Loading...
2019-01-17MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance __X__ Lisa Holland __X__ Steven Yearsley __O__ Vacant __O__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X__ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Bill Cassinelli __X__ Jessica Perrault - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Adopted Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] Approved A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Villasport CUP (H-2018- 0121) by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located on the SW corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd. C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for for Pleasant View Elementary (H-2018-0103) by West Ada School District, Located on the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Rd. Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing for Pine Four-Plex (H-2018-0135) by Amanda Blackwell, neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located 645 W. Pine Ave. Continued to February 7, 2019 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family family development consisting of 4 units on 0.29 of an acre of land in the R-15 zoning district B. Public Hearing for Oakmore Subdivision (H-2018-0118) by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. Recommend Approval with Modifications to City Council – Scheduled February 19, 2019 1. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family residential lots and six common lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district C. Public Hearing for Oakwind Subdivision (H-2018-0119) by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rds Recommend Approval with Modifications to City Council – Scheduled February 19, 2019 1. Request: Rezone of 16.52 acres of land from the R-15 and R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 82 single family residential lots and 7 common lots on approximately 16.52 acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district D. Public Hearing for Stapleton Subdivision (H-2018-0129) by Stapleton, LLC, Located at the SW corner of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69 and W. Harris St. Continued to February 21, 2019 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 38.15 acres of land with an R- 15 zoning district; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 223 building lots and 27 common lots on 35.67 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district Meeting Adjourned at 8:22 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 17, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 17, 2019, was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __ X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __ X__ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Perreault: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I apologize for the delay. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17th, 2019. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We will be continuing a couple of items this evening and that is public hearing for Pine Four- Plex, H-2018-0135, and the public hearing for Stapleton Subdivision, H-2018-0129. So, if anyone is here for those applications, we won't be taking testimony on those this evening. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Holland: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All of those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 4 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 2 of 49 Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Villasport CUP ( H- 2018-0121) by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located on the SW corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd. C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Pleasant View Elementary (H-2018-0103) by West Ada School District, Located on the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Rd. Perreault: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have three items on the Consent Agenda, approval of minutes for January 3rd, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Villasport CUP, H-2018- 0121, and Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the Pleasant View Elementary School, H-2018-0103. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Cassinelli: So moved. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Perreault: Now I will explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to make their presentation. After they have finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign- up sheet in the back as you entered -- actually, I think there is an iPad back there now. If you wish to testify, please, put your name on that list. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, which it doesn't look like we have this evening, there is -- and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have an opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, we will be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 5 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 3 of 49 Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Pine Four-Plex (H-2018-0135) by Amanda Blackwell, neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located 645 W. Pine A v e . 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family family development consisting of 4 units on 0.29 of an acre of land in the R-15 zoning district Perreault: So, we will go ahead and open the meetings that are going to be continued for the purpose of continuing them and setting a date. So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Pine Four-Plex, H-2018-0135. The applicant is requesting a continuance to February 7th, 2019. Could I get a motion to continue? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move we continue public hearing H-2018-0135 to the date February 7th, 2019. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue the hearing to February 7th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Stapleton Subdivision (H-2018-0129) by Stapleton, LLC, Located at the SW corner of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69 and W. Harris St. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 38.15 acres of land with an R15 zoning district; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 223 building lots and 27 common lots on 35.67 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district Perreault: We will just go ahead and open Item D on the agenda to continue as well. Public hearing for Stapleton Subdivision, H-2018-0129. Can I get a motion to continue? They haven't -- the applicant has not requested a future hearing date. Is there anyone present here for that application? Johnson: Madam Chair, when I spoke with Sonya -- and perhaps planning staff can correct me, but they had asked for February 7th, but she was recommending a date beyond that. Bill or Stephanie have an update on that? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 6 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 4 of 49 Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's my impression, too. We, I think -- or February 7 is what I have heard, so -- Perreault: Can I get a motion to continue? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I'm just looking at the draft for the agenda for the 7th and we just already placed another one on there that's like -- that will be five. Parsons: Madam Chair. McCarvel: And if staff is wanting a later one -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't have an exact date for you. I can let you know with that particular subdivision we are working out some issues with the developer and some of the things that we would like to be changed and, again, we have a meeting with them tomorrow, but I don't think we can get those changes within the necessary time frame to keep that -- update the staff report and get that information to you before February 7th. That's why staff had -- had pushed out. So, I think for all those involved I think that second hearing in February would probably suit us best, which I think is the 21st or -- yeah. If I'm not mistaken. So, I would -- I think staff's position is push it out at least to that hearing date, if Commission is amenable to that. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we continue Item H-2013-0129, Stapleton Subdivision, to February 21st. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0129 to February 21st. All those in favor? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Oakmore Subdivision ( H-2018-0118) by Toll ID ILLC, Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 7 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 5 of 49 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family residential lots and six common lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district Perreault: Now we will open the public hearing for Oakmore Subdivision, 2018-0118, and begin with the staff report. Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first project before you -- actually, both projects before you tonight are kind of related. They are both in the Oakmore Subdivision. So, some of the analysis and some of the stuff we will be talking about is probably going to make sense for both subdivisions. Oakmore is this application for a rezone and a preliminary plat. The site is located near the intersection of West Gondola Drive and North Black Cat Road. It's approximately seven acres and it's zoned R-4. To the north is future single family residential subdivision, which is West Bridge, zoned R-4. To the south is a single family residential subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east -- to the east is North Black Cat Road and single family subdivisions, zoned R- 8. And to the west is future phases of the -- of the Oaks, zoned R-4. In 2008 the property was annexed and zoned as part of the Oak Creek Subdivision, which is subject to the Oak Creek DA. In 2013 it was rezone to R-15 and platted as part of the Oaks North when the property was expanded and split into the Oaks North and South, which was associated with the new DA. The current DA includes a concept plan with multi-family depicted on the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan shows multi-family -- or, I'm sorry, medium density residential. The applicant is requesting a rezone from R-15 to R- 4 and a preliminary plat consisting of 18 -- let me back up really quick. So, this is actually the concept plan for the whole Oaks North Subdivision, which shows Oakmore up here to the northeast. So, the applicant is requesting a rezone from R-15 to R-4. A preliminary plat consisting of 18 single family residential lots and six common lots. The lots range in size from approximately 9,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet, for an average lot size of 11,495. The proposed density is 2.44 units per acre. The proposed density is below the desired density for medium density residential, but we feel that it's consistent when included with the entire Oaks development. The applicant has submitted a separate modification to the development agreement to be consistent with the proposed development for 18 single family residences on the property. The DA modification will be heard before City Council on February 19th. Approval of this project is contingent on that approval and depicts multi-family, rather than the single family residences that are being proposed. A stub street is proposed to the north into the proposed Westbridge Subdivision, into the south to Jump Creek. Internal access will be through future phases of Oaks. No direct access is proposed to North Black Cat Road. One common driveway is proposed to provide access to two lots at the northwest part of the property. That access does exceed the UDC maximum length of 150, but the applicant is working with staff on that and we will get it redesigned prior to the Council hearing. Five foot detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development. Staff is recommending that the applicant add a macro path to the southwest part of the site. Right about here. Which has been noted. To provide pedestrian access to the Jump Creek Subdivision to the south. Staff is also recommending that the city's ten foot multi-use pathway be continued along North Black Cat Road. The West Cap sub lateral crosses Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 8 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 6 of 49 and Lot 1, Block 3, in the proposed plat. The applicant shall relocate that lateral or tile it. The applicant needs to specify how wide the easement will be on those buildable lots. If the easement is greater than ten feet it needs to have a 20 foot common lot, unless it's waived by Council. Renderings of a variety of the single family residences have been submitted. They will be pretty consistent with what's in the area. Staff is concerned that the number of amenities provided with the overall development for this subdivision and Oakwind, which will be heard next, may not be adequate, since the conceptually approved multi-family would have required more open space and amenities. This parcel was originally proposed to develop with 60 multi-family units, which would have been required to provide at least ten percent open space and at least three qualified site amenities. With the addition of the two projects currently proposed, Oakmore and Oakwind, were -- they will be adding, if approved, one hundred additional single family residential homes, which means roughly 750 single family homes will be using the same group of amenities originally approved. Staff feels that the recommended micro path and continuation of the ten foot multi-use pathway would provide usable open space for residents. There has been no written testimony on this project and with that staff recommends approval with the conditions that were contained in the staff report and asks that Commission determine whether the number of amenities provided with this development and -- are adequate for the subdivision. With that staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Any questions for staff? No. Okay. Would the applicant, please, come forward. McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing Toll Brothers on this particular application. Could you put up the Oakmore -- oh. Yeah. This is Oakwind. Sorry. You're Oakmore. That's okay. Sorry. Whatever you had. Just your -- the colored site plan that you had in your PowerPoint. Sorry. Yeah. That's good. Right there. That's good. When I originally designed the project for Oaks North and brought it through for entitlements, my client Coleman Homes at the time acquired this L-shaped parcel that you see that's before you as Oakmore Subdivision. The reason that they acquired it, even though it was kind of an unusual shape, was that we would, therefore, have secondary access out to Black Cat, which was necessary to meet the fire department requirements. Since -- since, then, the Jump Creek Subdivision has been approved -- the Westbridge Subdivision has been approved and so my clients kind of took a look at this and decided -- we initially showed no design for any multi-family, we just said 60 multi-family dwellings on R-15. So, what's before you this evening is -- we are asking to down zone it from R-15 to R-4 and from the 60 multi-family units to 18. And so what -- what we did is we have opportunity now to connect to Westbridge Subdivision to the north, which has been approved and, then, to the south is Jump Creek and they -- it's my understanding that they are constructing their collector roadway. The staff has asked us to include a micro path here and we already showed a micro path coming to the west -- or east. I'm sorry. Out to Black Cat Road and, then, staff has asked us, based on the park's pathway plan, to install a ten foot multi-use pathway along our Black Cat frontage, which we are in agreement with both of those issues. I did have a conversation with the fire department. They indicated this common driveway here is 187 feet long and the maximum allowable length Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 9 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 7 of 49 is 150. So, I will need to reconfigure these two lots to bring this into compliance with the 150 or either just consolidate the -- the four lots and make it three lots. So, we will go ahead and do that prior to going to the City Council. So, really, what you're -- what's before you is a reduction of 42 dwelling units. This will be part of the 250 some acres of Oaks North. In that project we had -- I sent staff an extensive list of our open space. We had 27 acres of open space, which we have increased that open space as we were designing phase one, two and three at this time. We have 5.71 acres central amenity, so we are building with the first phase this 5.71 acre central amenity. There will be pool facility, tot lot, benches, picnic areas, pathways. There is going to be a pathway that runs along here. We are piping the Creason Lateral. There will be a ten foot multi-use pathway that goes all along the collector roadway and up this collector and, then, links to Jump Creek. So, what's before you as Oakmore is just this little L-shaped parcel here. So, it will be part of this larger development that you see here. We reviewed staff's conditions. We are in full agreement. Do you have any questions? Perreault: Becky, can you -- so, access to the property will come through Oaks North, so I'm assuming it will not be built until the roads are -- I don't know what -- I don't have a phasing plan in front of me for Oaks North. McKay: Madam Chair, you're correct. Perreault: Okay. McKay: This will be one of our latter phases. So, phase -- phase one is right here with the amenity. Phase two, phase three is I think right here. So, it would be in our latter phases and we are not taking any direct access to Black Cat. Perreault: Okay. McKay: It will all be internal and, then, we will link Westbridge and, then, into Jump Creek, because this collector goes on out to Black Cat and aligns with Bridgetower West or Volterra that I designed east of us. Perreault: Okay. Can you show us on here what the pedestrian access would be from this property over to the closest open space or common area in Oaks North? McKay: Yeah. So -- so, we will have a pedestrian pathway located here that will allow people to come in and drop into the Jump Creek project. There is a proposed elementary school that will be up in the Bainbridge project. So, we put a micro path coming out here to Black Cat and the multi-use pathway and, then, as far as dropping into our central open space, they will come down and catch this multi-use pathway, it's a ten footer, it will run all the way down and it's all detached to the central amenity here. We have another amenity up here and, then, we created a pocket park here. There will be another amenity here, here, here and here and, then, we have other amenities to the west. So, we were required to have, basically, a pool facility, multiple play equipment or tot lots, our integrated pathway system, our ten foot multi-use pathway. We have Bocce ball courts, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 10 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 8 of 49 covered picnic shelters, barbecue areas. We are doing a sport court. Benches. Sitting areas. And, like I said, in those smaller pocket parks we are doing playground, tot lots. So, there will be -- there will be activities throughout the whole project due to its size and what I indicated to the staff, as we submit our first phase we will create a qualified open space map with a list of amenities and we have done this with the staff on our larger projects, so that we can track them phase by phase, making sure that as we progress through that we are meeting our qualified open space that's delineated in our development agreement and the number of amenities as approved initially by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. Perreault: Any questions from the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Becky, are there -- there is just the one pool here. Are there other pools in the adjacent subdivision? McKay: In Oaks South we have another. So, there is Oaks North that you're looking at here. South of McMillan is the Oaks South development. It has its own pool facility. This is going to be one of their larger pool facilities due to the number of lots of in here. Cassinelli: How large is that pool? McKay: They are working on the design right now. I have not seen the finished product, but it's going to be far larger than Oaks South. Cassinelli: And parking at the pool -- McKay: Yes. Cassinelli: -- how much parking is available at the pool? McKay: The parking -- I think the parking we had -- it looks like probably about 20 spaces in there by just eyeballing it, but that's one of the things that we have been working with staff on is providing additional parking for these pool facilities, because people -- parents like to drive their toddlers, handicapped children, elderly people like to drive over to the facilities and so we do receive comments on projects -- none of them have been mine -- that the parking was inadequate where they have just say six or eight spaces. So, yes, we are cognizant that that -- that has been an issue with other projects. Cassinelli: And one final question. Is there -- is there a clubhouse there as part of the pool? