-0361) application shall receive final approval prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 2.7 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of a building permit application. Plans submitted with these applications should comply with UDC standards and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 2.8 The conditional use permit is approved contingent upon City Council approval of the associated modification to the Development Agreement. B. Public Works 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 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 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 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 Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 139 of 143 Page 18 2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.4 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 2.5 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, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 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. 2.8 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.9 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.10 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 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. 2.11 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. 2.12 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. 2.13 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.14 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 140 of 143 Page 19 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.15 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.16 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 Water Department at (208)888-5242 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. 2.17 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 2.18 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). 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 development plan approval. 2.19 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. C. Fire Department http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157920/Page1.aspx D. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=158376 E. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=158270 F. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/158532/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 141 of 143 Page 20 IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6) Required Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and development regulations of the C-G district if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII (see Analysis Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds that the proposed use will be consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of MU-R for this site if the site is developed and the use conducted in accord with the conditions listed in Section VIII. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in Section VIII of this report, the proposed use of the property should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in Section VIII of this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services as applicable. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 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. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will generate additional traffic in the area but should not involve activities that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 142 of 143 Page 21 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 20, 2018 – Page 143 of 143