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 11 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 9 of 49 McKay: They are working -- their amenity designer for Toll Brothers is back east and they are working on that design right now. The one on Oaks South, it is just changing rooms, pool facility, picnic shelters, barbecue areas, playgrounds, walkways, benches. Since this is a lot larger area they are going to boost that amenity package up. So, I'm -- I don't know if they are going to do like a -- like a great room or gathering place. I can obviously -- if that's one of the comments that the Commission has I can take that back to their designer who, like I said, is working on that right as we speak. Cassinelli: Thank you. Perreault: What would you say is the distance from Oakmore -- walking distance from Oakmore to that central common area? A quarter mile? It's a pretty significant distance. Wouldn't most -- wouldn't most folks be driving? McKay: I would say that is probably a quarter mile. Yes. Perreault: And there isn't -- other than taking the sidewalks, there is not a quicker way to get to the other parks in that -- that northeast corner there? McKay: Well, it -- I don't have the Jump Creek design in front of me. I don't know if the staff has it. They are asking me to put a micro path right here linking to open space in Jump Creek, so they may be able to drop down into Jump Creek and take a shortcut to here versus having to go all the way around the horn here. They may be able to just come down directly here. I don't -- I don't know if they will add that or not. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we just -- the city just approved the final plat -- the third phase for Jump Creek. So, that's the purpose for the condition is to tie into their micro path segment. It does dump into an on-street sidewalk and, then, ties into the collector street. So, it's a -- it's a shorter jog to come through the micro path and, then, get onto the multi-use pathway between both the subdivisions and get down to that park. So, it -- yes, it's quite a bit of distance away, but there is a shorter -- shorter route to get to it than what you see in the concept plan. McKay: And, Madam Chair, the -- the lots in here are ranging from 9,000 to 15,000 square feet. So, we -- we are only at 2.44 dwelling units per acre. So, it's really low low density out there on that periphery. Perreault: Any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair. Sorry. Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: And this one might be more directed to staff. Do we have kind of -- you know, it's kind of hard to get a picture of just this little piece. Do we have one that's kind of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 12 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 10 of 49 showing what's up north and what's being proposed down below kind of all together, so we can maybe see in more of a better context? Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I can't get our mapping program to work at the moment, so I was going to try to show you the plans of parcels that we have, but I can't get it to show up. So, this is our Google Image to be built. I don't know if you remember where are all the connections are. Maybe you could -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Commission, are you wanting Jump Creek in relation or even all of these subdivisions approved around? Do you want it for Oaks North and Oaks South and see how those tie together or even how Jump Creek ties into this? Yearsley: I was just thinking the north and south, just because, you know, it's -- it's a very thin, long strip and it would kind of be nice to have a context of how these three fit together. Parsons: We have that in the staff report and maybe Stephanie can pull that up and blow up and, then, show you how all those -- all those subdivisions interconnect. Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think the best that we have got right now is what's shown here in the planned development map and you can't really see the connections all that well, but I will try to troubleshoot and see if I can get the -- the GIS map to show up, if there is anything else that you want to discuss while I do that. Perreault: Absolutely. Let's move forward and take public testimony. Is there anyone signed up? Johnson: Madam Chair, there was no one signed in. Perreault: Is there anyone here who would like to testify on this application? Okay. Well, then, that being said, are the Commissioners okay with reviewing these maps during our deliberation or would you like to wait until we -- do we want to close the public hearing and -- or do you want to wait? Yearsley: You know, it's kind of a tough one for me, because, you know, anytime you're going to R-15 to an R-4 -- I'm always in favor of that. So, my only concern I guess for me is -- and maybe it's not that big of a deal, but it -- it just kind of -- you know, so -- you know, it would just kind of be nice to have a -- just a feel of how it fits in with the rest of the subdivisions. But, you know, if everyone would like to move forward I would be okay with that. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 13 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 11 of 49 McCarvel: I'm looking on the map on the left and that's all R-4 to the north of it. Becky -- okay. And, then, did I see on that other map there was a little tiny strip of R-15 left? Has that been approved already? Parsons: Yes. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that -- that two acres of R- 15 was a four-plex conceptual plan that was approved with Jump Creek and they will have to come back before this body with a CUP application in order for you to look at the elevations and the site layout. So, it's conceptually entitled, but it hasn't been approved for construction. They have just -- they have just subdivided it at this point. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Or at least in the process of subdividing it. McCarvel: And, then, what was south of that little strip of R-15 that was left? Was that R-4 or R-8 below that? Parsons: Madam Chair, that is R-8. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair, one more -- Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: -- one more question of clarification. Just to make sure -- the application is for rezoning it from R-15 to R-4. There were a couple of notes in the staff report that mentioned R-8. I think it might have just been a typo, but I just noticed that right below the maps on here, so I just wanted to make sure I noted that for you. Leonard: I will make sure to make that correction in the staff report. Perreault: Does the applicant have anything else to share prior to closing? Okay. I will take a motion to close the public hearing for item number H-2018-0118. Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Perreault: So, this is a unique situation in that there has already been a DA approved for Oaks North and so different in a situation where if -- we are not looking at this isolated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 14 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 12 of 49 piece of property and in our next hearing we will be taking into account a section on the west side of the same property and so I think we want to review them as a whole and consider them as a whole and so as far as reviewing open space, taking all of that into account for 750 units is where some of the topic of our conversation should be. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think at this point for this little strip I would be in favor of the R-4 and letting this one in without a whole lot of modification for the open space. I think it's definitely going to come into play more on the next one and taking a harder look at that overall, but I think with this little strip and not taking the access to Black Cat the way they had originally envisioned, I think this individual project -- I would be in support of this one. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I tend to agree. I -- I don't mind the down change in density on this project. It's kind of a strange shaped parcel to do much with and I think my only concern with it at this point is the R-15 that would be south of it and how that's going to integrate in, because that could be a challenge next to an R-4 for neighborhood. I would imagine that once residents get established they might have some concerns with the multi-family building in their backyard. So, I think that's my -- my only concern at this point. The only other note I had was that the fire department said there were some challenges with that 150 feet drive, but Becky addressed that in her report, so no concerns there. Perreault: Bill, you said that Jump -- phase three of Jump Creek has been plotted and are they going to be presenting that soon? Is there an anticipation that they might start construction prior to this property, since this is such a later phase? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that -- that project has already been before City Council -- Perreault: Oh. Okay. Parsons: -- and that final plat's been approved. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: So, yes, they are getting their construction drawings reviewed and approved now, so they can start in the spring. So, yes, it will be ahead of this phase for sure. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 15 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 13 of 49 Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: So, it -- it should not come to anybody's surprise, then, when they go to build those lots that -- Perreault: That was there. McCarvel: Yeah. And it was -- Perreault: That was what I was getting at. McCarvel: -- the four-plex kind of blends in better than, obviously, a big apartment building. I think given the circumstances and being separate projects I -- I would be in support of it. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Overall -- overall I'm typically almost always in favor of step down and it does look like there is staff comments and discussing the amenities and whatnot in the next project, so we will -- it looks like we will be talking about that. All in all I'm in favor -- in favor of it, I just -- I think it's going to be funny with some four-plexes back there. It's a -- had this been R -- remained at R-8 it would have been -- I think that would have blended a little bit better. So, it's going to be a strange blend, but the R-15, that's been approved and it's hard to do a whole lot else with this -- with this strip than to do it the way it's done. So, all in all I'm in favor. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, just taking on my experience that I have seen, I'm on the HOA of our current subdivision and the last phase got the least amount of amenities and I will tell you I still to this day will hear that they are feeling left out, because they didn't get the amenities like everybody else did and so I pay some conscious -- you know, conscious effort to that and I apologize for maybe not being up to speed on a lot of this, but, you know, it's a long ways from this subdivision to where their amenities are and having -- and not knowing what's being proposed north, because it sounds like that one's going to be part of all this overall development, I'm -- I would be a little leery to -- I like it, I -- don't -- don't get me wrong, but I would like to see a little bit more amenities out this way and -- and if they have better amenities with the next phase up above it, you know, that would be beneficial, but at this point, just based on this alone, I think we are a little short on amenities personally. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 16 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 14 of 49 Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I -- Commissioner Yearsley, I agree with you on that. The only thing I see sometimes on the -- on R-4, the size of the lots, a lot of times residents will -- they have got all their own amenities going on there. Sometimes they will -- I mean if they have got room to put in a pool they can -- they will have extra large play structures and that sort of thing. I think, you know, when you go through some of the -- some different subdivisions, neighborhoods around that have -- that are R-4 and have almost acre size lots, they have got -- you know, they have quite a bit. All in all I would agree with you, though. Yearsley: Well, I understand where you're coming from and I -- I -- I appreciate your comments. Perreault: I would have liked to have seen -- if -- I agree that -- that -- I feel like there is quite a distance to common areas and I would -- would have liked to have seen more options for walking paths -- would be between some of the home sites to get to some of those areas a little more quickly. Could you bring that full concept plan back up? Commissioner Yearsley, just a question for you then. Would you in your thinking along those lines, are you suggesting that maybe there is a smaller central area and they put some larger common areas in different sections, since it's such a large development? Yearsley: You know, I -- I think for the most part maybe adding a little bit more ground to that little pocket park and making it a little bigger, maybe adding an amenity there, would -- would be satisfying, you know, because it gives them something close by that they can go to and congregate together as -- as kids want to go play instead of playing in the backyard or something like that, is -- would be adequate. Perreault: Yeah. Any other thoughts? Any motions to be made? Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Bill was able to locate a concept plan that indicates the land below -- or to the south. So, he's putting it in the folder and I can pull it up if you would like to take a look. Perreault: We had a hearing for the property to the north not long ago and it's also this sort of a strip piece and -- and if I remember correctly they were larger lots, Westminster Subdivision, and it wasn't unlike how this is designed, but I would imagine the two are not sharing any kind of, you know, open space, so -- Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, so you can see the -- the Oakmore Subdivision sandwiched in between, which is Westbridge to the north and, then, phase three of Jump Creek is right along the south boundary and you see how the roads connect into that development and, then, if you can -- if you can -- if -- you kind of show where the two common lots are, Stephanie, there where the pathway connections would come in between Lots 7 and 8 in the southwest corner -- I'm sorry. That's not this corner. That's where that connection would come in. But that just shows you how this would interact with the adjacent developments and, then, that R-15 piece that you brought up Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 17 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 15 of 49 earlier it shows in the corner of Jump Creek number three there is seven lots with four- plex units there in the north. It's the northeast corner of Jump Creek. Yeah. Right there. That's that remaining R-15 that was approved with that development. I didn't mean to hijack your motion, but I thought you wanted to look at something and showing you how -- McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. So, we have got common lots all along the north side of that road, just -- I mean open space. What was planned in there? Just open grass and landscape? That entire open area and, then, the -- is there room for any sort of amenity in that space up there? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, is that a question to staff or are you guys just talking out loud? I can -- McCarvel: A little of both. Parsons: I can see -- I can see things a couple different ways. So, I think we should elaborate a little bit on the open space and amenities for you. So, just to kind of give you a broader understanding, because I worked on this project in -- in 2013, so I'm very familiar with it. It's a -- it's a large project. It's a huge community. We are talking almost 400 acres when this thing is built out and done. I think one of the aspects that the city really liked at the time that it came through that it was a mixed use development. It had multi-family, it had a mix of different residential types, it had office uses, it had a future park and a lot of that has dissolved and that's why we need to go through that DA modification, which I won't go into at this point. But now we are down to where we are having a larger project and now we are starting to pick apart pieces of that larger project and now we are trying to integrate that smaller portion into a larger portion that's already been approved and so that's why we pose that question to you this evening, is because with a standalone multi-family project you get your own open space. You don't want amenities that go along with that project and that's driven by that density. In this particular case these are larger lots and they are R-4, so that's a good thing. I think the Commission agrees. You can have a bigger backyard, you're going to have more open space -- private usable space for the homeowners. So, in the applicant's request for that DA modification they are asking to modify the concept plan and change that from multi-family to -- we have a history here with the city. I don't want you to think we have a precedent that when there is common ownership for a development we do allow the developer to amend the development agreement and roll in additional properties under that development agreement to share open space and amenities with different phases or previous phases. Not at issue with that, but I think the Commission's raising some concerns that we saw when we analyzed the project is the fact that the multi-family project functions differently than a single family project, just for the fact that you are going to get more open space and more amenities with that. So, we don't want to lose the intent of the original plan, we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 18 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 16 of 49 want those amenities to happen -- in that open space to happen and we are talking 750 homes and going back to the Commission standpoint, when we look at a Tuscany, when we look at a Paramount, we look at four pools, we look at a city park donated, we look at a lot of things that come into play that aren't part of this particular project and they were at one time. Again, I'm not trying to sway the Commission one way or the another, I'm just laying out kind of traditionally what we have seen as development -- larger developments like this come in. This plat, although they were not proposing ten percent open space and they are asking to include it as part of the overall development, you have -- the code allows you the ability to require ten percent of this plat -- standalone plat. It's over five acres minimum. If you feel there should be an amenity and ten percent open space with this plat, that's something within your purview. If it's something that you want added as part of the DA that we can't get because code doesn't allow you, then, we would ask that you provide a recommendation to us, so that we -- as we prepare the staff report for the DA modification we can include that in our recommendation to City Council as they act on the DA modification. So, that's something that you need to consider. If you want this to be a straight R-4 development, still be part of the Oaks, but still have the ten percent as required by code and the one amenity, that's within your purview to require. If you feel like the applicant's made the justification that it could still function with the way it's designed and still have adequate open space and amenities with the previous version of the plan, that's within your purview and we will take that up with City Council as we move forward with that DA modification. But if I'm looking at this -- and if you're struggling with it -- or if you want to compromise, if you think they should do five percent, certainly, the applicant has the ability -- to me if I'm looking at this trying to find logical open space -- and I'm going to sneak over to Stephanie's mic to kind of -- so I can show you what I think would be the best place for the open space. Yeah. I would -- I would almost link it here -- this other common lot, then, you can get another -- a pocket park or an amenity with the adjacent subdivision and you kind of build that sense -- place of community and you're not having to go a quarter mile or go through a bunch of different streets and tie in their pocket parks that are -- are a thousand, 1,500 feet away. But that's just my -- my -- I at least wanted to give you a context and that way we don't have to go and do all of that with the next project either. Any questions on what I have provided to you? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: And I don't have the vision on this. I'm sure Becky might. But I mean they are already having to reconfigure the land -- that little spot to the north of the road with the common driveway and I know she mentioned possibly that that would be three lots anyway. I don't know if there is more space to be had there to create an amenity there. Yearsley: Madam Chair. And I -- I kind of wonder if it might be advised to maybe reopen the public hearing to at least maybe ask Becky some of these questions on what she would like to see or what -- what she would recommend or -- or what we can do to work this out. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 19 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 17 of 49 Holland: Madam Chair? Yearsley: At that point I would make a motion to open the public hearing. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for Oakmore Subdivision, H-2018-0118, to pose additional questions for the applicant. Becky, would you like to come forward. McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Yeah. Right now we are at -- as a standalone this is at 6.77 percent open space, because we have detached sidewalks with eight foot landscape buffers. It was included that -- in the entire project where we are required to have a minimum of ten percent, it was included in that and when we have come in with replats of certain areas we have looked at them from its entirety and -- and has never been asked to make it stand on its own. But I can understand where the Commission's coming from and the question arose, you know, is this area here large enough to have some type of amenity. No, it's more just a -- just a road buffer, because we are single loading this street. We have this common area here. We are going to have a pedestrian path that drops into Jump Creek here. We also have a pocket park right here and so what -- we will have to have an amenity in this common area. As far as storm drainage, we will be taking the storm drainage into this area here, so this -- this common area could be enhanced and if we, you know, reorient this area, then, even make that a little bit larger, but put an amenity right here, so they would have an activity and I think -- I think that's -- that's doable and I think that that would kind of solve the -- the concerns that the Commission has, the distance between this kind of outlying parcel over by itself on Black Cat and the distance to the central amenity. So, I guess that's -- that's what I would suggest is, you know, that there be an amenity here and try to -- try to augment that when -- when I reconfigure this prior to going to the Council and -- and get the client to indicate what type of amenity we can put in that space. Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky, before you go away could we clarify what we are going to do with the West Tap Lateral? It looks like currently it was untitled. I don't know if -- the plan has probably been grounded I would assume. McKay: Yeah. It's -- it's going to have to be piped. We have been working with the Creason Lateral Association and the downstream users on the ditches. So, we are trying to get that kind of hammered out. It's still in flux at this time until we get the actual association approval. Leonard: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Yearsley: So, before you leave, I'm just trying to figure out how to formulate a motion with this. So, you said you're at six point -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 20 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 18 of 49 McKay: Seven seven. Yearsley: -- seven seven and I don't know what that is or what -- McKay: Half acre. Yearsley: Okay. I'm trying to figure out -- I -- you know, I don't want to just say add more open space, because that's pretty vague and I would like to be a little bit more -- I don't know if you could actually get ten percent with adding that additional space there, but I don't want to tie your hands to -- to lose an extra lot, because you're probably going to lose a lot anywise. I don't want you to lose a second lot. You go to -- you know, it's kind of hard for me to tell you -- you -- you probably have a better feel for what's -- what's there and what we could potentially do. I'm trying to figure out how best to -- to phrase that to give you some direction, but not tie your hands too close. Does that make sense? McKay: Yes, sir. I guess to try to quantify it you mean? Yearsley: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. McKay: Yeah. McCarvel: Do you think you can get to the ten percent or nine, probably -- McKay: Ten -- ten I would probably have to lose -- if I'm at 6.77 and I'm a half acre, I would have to -- I don't have my calculator on me. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Were you going to -- were you looking at giving up a lot in those -- with that -- when you reconfigure that up top? McKay: Well, in -- in trying to shorten this we have -- we are required to shorten this shared drive, so in shortening that driveway I'm going to have to reconfigure these lots and most likely have to probably go from four to three. So, in doing -- in doing that, in reconfiguring that, then, that would allow me to augment the area that I already have here and, then, I could identify what that amenity would be prior to going to the Council. So, that I guess to try to specify it, the -- the Commission would add a -- a condition of approval that some additional open space be added to the adjoining common area at the southwest corner and an amenity identified for the benefit of these residents prior to the Council. Bill, is that -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that's amenable to staff, because they got -- this particular common lot is not part of the plat and it's outside of that -- inside of that realm of that DA modification. I think that would be appropriate to give staff that recommendation and we will carry that forward and make sure that that's captured in the DA mod staff report that we present to City Council. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 21 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 19 of 49 Yearsley: Sorry, I -- and I missed -- I was -- I was -- you know, you were wanting to calculate -- I calculated about 11,000 square feet, which is probably a little -- the extra three percent and so what were you proposing? I missed that. I apologize. McKay: Oh. I'm sorry. I guess in the motion that -- prior to Council review of the preliminary plat we -- we have to reconfigure this area to bring it in compliance with the fire department, which I anticipate this will have to go to probably three lots versus the four. So, the motion would include a condition that prior to going onto the Council that we augment the adjoining common area on the southwest corner and, then, identify an amenity that would benefit these 18 lots right here. Yearsley: Okay. I think that would be reasonable. Perreault: And those lots are a quarter acre, but -- but one of them -- I'm guessing it's probably about 9,000 square feet or so. McKay: Yes. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can I take us into the weeds for a second? Perreault: I thought we had been there. Cassinelli: Becky, was there a -- did you have a drawing on your presentation with that -- with the road -- basically with it flipped with the road on the southern boundary? McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, we -- we did try both -- we tried it both ways. Cassinelli: My -- my thought there -- not necessarily with the -- with all the common space and whatnot, but the four-plexes down below, the -- the higher density down below getting it -- instead of those homes backing up to that you got the road that would be abutting that. Does that work? McKay: We flipped it. It didn't work as well trying to interconnect with. At the time West Bridge was going through the process, so this is a drawing that my team put together and I sent it over to Bill, so that while your staff was reviewing West Bridge, because they were being required, I believe, to have landscaping all along there -- Bill, was that -- no. No. It was Jump Creek that had a landscape buffer all along their northern boundary, because we had the street adjacent to them and so, then, when we flipped it, then, that allowed them to get rid of that buffer and enhance their open space here or consolidate it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 22 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 20 of 49 and this just seemed to work out better for all three properties. So, I did coordinate with Dave Bailey, who is doing Jump Creek and West Bridge, and I did coordinate with the staff while West Bridge was processing to make sure that we could get all these bits and pieces to fit together. The sad part is that these were all done in the county with splits and so here you had these -- these seven, eight acre parcels that had one single family dwelling and they were all kind of odd ball shaped pieces and so we tried to make it so that all these puzzle pieces would fit together. As far as compatibility, you know, residential is compatible with residential. The fact that we do have Black Cat, which is a major arterial, and the fact that these lots are a little bit larger, you know, there -- that's going to be a trade off for them. I want a larger backyard, but I have a four-plex to the south of me. This is going to be constructed well before us. This is going to be one of our latter phases. So, as far as these future homeowners, they will know exactly what's in the rear yard before they ever agreed to purchase or build a custom home on those lots. This parcel just doesn't work out for R-15. It just didn't have enough depth to do anything. We tried -- we tried four-plexes, we tried duplexes, we tried all different options and it just really was not conducive. So, that's kind of why we had to sit back and go, okay, what is really the highest and best use. Cassinelli: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? And I would imagine if you move the road to the -- to the south you will lose even more lots in that little L piece, because of your 150 foot set -- you know, requirement for them. Cassinelli: Yeah. Yearsley: So, there is a couple of issues with that I see. Perreault: Any other questions for the applicant? Can I get a motion to -- Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Oh. Holland: I move to close the public hearing. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Oakmore Subdivision, H-2018-0118. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 23 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 21 of 49 Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I'm happy. Perreault: Good. I like that. You could also try to make a motion. Yearsley: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of City Council -- to City Council of file number H-2018- 0118 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17th, 2019, with the following modifications: That the driveway be reduced to meet fire code and that the common lot on the southwest -- northwest corner of the adjacent property be expanded into this subdivision to provide additional open space and another amenity to be brought before City Council and discussed there. Holland: Second. Perreault: One quick question. Since it's already in the staff report that they need to shorten that common drive, do we need to include that as -- do we need to make any changes to that or is our motion -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I'm not sure on the exact condition, but, basically, I think if you want to amend the motion just state that it needs to be corrected prior to City Council to comply with city code with the fire staff conditions. And I know -- I know Becky is working with the fire department and us on that and she communicated that to us this afternoon. So, that's all we want to do is just want to make sure that it's all corrected and the Commission -- or, excuse me, the Council takes action on the correct plat that they are going to approve. Perreault: Okay. In that case I think the motion was clear. Did we get a second? Holland: Uh-huh. Perreault: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve Oakmore Subdivision, H- 2018-0118, with conditions. All those in favor? None opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Oakwind Subdivision (H-2018-0119) by Toll ID ILLC, Located near the intersection of N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rds 1. Request: Rezone of 16.52 acres of land from the R-15 and R- 4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 24 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 22 of 49 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 82 single family residential lots and 7 common lots on approximately 16.52 acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district Perreault: All right. Next we will open the public hearing for Oakwind Subdivision, H-2018-0119, and we will take a moment to hear the staff report. Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The item before you next is the Oakwind Subdivision. It's for a rezone and preliminary plat. The site consists of about 16.5 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-15, with a little section of R-4 to the northeast. It's located near the intersection of North McDermott Road and West McMillan Road. To the north are single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-4, and, then, undeveloped parcel, which is zoned RUT in the county. To the south future phases of the Oaks zoned R-4 and to the east future phases of the Oaks zoned R-4. To the west is North McDermott Road with undeveloped land and zoned RUT in the county. In 2008 the property was annexed and zoned as part of the Oak Creek Subdivision, which is subject to the DA. In 2013 it was rezoned R-15 and R-4 and platted as part of the Oaks North where the property was split and put to the Oaks North and South, which had a new DA associated. The current DA -- the current DA includes concept plans with multi- family depicted on the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential. The applicant is requesting rezone from R-4 and R-15 zones to R-8 and a preliminary plat consisting of 82 single family residential lots, six common lots and one common driveway. Lots range in size from approximately 5,400 square feet to 8,600, for an average lot size of 5,843 square feet. Previously the multi-family was proposed with this development, which was consistent with R-15 zoning. The applicant now requests R-8 to make it consistent with the development that's proposed now. The gross proposed density for this development is 4.96 acres per unit, which is within the desired density for medium density residential. The applicant has submitted a separate modification to the development agreement with -- to be consistent with the proposed development of the one hundred single family residential homes. The DA modification will be heard before the City Council on February 19th. Approval of this project is contingent on approval for the modification to the DA. Two access points are currently proposed via West Cherrybranch and West Vercelli Drive, both of which connect to future proposed phases of the Oaks. With the current proposed plat the common driveway depicted the CDC requirements. The fire department has requested an additional access as these two proposed access points don't meet the minimum requirements for emergency access. Staff recommends that the applicant add two additional stub streets, one to the north in lieu of this common drive, and one to the south to provide better connectivity. Five foot detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development. Because of our concern with the open space and site amenities provided with this project, staff is recommending the applicant add a micro path to connect the southern portion of the subdivision through the future phases to the North -- Oaks North. The addition of the micro path would provide usable open space and increase pedestrian connectivity through the subdivision. Renderings of a variety of the single family residential detached homes are submitted with this application that demonstrate what feature homes would look like. They are pretty similar to what's proposed throughout the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 25 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 23 of 49 development. As mentioned earlier, staff is concerned that the number of amenities provided with the overall development may not be adequate, since there was originally supposed to be multi-family here and they are required to provide ten percent open space and in this case there are 200 family multi-unit families -- excuse me -- 200 multi-family units that were proposed, which would have been required to provide at least five amenities. Staff feels that the recommended micro paths and continuation of the ten foot multi-use pathway would provide usable open space for residents. There was no written testimony on this project. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff report and with that staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Any questions for staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just for clarification, so you are recommending in the staff report the additional amenities or are you just concerned about the additional amenities? Leonard: In the staff report we are recommending the micro path that extends from the south to the north and I think I misspoke and said multi-use pathway. I did not mean a ten foot multi-use pathway on this one, just a micro path that's supposed to go from -- I think -- the concept plan here. Yeah. So, kind of generally like this to extend to the future phase of the Oaks. Yearsley: Well -- and near the end of -- you're talking about that -- this size of a property you would have to have so many amenities and -- and that, but those aren't actually in the staff report to provide them. Leonard: No. No. Madam Chair, Members -- or Commission -- Commissioner Yearsley, it was actually just mentioned to give you kind of context, because originally there was supposed to be multi-family here and if there were to be 200 multi-family units they would be required to give ten percent open space and the -- at least five amenities. So, just to kind of, I guess, provide some idea of the amenities that might have been there -- Yearsley: Okay. That's what I -- I just -- just want to make sure I heard that correctly. Perreault: Any additional questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward again. McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm here on the Oakwind development representing Toll Brothers. When I did Oaks North, as Stephanie indicated, that was five years ago. We had this property designated R-15 and, then, the property to the south of it designated R-15. We didn't have any specific site plan for this area. We just had a target density of proximity 208 multi-family dwellings on this area here and, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 26 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 24 of 49 then, what we showed on this R-15 area was possible neighborhood mini storage and the reason that we -- we kind of designed it in this fashion is your -- there will be an overpass that will start probably about in here and it will -- when Highway 16 comes through the overpass for McMillan will have to go over Highway 16. McDermott Road will terminate and we are building the bypass for McDermott, so it will bypass here and, then, it comes and bypasses and comes in, gets back in alignment, and McDermott will be downgraded from the current minor arterial that it is today to just a collector, because it will cul-de-sac and have no interconnection to Chinden Boulevard when Highway 16 -- the second phase of 16 goes in. So, when Coleman Homes sold to Toll Brothers they took a look at this area, had me lay it out and said that it was their desire not to have multi-family here. We are retaining this R-15 portion that's at this location, which I think is approximately 7.82 acres. It could be either multi-family or it could be neighborhood accessory mini storage and, then, we re-layed out the 208 units here and we put in 82 single family dwellings. So, right now this -- majority of this property is R-15. There is just a -- kind of a sliver of R-4. We are asking for a down zone from the R-15 to the R-8 and, then, the little sliver of R-4 would go up zone to R-8. As far as the lot sizes, they are between 5,600 and 8,600 square feet and our overall density in this particular section is 4.96 dwelling units per acre. The qualified open space is 1.19 acres or 7.2 percent open space. We will have detached sidewalks with an eight foot landscape buffer. I did review the staff report and I had indicated to Stephanie that I disagreed on the additional stub streets. This is the Bentley parcel here, which is not a part of the Oaks development. That portion of the Bentley farm was retained by Mr. and Mrs. Bentley. We coordinated with them. We put a stub street here to the north. We also put a stub street here on their eastern boundary that would allow their property to -- it can sewer this way and, then, they will have a loop street that would come through and I did do a layout on their property on how this property could redevelop in the future. To put another stub street here on the southern boundary -- you put too many stubs streets to a parcel, then, pretty soon you're eating it up with a lot of street that's unnecessary that the public and Ada County Highway District has to maintain in perpetuity. Each one of those stub streets costs a significant amount of money. For a parcel this size it needs two points of ingress and egress, which it will have. It will also have the collector McDermott on its western boundary, but if they so choose they could take internal access through us with these two points of access. I did talk with the fire department. We have two access points into our project, but they measure half the diagonal distance under the International Fire Code and so Joe indicated he wanted not a public street access, but a micro path or emergency vehicle access here. The reason I don't want to put a particular access is because this is that McDermott collector bypass that's going to come through. So, I'm trying to orient this internally into the Oaks project and not put something on -- an approach on that bypass to further create any congestion, because we will have accesses into this parcel from the Trident collector and, then, the McDermott bypass collector. As far as the micro path, I did agree with Stephanie, a micro path here makes sense between Lots 8 and 9, because we will be piping the Creason Lateral and, then, we will have a 14 foot pathway that will go through the project linking from east to west. So, that would be a good linkage right there at the end of that. I didn't understand the need for a micro path here, because my block length, when I measure it from here to here, is less than 750 feet and they were asking for a micro path at this block and that's only 450 feet. So, it just -- it didn't make a lot of sense to me. As far as Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 27 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 25 of 49 amenities are concerned, I did -- this was a buildable lot right here. We have eliminated that and made that into a common lot, so it will have an amenity and, then, I installed a micro path here to link it to the rest of the project. So, as far as linkage they will go directly -- so, they will come up through this micro path and, then, they will be able to go directly down that 14 foot pathway right into the central amenity right here. This is the lot right here that we eliminated and made a big -- a pocket park with a micro path here. So, these residents can also come up this direction if they so choose and they will be able to recreate here. What else was I going to tell you? So, really, what we have done is we have reduced it by 126 units. Staff talks about -- well, with the multi-family there would have been some additional amenities, but there would have been a considerable number -- larger number of people and units. We have 82 in here, instead of 208. We think it's just -- you know, from Tolls' perspective they -- they want to see the diversity in the lot sizes and that's what we are giving them. We have our smaller lots along the McMillan corridor, which is a minor material and, then, along the McDermott corridor with the Highway 16 here and some smaller lots here and, then, as we go through the interior we have our mid size lots and, then, our larger lots are all up in the northern and eastern area. So, we are -- you know, it's not a single product type development. It meets their targeting needs. We have pocket parks that are, you know, throughout this and linear open space where we will have amenities. Can I answer any questions? Perreault: Questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Becky, could you talk a little bit about the western boundaries that's going to be backing up to McDermott and how much of a buffer there is really going to be between the back of those residences and the future Highway 16? McKay: Along here we have 35 feet. The -- there is 50 feet of existing right of way for McDermott right now. When ITD comes in and purchases right of way they will purchase 300 feet beyond the 50 feet of existing right of way and, then, they will center their state highway right in that 300 feet and I think they indicated to me it's a 78 foot street section is what they built in phase one and so it will be off to the west. It will not be adjoining McDermott. Holland: One other follow-up question to that. Is there going to be any sort of berm that kind of rises up above to shield those homes from the traffic that's going behind it? McKay: Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, yes, there will be berming and fencing along there. Holland: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 28 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 26 of 49 Perreault: Can you bring up the entire concept plan? Do you -- Stephanie, can you -- is there any possibility, Becky, of those -- those lots there on the south of McMillan are very dense and it -- it seems like that area doesn't have as much common space in relationship to the number of actual housing units as some of the other areas. Is there any way to -- I know you're going to put that one -- you're going to add that one lot in that you just mentioned, but that's probably -- McKay: Right here? Perreault: Yeah. Not even a fifth acre, I assume. Is there any way to get just a little more common -- and those lot sizes are small enough that the backyards are going to be -- well -- so, I'm wondering if there is a way to get -- to get some additional green space in that southeast section. McKay: Yeah. What we -- what we could do is -- you can see here is that lot was needed here and, then, we have the micro path that links. So, what we could do is extend this area, so that it's enlarged, adjust these lots and extend that area right there, so that it's one continuous -- through the whole block. So, it would be more like -- kind of like this open space here and here or it takes up the whole block. We have another open space just like that. Perreault: Okay. McKay: But, yeah, we -- we just basically extend it through here. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, just looking at the 16.5 acre you're looking at just a minimum of ten percent, 1.65 acres of open space just for this piece. It feels to me like we are trying to add more density here and require the open space to be built someplace else. As you can tell my open space is kind of a top priority for me at this point. I like what you're doing -- what you're proposing over here and I know you do have some open space already in here. Would that get us pretty close if you added that additional to the ten percent? I'm not quite sure what -- what other open space you have -- McKay: We are at 7.2 percent or 1.19 acres. Yearsley: Okay. McKay: And I think we have to have, what, 1.65 -- is that right? 1.65 acres. Yearsley: Yeah. So, I think -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 29 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 27 of 49 McKay: Are you thinking the open space should be -- Yearsley: No. No. No. I -- I didn't know what you had open space here. McKay: Okay. Yearsley: And I -- I was just asking if you took out that lot and added a little bit wider if that would actually be pretty close, but if you have already got the 1.9, taking out that lot and adding a little bit more would probably be pretty close to that ten percent open space. Perreault: Those lots are probably about -- I don't have the dimensions on there, but I'm guessing they were probably .15 or so. There is two of them. Being a third. McKay: Yeah. They are averaging -- Perreault: They are averaging about -- McKay: -- 5,843 square feet. So, they are -- they are smaller than the R-4 lots in the Oakmore portion. Perreault: That was referring to the lots you were talking about on the end -- McKay: Those larger lots -- Perreault: Right. And -- McKay: Yeah. Those -- Perreault: To the north where the -- McKay: These are -- Perreault: Yes. McKay: -- bigger -- a lot bigger. You can see -- you can see just by the comparison, yes. Perreault: Yeah. McKay: These are running probably 11,000 -- ten to 11. Perreault: So, are you suggesting taking out a second lot and, then, including the pathway? McKay: We could -- we could -- Perreault: Or just -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 30 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 28 of 49 McKay: We could eliminate, then, have this be the open central open space that would serve this neighborhood and it would be located just basically across the street and, then, they would have their linkage to the Creason Lateral pathway through the micro path. Perreault: That required -- that would be a DA modification. McKay: Would this require a DA -- Perreault: Yeah. McKay: -- modification? No. Perreault: No. Okay. McKay: No. If we eliminate a buildable lot and add open space -- in fact, in phase one right now we have added open space, just to kind of let you know, because I did send Stephanie kind of a quick calculation. So, in our first phase we have 25.91 percent open space. Perreault: Okay. McKay: So -- so, we -- we are very cognizant on making sure that we distribute that open space evenly throughout the neighborhood and get those amenities and it's a priority to Toll. They are -- they -- like I said, they have people back east that that's all they do is design amenities and -- and I have seen some of their designs. I just received one for a project in Eagle and it's like an 11,000 square foot community center with indoor pool and all kinds of -- fitness room, great room and stuff. And so I'm definitely going to pass on Commissioner Cassinelli's, you know, comment that with the size of -- the magnitude of Oaks North that that central amenity needs to be -- it needs to shine and needs to be a size that accommodates everyone, along with all the other pocket park amenities. Perreault: Definitely work -- I mean this -- this is a mile long. This is not small. This is -- McKay: No. Perreault: -- a very large development -- McKay: It is. Perreault: -- and as Bill was mentioning, several of the other developments that are a mile by a mile have, you know, four different sections with different pools or amenities, larger parks, so -- McKay: Yes. Madam Chairman, I did Bridgetower and we had -- we had -- we had two -- we had two community centers, two pools, multiple playgrounds, green space, pathways. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 31 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 29 of 49 Perreault: Any additional questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Becky, did you look at going out to McDermott? Because you -- you have got the two access points. That's not a collector where those two access points are -- McKay: No. This is not a collector roadway. Cassinelli: Okay. So, you have got 80 something homes going -- going on -- right out to that roadway. That's not a collector. McDermott -- I guess my thought is that if you were to -- to go out to the west, McDermott is -- is going to be a pretty quiet road there, so it's going to be a cul-de-sac up -- up to the north. There is not going to be a whole lot of traffic on that. Taking an access out there, would that -- would that make the fire department a little bit more amenable to what they need? McKay: I did not -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I did not discuss taking an access out to McDermott. Ada County Highway District policy requires that we take access to the -- the lesser street network. So, since McDermott is still designated a minor arterial on the master street map, I don't think ACHD would allow me to have an access out to McDermott at this time. It has not been downgraded. And, then, we have the McDermott bypass as a collector and, then, we have Trident as a collector. So, the less intensive street network is this local street right here. As far as my number of trips per day, I'm well within my threshold. As you can see we have pretty much an even distribution of traffic. We feed all of our traffic out to our central collector. This collector roadway will go on north and serve the interior, comes down. Right now Six Mile Engineers is designing a roundabout and we are doing a design for widening and sidewalk all along McMillan Road up to this McDermott bypass. So, I don't believe ACHD will allow me to put an access at McDermott, because we -- we don't know what the timeline is for Highway 16 second phase. So, like I said, it's a minor arterial. But I am not -- I am not overloading my streets, because we just don't have that much volume on the street. I have a short cul-de-sac here. Everything else is kind of feeding out. Perreault: So, to be clear, you're proposing to meet the fire department's request to just put in an emergency access on the south side with a pathway? McKay: Yes. Yes. So, we put an emergency vehicle access right here, which it also serves as a pedestrian access, and I put a pedestrian access located here. Then that would meet the fire department requirements. Perreault: And they would not -- they would not need to move the -- the distance between the two exits, then; is that correct? McKay: That is correct. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 32 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 30 of 49 Perreault: The two streets. McKay: The two streets would remain the same. That would just give -- they would only use this in the event that they needed a second way in and there was blockage on both streets simultaneously. Perreault: Correct. If you're exiting -- McKay: Which is highly unlikely when you have all the different interconnectivity within the project. Perreault: What will happen to the lots there they are showing on this section -- on the east side if there is going to be -- okay. So, that's that section where you're going to put the additional -- McKay: Those streets -- right. Those streets come in here. Perreault: Come through those -- that will be -- McKay: All your -- what we changed is that street is single motive now and both those approaches come in like this. Perreault: Okay. McKay: And I tried to get the landscape architect to update this plan to incorporate that in and they were just slammed with some deadlines and couldn't get to it. So, I know -- I'm bouncing back and forth, which you're trying to -- having to try to envision, you know, what that looks like. Perreault: Okay. So, that we don't have to potentially reopen the public hearing, do we have any additional questions for the applicant prior to closing -- or hearing public testimony? Yearsley: Madam Chair? So, I guess -- I'm just going to say this right now, because Becky's here. I think for me what I'm looking at right now is -- I like your idea of having the path to the north and the emergency access to the south. I think that's adequate. However, I would like to see it pretty close to that 1.6 acres for open space. That's what I'm looking at it is -- for me is the most important just given where we are at in that -- that corner and that stuff and so is that acceptable to you I guess -- at least -- at least for my side. You know, I don't know what the other Commissioners are -- but, you know -- because I was just looking at -- just ran some quick calcs, you know, if you're at 1.19, it's 11,000, gets you close, but it's still like another 9,000 short for the 1.16. So, we are looking at needing another about 9,000 square feet of open space. McKay: So, are you thinking consolidate these two lots into this open space here? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 33 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 31 of 49 Yearsley: I am not going to dictate how that is done. McKay: Just -- just -- Yearsley: Just I would like to see -- McKay: Meet the ten percent. Yearsley: Meet the ten percent. Perreault: And to be clear, Commissioner Yearsley, you mean within this -- within this property. Yearsley: No. No. Not -- not within this. If you're going to take out a lot over here -- you know, as close to it as possible provided -- McKay: Provide staff evidence -- Yearsley: Yes. McKay: -- that -- that we are meaning what the open space requirement would be for this property, either internally or on the lots across -- the open space across the street. Yearsley: Yes. Perreault: Thank you. McKay: And, then, I guess I -- in -- in the conditions we are asking you to eliminate Condition A, C, and, then, modify the -- A -- or A-2-C and modify A-2-D, so that we just have the one micro path here, because the micro path here just don't really make any sense and aren't required under the ordinance. And, then, we do the emergency vehicle access, which will be a micro path also there and under 3-A it also talks about the additional micro path. So, we would retain -- add micro path between Lot 9 and 8, Block 1. The rest would be eliminated and, then, provide emergency vehicle access to the south, which will also doubles as a micro path. Thank you. Perreault: Okay. At this time we would like to take public testimony. Is there anyone signed up to testify? Johnson: Madam Chair, nobody has signed in. Perreault: Is there anyone present who would like to come forward and testify? Okay. I'm assuming that we don't have anymore conversation to have with the applicant. Holland: Madam Chair, I just have one. Madam Chair, I just have -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 34 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 32 of 49 Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: -- one more -- one more thought. I know we -- we talked about eliminating some of the staff recommendations of stub streets, but I wonder to Commissioner Cassinelli's point, if maybe the south entrance, rather than just being a fire entrance only, still might be something that we do a stub street. It may not make sense right now, but once McDermott becomes that quiet street and Highway 16 comes through, I think it would be appropriate to have another entrance there. Maybe not right now, but I don't know if there is a way to condition it where it could be a fire entrance now, but be expanded to be an access point later, if that's something possible. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I wouldn't recommend that, because that's come back and bit us and it never gets converted back to a public street. So, it -- it does pose a challenge. Typically, we have seen it go the other way, created it as a street and, then, reverted back to something else. Again, it's your purview. You have the fire department's comments. My only recommendation -- and I would like to get clarification from the applicant if -- if the Commission does choose -- decide with an emergency access only along the south, whether you want to see a paved access or a grasscrete or some kind of integrated pedestrian access, so it just doesn't look like 20 feet of asphalt with a gate across it. I think we want some kind of aesthetics to it and some kind of look and I know in other subdivisions I have seen that where they have done the grasscrete and add a five foot pathway still and it turned out fairly nice. So, it's something maybe the applicant can expand on in the rebuttal. Perreault: Bill, is it -- so that stub street would connect to a collector. Is there a difference in -- in width or sidewalk requirements or anything like that because it's connecting to a collector versus if it was not? Parsons: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, it's -- just comply with ACHD standards. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: Now, I would mention to the Commission, our code tries to limit connections to collectors and arterial roadways and -- but given the concerns from the fire department that they need another secondary access, you know, we are -- we are amenable to it being a public street and/or cross -- or the emergency access. We just want to support our team members. Perreault: Even though that is a collector, I -- you know, folks are just -- they are not going to -- I don't -- they can't connect out to McDermott in a different area, because there is no exit. So, they are not going to use that section of the subdivision to pass through I can't imagine for any reason. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 35 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 33 of 49 Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, having that being a public access that they can do a future street, but have it landscaped as a grasscrete or emergency access at this time I think serves that purpose that we are looking for, but it gives us the flexibility in the future if we ever need it and I think that's a fair compromise in my opinion. Perreault: So, the staff's concern on that primarily is coming from the fire department's recommendations or was there anything else in addition to that? Parsons: Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we like -- we like interconnectivity for sure and that's what we have always pushed for and that's -- when we had our project review meetings those were some of the comments that we received from our other partnering agencies, that they wanted to see additional stub streets and so staff went ahead and recommended some of -- the addition of those stub streets. Again, there is other agencies that come into play to that and the fire department has communicated they will support staff either way, but a minimum per code is the emergency access to that south boundary. But staff -- again, staff has recommended a stub street along that south and north boundary. Perreault: If I understood the applicant correctly, that area to the south -- there was conversation about being a mini storage, but also potentially single family and in order for those -- those owner -- or, you know, the residents there to access the common areas for, we want to make sure they can do that and they might need to do that by vehicle and not walking, although they can -- if they are exiting out over to the collector on the east side, then, they could take that route to get into the -- the central common area, but I don't know where that -- I mean I don't have -- I don't know where the exit would be out of that -- that property, whether it would be to the north or to the east. But that somewhat eliminates access to -- well, not really. If -- if -- whatever the use is for the property to the south, if they don't exit to the east and they exit to the north, then, that's going to minimize their ability to get into the common area. That's the point I'm making. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I don't know if we need the applicant's testimony on anything else, but if we don't I would be happy to make a motion to close the public hearing, so we can continue deliberation. Cassinelli: We already closed the public hearing, didn't we? Yearsley: No. Perreault: No. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 36 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 34 of 49 Cassinelli: Sorry. Perreault: Just want to make sure we are not having to have to reopen it. McCarvel: Yeah. I think it's fine to have -- I think it's fine to have this discussion while it's still open and we can close it to make a motion -- Yearsley: Absolutely. McCarvel: -- since there is the potential of having the applicant back up. Perreault: Exactly. Holland: So, then, Madam Chair, my -- Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: My recommendation would be to -- I think the northern part I'm okay eliminating the stub street on, but the south part I think it needs to at least have one more point of connectivity into the neighborhood at some point -- some point and I think that to the south makes most sense where there is going to be kind of bypass road coming through there to give a little bit more accessibility. I also agree with Commissioner Yearsley that there should be more open space and I feel comfortable with requiring the ten percent, that they meet that. I would like to see a little bit more in this actual phase of green space, because it's a pretty dense development of a lot of homes -- to have a little bit more if we can, but I think requiring ten percent would be to feel more comfortable at least. My only other concern, too, was what I mentioned, too, was just being backed up next to McDermott and Highway 16. I know it's going to be tough for those neighbors when that road comes through and it's a lot louder than they expected, so I don't know that we need to condition it, because it sounds like they are planning to put a berm and a -- and a fence on there, but just that that would help buffer sound as much as possible. McCarvel: I thought -- Madam Chair, I thought that was in that -- in the staff report requiring the berm. Perreault: I think it's a 35 foot buffer with a recessed berm; is that right? Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, it's a three foot berm with the condition that they put this six foot fence on top of the berm and, then, there is a 35 foot landscape buffer and -- Perreault: Twenty-five? Leonard: No. Thirty-five. Perreault: Thirty-five. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 37 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 35 of 49 Leonard: Yeah. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just -- just some -- some more history on this. When this project was redesigned and reapproved back in '13 there was a condition in the DA that required the landowner to notify any future home -- homeowners that there is a state highway coming through their backyard. Well, not necessarily their backyard, but it will be several hundred feet away from the boundary of this particular plat. So, I know I personally looked at the marketing materials that Coleman put out at the time and they did add that information to inform their homeowners. So, I just wanted to let you know that anyone buying there is going to -- should be made aware that -- if they read should be made aware that there is actually a state highway that's going to parallel State Highway 16 -- or, excuse me, McDermott Road. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, on the original development agreement was -- you had mentioned earlier that there -- there was a call for at least some office. I mean it -- and also multi-family, which really there isn't now at this point in here, but is there -- what would -- getting out there, what kind of services are there going to be in terms of either office or -- or light commercial? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's something that -- that disappeared when the Oaks West came in. We actually had the applicant process a comp plan amendment to get rid of -- kind of that commercial designation. At one point there was office designated -- office designation at the mid mile and because we were changing that portion of the site from office, future park, multi-family to single family, that was -- that particular developer just took his piece of property, amended the DA and they extracted his property and entered into a new DA. So, it's no longer under the Oaks umbrella, so that's -- that's some of the cleanup that we need to do with the modification. But as far as service in this immediate area, everything is funneling back to the Ten Mile- McMillan intersections. That's where all the C-G -- where the Walmart is, all that commercial was happening about a mile and a half, two miles to the east and there is quite a bit of vacant commercial already in that area. So, that was some of the justification of why we didn't feel office was necessary at the half mile there at McMillan and in between McDermott and Black Cat. Cassinelli: Is there no plan out in that area, even at Black Cat and McMillan, to have anything out that way? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, nothing in that immediate vicinity. Everything would be up along Chinden corridor at this point in time. But we are in the middle of a Comprehensive Plan update and starting next month we will be reaching out to property owners in this area and asking them to attend several neighbor -- night Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 38 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 36 of 49 meetings to discuss what they kind of envision in that area to see if there are any changes desired from our citizens. Perreault: Not too far from 16 and Chinden where they are going to bring in the new development there with the hospital as well that's proposed, with some other services there as well. Cassinelli: It would be nice if with that large of a development if there was some -- you know, if there was some walkable -- just a little -- you know, a little neighborhood center that's -- that's walkable, that's bikeable. Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I know right now the -- the comp plan committee is looking at several focus areas for the future use map, too, and there has been a lot of conversations in that committee about this area with how that highway is going to intersect, so I know there is a lot of conversations still happening about -- thinking about future commercial and nothing's been solidified by any means, but I know there is conversations about future proposed commercial near that area, especially since there is a high school that we have been hearing as well. So, I think there will be more conversations about commercial in that area, especially with that highway coming through. Perreault: Because when McDermott gets downgraded to a collector then residential is a little bit more reasonable I guess -- well, reasonable is not the right word -- to have there. I mean it's -- it's -- if -- if that wasn't happening I would say I'm not as favor -- in favor of having residential in that location, but -- Yearsley: Madam Chair. I was on the Commission when we -- this was -- was initially heard and we talked and I remember that being the big discussion with McDermott being just an overpass and not -- it's not going to be a destination where people are going to want to go and so that's kind of why we felt that you will more likely have probably more of a business center on Ten Mile and McDermott and probably to the north and the south at the intersect -- at the interchanges and so we didn't feel that there was a commercial piece that was really -- that would -- would be viable at this location was our biggest concern. Perreault: Commissioner Holland? Holland: I'm good. Perreault: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair, I'm good as well, so -- Perreault: Great. Can we get a motion to close the public hearing then. Holland: So moved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 39 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 37 of 49 McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Oakwind Subdivision, H-2018-0119. All those in favor? None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli: Cassinelli: Another question for staff. How -- how do we go about dealing with the requirements of -- of the amenities and whatnot in the entire -- because that was -- that's -- you know, that's a comment in -- in this one and the previous one that we did. So, how do we -- how do we address that? How do we -- McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Can we just use the verbiage as stated by the applicant in her presentation? Cassinelli: I don't mean just that open space across the -- you know, that -- that we are going to tie into that, but -- Perreault: Are you asking if we need addition -- to -- Cassinelli: I'm talking about overall amenities throughout the entire development. McCarvel: I don't think we can -- Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, Becky has stated that she's actually going to be submitting a list of amenities and she's given me an updated list from what they have now for phase one. And they are also I think planning on giving us a concept plan of where those amenities would be located and where the open space is. So, that's something that we can, you know, talk with them and work with them on. I don't know what the availability or how quickly they will be able to get to that to us, but we can work with them on that. McCarvel: Or we -- just like we did just prior to Council that they have it. Cassinelli: But we can't require -- I mean can we -- Perreault: We can ask them to have additional amenities within the -- the location of this. Cassinelli: That we are working -- yeah. But not -- not the Oaks North. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 40 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 38 of 49 Perreault: No, I don't think so. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission as -- as we discussed at the previous hearing -- the previous item, we talked about what you can do with this phase and what you can do with the DA mod and what -- if you want more amenities with the DA mod, then, you can forward that recommendation on to City Council with the plat and, then, staff will analyze that and as we do with the staff report for the DA modification, we can inform the Council that the Commission had a recommendation that more amenities be provided within the development than just the code minimums. Cassinelli: Okay. So -- Parsons: And I think you had a commitment from the applicant that they may be entertaining a clubhouse for this particular development. I think something of this size probably warrants that type of amenity. I really do. This -- this is a big, big development out here. We are talking, again, almost 400 acres between the Oaks North and Oaks South. So, I think a lot of the communities out there have that. They have pools. They have open space. They have all those recreational amenities and I think this is one of those that warrants a real hard look at it and that's why we bring it to your attention. So, if that clubhouse is something that you're eager to get, we can certainly put that in our staff report for the MDA and tell Council that during the Commission -- of the subdivision that the Commission had recommended that Council incorporate a clubhouse as part of this development as an amenity. Cassinelli: So, tonight we can make the recommendations for the modification. Parsons: Just have staff take that under advisement as we prepare that staff report and we can forward that dialogue onto City Council in our staff report for you. Perreault: Eighty-two homes is not small and I wouldn't mind requesting an amenity in that park expansion they were going to do to -- to the east, because they there -- there isn't -- I mean if -- if we are looking at this and as it's sitting completely entirely on its own, not part of another development, 82 homes is not a small subdivision. Yearsley: No. Perreault: So, that is something we can -- Cassinelli: Can you pull up that -- the one that shows the entire Oaks North or -- Yearsley: I think Bill's got -- he hit it right on the nose, you know, we need to recommend that the -- the staff -- the Council look at what's being provided, what's currently provided or what's being added from when we initially looked at it and -- and make sure that there is enough amenities sufficient with this size of development. I don't want to dictate that they have to have a certain -- well, at least for me I don't want to dictate exactly, you know, you have to have so many amenities, but, you know, let's make sure we are appropriate Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 41 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 39 of 49 to comparable size subdivisions to at least make sure we have a good subdivision, especially one of this size. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Yeah, I agree. I mean I'm -- and I'm thinking what might be appropriate in that space with the smaller lots is something for small kids, because I'm just envisioning -- that's kind of a curved, almost blind spottish little road going through there and if the little kids want to run over to that green space I'd like to keep them on their side of that road. Bigger kids can get across, but if we are going to add more green space in that square -- Perreault: So, you're suggesting to -- to put something with -- within the open space that exists on this? McCarvel: Well, that -- I mean -- and I think it would be beneficial -- I mean because there is not a lot to this whole south end and it's all pretty dense houses, but anyway. Perreault: So, to be clear, are you saying that you would like it to exist within the open space on this parcel or -- or in the section that we were discussing earlier. McCarvel: I'm opening the discussion. And other thoughts. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, I -- I tend to agree. I think that's going to be a busy road entering into this neighborhood and there is going to be a lot of cars screaming by to get into their neighborhood and their subdivision and I would hate to hear of an accident of a three year old getting run over somewhere trying to get to the park. McCarvel: Yeah. It's a -- it's a rounded corner, which is going to invite a little bit of quicker traffic and, then, you have got the exit out there to the -- to McMillan. It's going to be a busy corner and I just don't know if that's the best place for kids running across. Perreault: Question first. Can we make a recommendation on a specific amenity or just that they have one within this application? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have multiple amenities described in the code, so it can be a tot lot, sport court -- I mean that -- that goes to why staff had recommended the micro path connection. It had nothing to do with the block length, it had everything to do with -- I remember working on this project -- and Becky does a great job and she had -- her subdivisions, even looking at her previous subdivisions, have a lot of interconnectivity and a lot of pathways and that's the selling point of this particular development, it's all of those interconnected pathways and walkways that people can rec -- stay in the community and walk and have an exercise loop throughout the community and we felt there should have been more open space with Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 42 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 40 of 49 this particular development and we thought, well, a 15 foot wide micro -- micro path through the entire development gives you the more usable open space. You can count it -- count it towards an amenity, therefore, satisfying our concern for additional open space and the micro path and the walkways consistent with the overall development plan for this development and that's why we went that route. We didn't want the applicant to lose lots. That wasn't the goal of staff. We -- we realized there is a pretty -- that's a pretty nice development out there. We are not knocking that one bit, but what we just feel like we are -- it's changed so much from what it -- what it was to where it's going now and it's changing into a suburban development, for lack of a better term. That's what it is. It's just more of the same and just more R-8, R-4 lots and so it's -- and it's -- it's a large development and so we want to make sure that whatever community goes out there and whatever develops there has a proportionate share of open space and amenities. That's the best way to look at it and I have been before this body numerous times talking about looking at our open space standards, looking at our minimum -- our amenities. Are they too low? Do they need to be changed? Do we need to change our minimums to ensure that we get proportionate sized open space and amenities for subdivisions and Becky has been actually a proponent of that, too. She's never wavered. She never balked about having to do more open space and amenities. So, it's -- it's not a knock on her by any means, but we just -- we want you to really think about this. We are opening up the development agreement, we are changing this plan once -- one more time and it's just -- it's something that we want to bring to your attention that we feel it's important we have to do it right and that's why we are highlighting it so much tonight and having you dive in on it, because we just feel like there should be more open space and more amenities because of it changing from that multi-family to that single family component. It's just a different dynamic that you're putting out there that, yes, it may be -- one could argue it's less traffic or more traffic, less dense or more dense, but the reality is these -- the people that buy in here are expecting a certain amount of open space and amenities that they will have to pay into and use. The multi-family development comes in, they have their own open space and own amenities for that particular -- that's the difference here is they have the right to share everything. Multi-family development would have been contained and had to provide their own and that's why we have highlighted that for you. Perreault: In addition to it being in currently a location where there aren't any city parks existing -- and I don't know what the future plan is or will be for that. They are isolated in that way. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think -- I believe the nearest -- well, there is Keith Bird Park on the other section to the east. So, there is a -- there is a couple of -- and, then, Heroes Park, which is up at Ten Mile. But the next regional park, I believe is south off of Ustick -- that's out there now -- McDermott-Ustick area, somewhere in that area. And there will be schools in the area, too. There is a middle school that will be north of this project and, then, we have the elementary school coming online, too, so -- I mean there is a lot happening out there. We are growing and certainly, again, those are things that we are just asking you to take under consideration tonight. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 43 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 41 of 49 Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I'm just curious. I do like the micro path on the north end of it. I just -- I would agree that what Becky has done in previous stuff we have seen, they are very innovative in their amenities and open to that, so I would hate to tie them to using that micro path as an amenity if she's got something else in mind that could be pretty fabulous in that corner somewhere. I just -- I think, really, I like the micro path up to that other path that leaves the other conditions open that it reach the ten percent mark and -- Holland: Madam Chair. Commissioner McCarvel, are you specifying that the Cherrybranch to the north and not the first one to the -- skipping between where it says phase one and phase two and just doing that part on the top? McCarvel: Yeah. Just north of the Cherrybranch -- Cherrybranch -- Holland: Yeah. McCarvel: The way the applicant had discussed it. Yeah. Perreault: Between Lots 8 and 9. McCarvel: Yeah. That reaches this corner area and connects it with that path -- that major pathway that's going up there. Parsons: Sorry. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I just -- I just had a conversation with Becky. She's indicated to me that -- I don't have my mouse here. Let me -- it's difficult to explain something from a computer you can't see. So, Becky's explained to me that she's willing to blow out maybe two of these lots, like you saw on the -- the overall area. Reduce some of this open space along the open street -- the local street and, then, put that connection in there and have that additional amenity and here is how you get it more internal to the development and so she wouldn't -- and so eliminate the micro path through this block, just have that -- that wider usable open space here. Keep the micro path lot here. Shrink this one and, then, still kind you get you closer to that -- that ten percent for this particular development. So, I just wanted to share that with you. McCarvel: Now I'm happy. Perreault: If you get a tot lot. McCarvel: If Steve gets to be happy, I get to be happy. Cassinelli: Getting to the ten percent in this -- internally in there, I -- Madam Chair? Perreault: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 44 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 42 of 49 Cassinelli: Just a comment. I -- I don't know -- Bill, if you would pull up the -- the whole master image again. There aren't -- there aren't necessarily micro paths throughout. There is the pathway system along the roads and there is detach sidewalks, but there aren't micro paths that I'm seeing anywhere else. So, I don't know that we really -- well, we just -- what -- what Becky just decided on I think is -- I like. That works. Don't necessarily -- I'm not -- and a micro path to the north to get out to the -- to that pathway along the lateral would be -- if that could still be done I would -- I would like to see that. Just -- that's my thought on the micro paths. But if we get that -- if we get that wider green space through that one block that would -- I would be happy on that, too. Perreault: And, Commissioner McCarvel, would you still like to see an amenity there for smaller children? Is that -- McCarvel: I think they will design something pretty fabulous. Cassinelli: So, are we requiring an amenity though? Perreault: We are requiring -- McCarvel: I think you require an amenity. Yeah. But I think -- Cassinelli: I will make -- Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If -- my recommendation on kind of moving sideways a little bit to the overall development agreement would be to either look at a second pool in there or making sure that that pool and the parking is large enough to accommodate the entire north side of this, you know, something along the lines of Paramount's main pool and clubhouse or some other ones that are out there, but I think it needs to definitely be looked at, because I did -- the subdivision I live in the pool we have -- it's not that big. We are talking -- we have get about 350 homes. It's -- it's not adequate and every -- you know, every summer it's -- you go over there it's like -- forget it. I'm not going in here. And -- and people are -- you know, everybody more than three blocks away they drive to the pool. It's -- it's the reality. And so there is -- there is not enough parking and the pool is way too small and it -- you know. So, half the subdivision is just like forget it. Perreault: I'm in the exact -- exact same situation. Identical to that. Three hundred and fifty homes, tiny pool, most people don't use it. Cassinelli: Why bother. Yeah. Perreault: Yeah. And, then, you get disgruntled homeowners that don't want to pay HOA dues for a pool they don't use. Cassinelli: Yep. Yep. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 45 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 43 of 49 Perreault: So -- Cassinelli: I think we can all echo that same story, so -- Yearsley: And I don't know who is going to make the motion, but at least I think we ought to -- may recommend that staff look at the entire subdivision as a whole and -- and verify that there is enough amenities and make sure that that gets updated in the DA agreement. Perreault: So, to recap, we -- we want to discuss the stub street to the south or ask for one or leave it with the applicant's request,. Whether we are going to request a micro path all the way through or just from that central area to the north. Yearsley: I think we are -- I think we are all in agreement the central to the north, you know, connect the path and, then, have the access to the south be a street access, but don't landscape to the emergency -- so, you know, that they can open it up in the future if necessary. I believe that's kind of what we talked about if I remember right. Holland: Madam Chair. Commissioner Yearsley, I think staff had recommended not to do that, because it won't typically convert well in the future. So, they had asked us if we were going to require future use of it being a stub street to -- no, unless I'm misunderstanding. Yearsley: I think it was -- we have it as a stub street, but landscape to an emergency access. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, no, we want one or the other. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: We either want a stub street or an emergency access, but we want it to be integrated in part of the landscaping use. It is an emergency exit -- with bollards or a gate or grasscrete or -- don't even gate it off, just make it look like landscape like they did in Fall Creek Subdivision. They had the same situation out to Stoddard. It works well, looks great. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: Can't even tell it's there. Perreault: This is the one item I'm -- I'm torn on, because I can -- I know this -- I assume that the applicant is going to retain this piece of property and not sell it, but if -- if not, then, in some ways it could potentially limit what goes there if there is not any access to that section. So, that's my only hesitation with making it landscaped emergency access, but I don't have an answer for it, but -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 46 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 44 of 49 Cassinelli: Would you prefer to see access to one of those two roads, access to the south? Perreault: One of the two roads? Cassinelli: The two access points. Perreault: Not necessarily. Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: And I -- I'm not as -- I'm not concerned about it from a traffic standpoint per se, because just shortly to the south you're going to hit the collector. Right there that's -- that's connecting to McMillan. I'm just talking about connectivity to the lot to the south. That's -- that's my concern. If they -- if the lot to the south -- south is turned into multi- family, which it very well could be, then, you're going to lose not only walking, but driving access into the park that's in the middle of that. Then your -- as Commissioner McCarvel mentioned, people are exiting out of that -- that lot to the south. To the east that's a collector road there. It's going to be a lot of traffic coming in to get to any kind of green space. If they are going to keep that as a -- as a mini storage, well, then, that's not as much of a concern, but we don't know that at this time. Holland: Madam Chair, my preference would still be to see it be stubbed street, so that it would connect in with Daphne at some point in the future for fire and police safety and circulation for future development. Cassinelli: I think the one -- if that property to the south does go multi-family, it's going to have its own internal green space and amenity. I don't think they have -- I don't think it would -- Perreault: Likely, but -- but it's my understanding that the intention of this entire community is that it's all shared, so I don't -- and I don't know. Cassinelli: I think they would be going more towards the pool than -- than a little pocket park to the north if they have their own amenities. Perreault: They might, but if they -- if they are only -- if they are accessing onto Daphne, which is a collector, they need a safe way to get to -- to get up to the pool and they would have to access onto a collector, take another collector, and potentially go through another -- there is just not -- there is not a pedestrian access is the point that I'm trying to make. Cassinelli: Okay. There would be -- and I -- I'm not trying to argue, but -- Perreault: But there would be -- Cassinelli: There would be with that emergency. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 47 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 45 of 49 Perreault: Yes. But if -- because the pool is -- there is not a pedestrian access, but because the pool is a significant distance as you mentioned that people drive. If -- I don't know what the requirements are going to be on that piece, if they were going to be permitted to access to the east, I don't know if they can or they can't, because that's going to be being an entrance or a collector area. So, I don't know what -- if they are going to put an exit on that lot out to the east side it's not as much of a concern, but I don't know -- Cassinelli: There is an exit out to the north. Perreault: To the north. Then -- Cassinelli: My preference overall would be to not have both entrances coming out onto -- onto that one road. I would like to see -- I would -- I would prefer one out onto that -- well, I guess it's not a collector there. I would prefer to be -- Perreault: It will be. Cassinelli: -- one of the east and one of the south. No, I'm -- Perreault: To the north? Cassinelli: The -- right now there is two coming out to that -- to the one street and it's not -- that's not a collector there. Perreault: No. Cassinelli: What my preference would be to see one access onto that road and one to the south. Perreault: I see. Okay. Cassinelli: And, then, you -- and, then, that would have the south -- like -- like you're talking. Perreault: Not a stub street, it's an actual access that they put in. And what's the thinking behind that? Cassinelli: To spread some of that -- right now you have all 82 lots accessing off that -- off that one street. So, it would split that up a little bit. Perreault: Okay. My guess is on both of the streets, however, that nearly everyone will be making a right turn to get out and a left turn to come in. I don't know that we are going to -- that they are going to be doing a lot of crisscrossing, because of -- they are most likely going to be heading out to -- to -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 48 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 46 of 49 Cassinelli: They are not going to go out through the -- they are not going to snake their way -- Perreault: To the north. Cassinelli: Correct. Perreault: Yeah. They are probably not going to be heading out to the north. Okay. Cassinelli: Another thing is would take some of it off that street and more of it onto -- you know, and spread it out. I understand the applicant's thoughts on not wanting to have the access off of a collector road and, then, in addition to -- Bill mentioned that that -- the city generally doesn't prefer it either. Cassinelli: Off of McDermott. Perreault: No. That's going to -- so, this is going to be the bypass. Cassinelli: Yeah. Perreault: This is going to be a bypass so like that's going to be converted into a collector. Cassinelli: When it becomes a collector. Perreault: Yeah. Cassinelli: So, that's just another access point on a collector, which -- Perreault: Yeah. And that's what the -- the city prefers to stay away from and the applicant's preferring to stay away from it. I didn't hear a specific reason, but the assumption would just be for traffic flow and safety. Holland: Madam Chair. I still don't see -- if you -- if you had a self collector -- or road that connected in with Daphne there, that future bypass loop, I still don't see that being the major access into the neighborhood. I would see the existing road that comes north right now from McMillan into the subdivision being the major road and this would just be an additional access to make it a little less -- I think you would turn left there and, then, turn left again immediately into a loop. That was my only reason for wanting to see the stub street there. And I don't see a problem with having three entrances into it, because I don't think that's going to be the section of the neighborhood that people are racing through. Perreault: So, if it's a stub street, then, when does it open up to give access? When the lots to the south develop? When Daphne goes through? Holland: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 49 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 47 of 49 Perreault: I understand what you're saying. Holland: This is a proposed road at this point. That -- that bypass road, the proposed road. Daphne. Perreault: Yes. Right. Well, I would assume a portion -- the southern portion of it will be implemented with the phase -- with that phase. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to attempt to make a motion and see where it goes. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0119 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17th, 2019, with the following modification: That the applicant would not need to stub a street to the north. We would eliminate that requirement. That the stub street to the south would be required to connect into Daphne when that development comes in. That we would require more open space up to a minimum of ten percent and that the applicant would work to -- with the -- with planning staff and also have kind of a comprehensive plan of all the amenities when it goes to City Council and that they would add an additional amenity for the section. That we would eliminate the requirement -- requirement of a micro path going all the way from the north through the south, but that it be a -- as the applicant stated, they would enhance the middle of that development section to add a pathway and expanded green space and adjust those lot sizes in the middle section. Anything else I'm missing? Cassinelli: Did you touch on the amenities in the modified DA? Holland: I mentioned that the applicant would work to put together a comprehensive list of all the amenities and that Council would review that to make sure we had appropriate number of amenities and variety. Any other adjustments I need to make to that? Cassinelli: I will second that. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to accept the application with stated modifications for Oakwind Subdivision, H-2018-0119. All those in favor? None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair, just so I have one last word on the record -- Perreault: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 50 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 48 of 49 Yearsley: In my nine years of stewardship I appreciate all the help and stuff that I have learned. I hope I have been a good steward to turn that stewardship over to you guys and the new commissioners. Don't screw it up. Perreault: Well, we will significantly miss your knowledge, especially your engineering background. Cassinelli: Yes. Perreault: I -- there has been many times I have come to the meeting and thought, well, I may not totally get it, but Steve will. So, I will -- we will definitely miss having you here. Parsons: Madam Chair, Commissioners, before we adjourn I just wanted to extend the offer -- any of you needing tickets for the State of the City address and, if so, if you wouldn't mind just sending me an e-mail tomorrow, then, we will try to get you some tickets. Perreault: Say that again. Parsons: State of the City address. Perreault: Oh. Okay. Parsons: For the Mayor's -- on February 6th. So, wanted to offer that -- extend that offer to you and, then, we will do our best to get you some tickets, so that you can attend that event. So, please, e-mail me and let me know what your desire is to attend that event. Perreault: It's limited -- more limited seating this year, because of the change of location. Parsons: That is correct. And tickets are going quickly. Yearsley: Okay. Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Move we adjourn. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the public hearing of January 17th, 2019. All those in favor? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:22 P.M. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 7, 2019 – Page 51 of 145 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 49 of 49 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED S ERREAULT - CHAIRMAN ATTES . C. JAY CO - CI CLERK o,�LTa71 � DATE APPROVED o�Q�RATED gVCG „r o '0,4 "ff 0 z. SEAL / TRE Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of January 3, 2019 Meeting Request: 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 J anuary 3, 2019 P lanning and Zoning C ommission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 1/7/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 3 of 153 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 17 of 17 Fitzgerald: Does that mean we are adjourning? Yearsley: Yes. McCarvel: Second? Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: Is there anything else you want to say before we adjourn? Cassinelli: No. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on January 3rd, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:38 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED CHAIRMAN ATTEST: C. AY C66ft - CITY CLERK I I M II� DATE APPROVED PQoa#,T t U AVG a sr G � 2 � 0h of o w E IDIAN*,.- IDAHO \� SEAL 4,I Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 B Project File Number: H-2018-0121 CUP Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Villasport Request: Meeting Notes: By Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located on the SW corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd Dq" L I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for Villasport C UP (H-2018-0121) by Sadie C reek Commons, L L C , L ocated on the S W corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 1/10/2019 E xhibit A E xhibit 1/10/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 21 of 153 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0121 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Extended Hours of Operation of an Indoor/Outdoor Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility and Spa in Accord with UDC 11-2B- 3A.4, Located at the Southwest Corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd., by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC. Case No(s). H-2018-0121 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: December 20, 2018 (Findings on January 17, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 22 of 153 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0121 Page 2 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of December 20, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 23 of 153 COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED kye COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED 9-6�7"� - IM6'� C ti' , Chairman Attest: ay Coles, CP11 f6rk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Depart ent, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. PQ�a►TED AIjC - GO � By: Dated: C-�►'[Cily ofw ity Clerk' ice E IDIA M— IDAHO SEAL 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0121 Page 3 B action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of `(11,101, , 2019. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL VOTED COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED kye COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED 9-6�7"� - IM6'� C ti' , Chairman Attest: ay Coles, CP11 f6rk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Depart ent, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. PQ�a►TED AIjC - GO � By: Dated: C-�►'[Cily ofw ity Clerk' ice E IDIA M— IDAHO SEAL 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0121 Page 3 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 4:00 am to 10:00 midnight (12:00 am) pm for indoor activities and 5:00 am to 11:00 pm for outdoor activities (seasonal) in the C-G zoning district abutting a residential use and district as required by UDC 11-2B-3A.4. Note: The Planning & Zoning Commission is the decision making body on the CUP application; and the City Council is the decision making body on the MDA application. 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 EXHIBIT A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 25 of 153 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 26 of 153 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 27 of 153 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 28 of 153 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 4:00 am to 10:00 midnight (12:00 am) pm for indoor activities and 5:00 am to 11:00 pm for outdoor activities (seasonal) 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 29 of 153 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 30 of 153 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 31 of 153 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 32 of 153 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. VIII. 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. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on December 20, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group; Mike Fassler ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Jared Schofield; Steve Grant; Shaun Wardle; Jeff Vrba; David Park, Jackson Square HOA iv. Written testimony: David Durfee v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. Objection to hours of operation before 6:00 am; ii. Concerns pertaining to the adequacy of the buffer (trees/landscaping will take a long time to mature) along the west boundary of the site and parking lot lighting impacting adjacent residential uses; iii. Concern pertaining to an increase in traffic in this area and public safety; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 33 of 153 Page 10 iv. Objection to the proposed hours of operation – in favor of 9:00 am to 10:00 pm with outdoor speakers limited to 9:00 pm; v. Not in favor of the proposed height of the building, request for a shorter building that would impact adjacent residential neighbors less; vi. Concern pertaining to noise generated from the proposed use and its impact on residential neighbors. c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. The proposed hours of operation for the outdoor activity center and outdoor speakers; ii. Requirement for the separation between outdoor recreation areas to be measured from the property line of adjacent residential structures rather than from the residential zoning district. d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Strike the last sentence in condition #2.1k in Section VIII.A pertaining to construction of an off-site sidewalk along Cajun Way at the recommendation of Staff since there will likely be a driveway in that location in the future. ii. Modify condition #2.1a in Section VIII.A to reflect the Commission’s interpretation of UDC 11-4-3-2A.1 to reflect setback measurement from any residential property line with a home, rather than from a residential district; iii. Modify condition #2.2 in Section VIII.A to adjust the hours of operation as approved by the Commission; iv. Include a new condition requiring the Applicant to work with Planning Staff to create a sound buffer to mitigate some of the noise concerns between the pool area and neighboring homes (#2.9 in Section VIII.A). v. Include a new condition requiring the Applicant to work with Planning Staff and ACHD to create a crosswalk for pedestrian access to the facility from the west parking lot (#2.10 in Section VIII.A). 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 34 of 153 Page 11 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 35 of 153 Page 12 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 36 of 153 Page 13 B. Proposed Concept Plan (dated: 10/18/18) & Building Elevations (dated: 7/17/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 37 of 153 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 38 of 153 Page 15 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING Note: The following section has been removed from the CUP Findings as there is a separate Findings document for the Development Agreement modification application. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 39 of 153 Page 16 b. 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. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. f. 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. g. 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. h. 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. i. 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. j. 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. The Commission interpreted the setback measurement to be from any residential property line with a home, rather than from a residential district. 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 not 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 40 of 153 Page 17 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. 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 4:00 am and 10:00 midnight (12:00 am) pm for indoor activities and 6:00 am to 11:00 pm for outdoor activities, with outdoor music limited to the hours between 9:00 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 41 of 153 Page 18 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. 2.9 The Applicant shall work with Planning Staff to create a sound buffer that will mitigate some of the noise concerns between the pool area and neighboring homes. 2.10 The Applicant shall work with Planning Staff and ACHD to create a crosswalk for pedestrian access to the facility from the west parking lot. 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 42 of 153 Page 19 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 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 43 of 153 Page 20 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 G. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=160216&dbid=0 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. The Commission 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. The Commission 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 44 of 153 Page 21 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that 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. The Commission 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. The Commission 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. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed 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. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 45 of 153 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 C Project File Number: H-2018-0123 CUP, MDA Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Pleasant View Elementary H-2018-0123 By West Ada School District, Located on the north side of W. Gondola Dr.; East of N. Black Cat Rd midway between W. McMillan Rd and W. Chinden Blvd. Request: Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for for Pleasant View E lementary (H- 2018-0103) by West Ada School D istrict, L ocated on the north side of W. G ondola D r., east of N. B lack C at Rd. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 1/14/2019 E xhibit E xhibit 1/14/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 46 of 153 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0123] Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an approximately 65,000 square-foot education institution in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts, Located at the north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Rd., by West Ada School District. Case No(s). H-2018-0123 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 3, 2019 (Findings on January 17, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2019, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 47 of 153 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0123] Page 2 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of January 3, 2019, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for CUP is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of January 3, 2019, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of January 3, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 48 of 153 B ction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the �� � day of Y 2019. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEI VOTED COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED AV O COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED A�" y e tic(;' Pe{rkaj Chairman Attest: C. Coles, City Plerk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Com nity Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. ��Eo nucusr, B �J� Dated: '�,—� z c;�y of N y C�� rE IIIA Cler ' OfficeO W C Q L CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0123] Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 1/3/2019 Continued from 12/6/2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0123 Pleasant View Elementary PROPERTY LOCATION: The north side of W. Gondola Dr., east of N. Black Cat Road, midway between W. McMillan Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd., in the SW ¼ of Section 27, Township 4N, Range 1W. (Parcel numbers: S0427234000 and S0427314880). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, West Ada School District, has submitted an application for conditional use permit to construct an approximately 65,000 square-foot education institution (elementary school) in an R-4 and R- 8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 22.86 (Final plat for Gondola Subdivision was recently approved to create 9.05 acre buildable lot for school) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use Undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Elementary School Current Zoning R-4 and R-8 Proposed Zoning R-4 and R-8 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) N/A Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: October 11, 2018; 8 attendees Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 50 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 2 Description Details Page History (previous approvals) AZ-05-040, DA Inst. No. 111010393 (Volterra North) and DA Inst. No. 109061598 (Bainbridge); PP-13-011 and PP-10- 004; H-2018-0116; CZC-14-070; FP-15-018 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No Yes 26  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) W. Gondola Dr. (collector) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Need to record cross-access agreement spanning lot 1, block 10 of Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 to allow for ingress/egress via 3 proposed access points. Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Black Cat Road – partial sidewalks (in front of developed parcels) McMillan Road – partial sidewalks (in front of developed parcels) Proposed Road Improvements Fire Service  Accessibility Requesting additional emergency access point  Special/resource needs No additional resource needs Police Service  Distance to Police Station 8 miles  Police Response Time 5 minutes  Calls for Service 76 calls between 11/1/2017-10/31/2018  % of calls for service split by priority % of P3 CFS – 2.6% % of P2 CFS – 63.2% % of P0 CFS – 34.2%  Accessibility No issue  Specialty/resource needs No additional resource needs  Crimes 88  Crashes 10  Other Reports N/A Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Approximately 1/3 mile (7.5 acres) West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Hunter Elementary – 1.5 miles Sawtooth Middle School – 2 miles Owyhee High School – 1.9 miles (Recently approved H-2018- 0075)  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 51 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner West Ada School District – 1303 East Central Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. Representatives: WH Pacific Engineers – 2141 W. Airport Way, Boise, Idaho 83705 LKV Architects – 2400 E. Riverwalk Drive, Boise, Idaho 83706 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 52 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 4 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 11/13/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 11/13/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/26/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 11/13/2018 E. Neighborhood meeting date and number of attendees: October 11, 2018; 8 attendees + Applicant V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct an approximately 65,000 square- foot education institution (public elementary school) on 9.05 acres of land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts as required by UDC Table 11-2A-2. The proposed elementary school will accommodate approximately 650 students, ranging from Kindergarten to 5th grade, and is proposed to open in the fall of 2020 if granted CUP approval. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium- density Residential (MDR). MDR designated areas allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). While single-family residential uses are typical in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts, education institution uses are permitted with approval of a CUP. The applicant recently received final plat approval (H-2018-0116) for two lots, one of which is a building lot on 9.05 acres. The other lot is a common lot for the street buffer along W. Gondola Dr., which was included and constructed with the development for Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 final plat. The proposed school will be located on the 9.05 acre buildable lot. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use: A. Comprehensive Plan Policies “Support the location of school sites within every square mile.” (3.02.01B) “Work with West Ada School District so elementary schools are sited in locations that are safe for the children, easily accessible by automobile, transit, walking and bicycle. Elementary schools should not be "hidden" within subdivisions or otherwise made inaccessible to the public.” (3.02.01F) “Ensure compatibility of schools with neighborhoods and adjacent land uses.” (3.02.01J) “Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools, parks and other community gathering places.” (3.07.02N) B. Dimensional Standards Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the applicable zoning district as set forth in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-6 for the R-4 and R-8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 53 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 5 zoning districts respectively. The current proposal is in compliance with the standards below. C. Specific Use Standards The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. The applicant is planning on placement of portables for expansion of classroom space depending on future student enrollment. When this need arises, the applicant shall install portables in accord with UDC 11-4-3-14F: F. Portable Classrooms (Temporary And Permanent): The site plan for all education institutions shall include the location of any future portable classrooms (temporary and/or permanent). 1. Temporary Portables: A temporary portable classroom shall be an accessory use valid for a maximum period of four (4) years from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Temporary portable classrooms that meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a certificate of zoning compliance approval but shall not be subject to design review. b. Temporary portable classrooms that do not meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a conditional use permit but shall not be subject to design review. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 54 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 6 2. Permanent Portables: Prior to the termination of the four (4) year permit, the applicant may request to convert a temporary portable classroom to a permanent portable classroom. a. Permanent portable classrooms that meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval. b. Permanent portable classrooms that do not meet the standards as set forth in subsection F4 of this section shall require a conditional use permit and design review approval. 3. Permit Termination: Upon termination of the four (4) year permit, the temporary portable classroom approval shall be null and void and the applicant shall remove the structure immediately. 4. Standards: a. The portable classroom shall not be located in the front yard of the principal school structure. b. The portable classroom shall not be located in any required yard. c. The placement of the portable classroom shall not reduce the number of required off street parking spaces. d. The portable structures shall comply with the building code in accord with title 10 of this code. e. Exterior colors of the portable classrooms shall be compatible with the color of the primary school building. f. The roofing material on the portable classrooms shall be of a finish that emits a minimal amount of glare. g. Where the portable classroom is located within two hundred feet (200') of a street and is visible from such a street, the portable classroom shall be screened from view of the street with a minimum of one evergreen tree per fifteen feet (15') of linear structure. The tree shall be a minimum of six feet (6') in height. (Ord. 10-1461, 10-12-2010, eff. 10-18-2010) Staff recommends that the site and landscape plans submitted with CZC and DES applications reflect these standards. D. Access Although UDC 11-3A-3 restricts access to collector roadways, Staff is amenable to granting access via W. Gondola Drive (a collector) since the site would not allow for another point of access. The first proposed site plan depicted two points of access to the site via two full-access driveways into the west and east parking lots on W. Gondola Drive. The Fire Department required an additional access point be added as the original site plan’s access points did not have adequate separation between two access points for the height of the building. The applicant revised their site plan to include a third access point via W. Gondola Dr. fulfilling those requirements. The western driveway is proposed to be aligned with the new residential street, Cedar Grove Drive. The proposed Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 55 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 7 access points intersect a common lot located within lot 1, block 10 in Vicenza Subdivision No. 2. The applicant needs to obtain permission from Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 to cross lot 1, block 10 for the three proposed access points. The applicant shall submit documentation granting access with the CZC and DES applications. E. Parking Off-street parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with UDC Table 11- 3C-6B. The number of spaces is typically determined by the district. However, in this case because the proposed use is more commercial than residential in nature, staff recommends the commercial standards apply to ensure adequate parking is provided for the use. Based on the proposed square footage of the structure (i.e. 65,000 square feet), a minimum of 130 parking spaces are required; a total of 145 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Per UDC 11-3A-19B-3a, no more than 50-percent of the total off-street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets for properties greater than two acres. The applicant shall be required to request alternative compliance (ALT) per UDC 11-5B-5 for the currently proposed site plan. The ALT request shall meet or exceed the intent of UDC 11-3A-19 and shall be submitted concurrently with the CZC and DES applications. Additionally, the proposed parking area will prevent the applicant from complying with UDC 11-3A-19B-2b which requires that a minimum of 40-percent of the buildable frontage of the property be occupied by building facades and/or public space. The applicant shall submit a request for ALT per UDC 11-5B-5 to deviate from UDC requirements. The ALT request shall be submitted concurrently with the CZC and DES applications. F. Sidewalks and Pathways Sidewalks exist along W. Gondola Drive and San Vito Way to provide pedestrian connection to existing neighborhoods and services. There are gaps in sidewalk connections along W. McMillan Road, N. Black Cat Road, and W. Chinden Boulevard within the typical 1.5 mile walk zone. Access to buses by students within the typical 1.5 mile walk zone will be required until the sidewalk and pathway system is completed in the area. A ten-foot multi-use pathway was provided with the construction of the subdivision in accord with Comprehensive Plan action items #3.03.03B, “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system” and #5.03.01A, “Implement the City’s Pathways Master Plan.” The multi-use pathway will support a needed service in close proximity to residences, businesses and services, in accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.01A, “Provide a walkable community through good design”. Additionally, an asphalt pathway is proposed around the perimeter of the site and will make connection to existing subdivision pathways to the north, west and east sides of the site. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 56 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 8 G. Landscaping A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Gondola Dr. in accord with UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-6 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Although not required to install a landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses, the applicant is proposing to install a minimum of approximately 15 feet of landscape buffer including trees and vegetative groundcover along the Bainbridge and Bainbridge Hess Subdivisions to the north, west and east of the site. Landscaping along W. Gondola Dr. and abutting residential uses is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C and in accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.04B, “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscape techniques.” The plan as submitted depicts one row of parking spanning 13 stalls in the western parking lot that should include an interior planter island in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C-2. The current site plan depicts removal of four existing trees along W. Gondola Dr. The applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888-3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on site. H. Traffic A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was submitted to ACHD for review with this application. The TIS estimates the new elementary school will generate approximately 1,200 daily trips; 435 during the AM peak hour and 221 during the PM peak hour. The location and design of school zones and flashing beacon lights will be addressed during the design review process with collaboration from ACHD staff. Ultimate development and approval of school zones will be through ACHD in cooperation with the West Ada School District. A summary of the intersection and roadway standards evaluation is below, analysis and the full TIS study can be found in the project folder here: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/fol/157714/Row1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 57 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 9 ITD has reviewed the TIS and has determined that the intersection of Black Cat Road and Chinden Blvd. should be signalized prior to the school's opening. Staff is unsure if there is adequate right-of-way to ensure the installation of the signal because the roadway may not be improved before the school’s opening. Staff recommends that the Commission determine if the signal at Black Cat Road and Chinden Blvd. intersection as requested by ITD should be required with the construction of the school. ACHD has completed a staff report for this project, which has been added to Section VIII.9 of this staff report per a request from the Planning and Zoning Commission at the original hearing on December 6, 2018. West Ada School District is in agreement with the conditions stated in that staff report. I. Site Circulation Bus circulation, student parking, staff parking, parent drop-off circulation, on-site pedestrian routes and a crossing guard plan were evaluated and submitted as part of the TIS. The primary parent drop-off area is proposed to be located in the eastern parking lot and has been designed to allow parents to drop students off curbside. A secondary drop-off is located on an island south of the primary drop-off with a designated crosswalk proposed to ensure children cross safely. Faculty and bus drop-off areas are proposed to be located in the western parking lot. Crossing guard locations have been recommended for consideration and should be finalized with collaboration between ACHD and the West Ada School District. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 58 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 10 J. Building Elevations The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed building included in Exhibit VII.C. Building materials consist of masonry veneer, structural masonry block, and accent metal panels. The proposed building is single-story with a combination of pitched metal roofing and low slope roofing with parapets to screen rooftop mounted mechanical systems. The three classroom wings will be approximately 23.5 feet in height, the gymnasium portion of the building will be 32 feet in height. The final design of the structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. K. Trash Enclosure A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan in the western parking lot. A detail of the enclosure should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The applicant should coordinate with Republic Services on the design and location of the enclosure. L. Fencing Fencing proposed along the perimeter of the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. In accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #3.02.01J, “Ensure compatibility of schools with neighborhoods and adjacent land uses”, The submitted site plan depicts a 4-foot fence, however no detail has been provided. Staff recommends that the applicant submit fence details prior to the hearing. Additionally, double-fencing is prohibited adjacent to common areas per UDC 11-3A- 7A-7b, the applicant shall coordinate fencing with Bainbridge Subdivision to comply with this requirement. M. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES) If approved, the applicant will be required to obtain approval of a CZC application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. The applicant will also be required to submit an application for DES concurrent with the CZC application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and building design is required to be generally consistent with the elevations and site plan submitted with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. N. Utilities: a. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject property currently exists in W. Gondola Drive. b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject property currently exists along the west boundary, and along the south boundary in W. Gondola Drive. c. Issues or concerns: None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 59 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 11 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit application in accord with the Findings in Section IX per the provisions in Section VIII. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 3, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Amber Van Ocker, Applicant Representative, LKV Architects ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Stephanie Leonard vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. None. c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Responsibility for signalization of the intersection at N. Black Cat Rd. and Chinden Blvd.; d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 60 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 12 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (Dated: November 29, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 61 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 13 B. Landscape Plan (Dated: October 15, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 62 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 14 C. Building Elevations (Dated: October 18, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 63 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 64 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 65 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 66 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 18 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-05-040, DA Inst. No. 111010393 and DA Inst. No. 109061598; PP-13-011 and PP-10-004; H-2018- 0116; FP-15-018) associated with this property. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. 3. The site plan, included in Exhibit VII.A, dated November 29, 2018 shall be revised as follows: a. Record a cross-access agreement for access across lot 1, block 10 of Vicenza Subdivision No. 2 to allow for ingress/egress via the 3 proposed access points from W. Gondola Dr. b. Future portable classrooms should be depicted with site/landscape plan for CZC and DES approval. Placement shall be in accord with UDC 11-4-3-14F. 4. The landscape plan included in Exhibit VII.B, dated October 15, 2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Interior parking lot landscaping shall comply with UDC 11-3B-8C-2a. b. The applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888-3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site. c. A revised landscape plan including the three proposed access points shall be submitted with CZC and DES application. d. Prior to Planning and Zoning Commission, details of the perimeter fencing shall be submitted. e. The applicant shall coordinate fencing with Bainbridge Subdivision to comply with UDC 11-3A-7A-7b. 5. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit VII and the conditions of approval in this report. 6. The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) application to the Planning Division for approval of the proposed use and final site layout and building designs prior to submittal of a building permit application. 7. The applicant shall submit a request for alternative compliance to deviate from the UDC Structure and Site Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19B-2b and UDC 11-3A-19B-3a) in accord with UDC 11-5B-5. 8. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). 9. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 10. The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the educational institution use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 67 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 19 use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11- 5B-6F. 11. The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 13. All signage for the property is subject to the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D. 14. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record the Gondola final plat (H-2018-0116). 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sanitary sewer and water mains/services are currently available on the subject site. The applicant shall be responsible for the abandonment, per Meridian City standards, of any existing mainlines or services that are not utilized. 2.1.2 At least 2000 gpm of domestic water supply is available at 20 psi at the water main around school. Applicant to coordinate with Public Works Engineering if a higher flow is required. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.2.4 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 68 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 20 2.2.5 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.6 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.7 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.8 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.9 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.2.10 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings for any new public water and/or sanitary sewer mainlines, per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.11 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed public sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. The two currently proposed access points are too close together for a 65,000 sq. ft. building. The additional access point will be required for approval of the project. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF REPORT: 1. Police Response Time- The proposed development Pleasant View Elementary School is approximately 8.0 miles from the Meridian Police Department. The expected response time to this area in an emergency is about 5 minutes. Between 11/1/2017 – 10/31/2018 the Meridian Police Department responded to 76 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. Most of these calls were related to thefts. During this same time period the Meridian Police Department responded to 10 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. Most of these crashes 60% were injury related. See attached document for additional details on calls. 2. Accessibility – Access for the Meridian Police Department is not an issue for the proposed development in this area. The roadways surrounding this area are more than adequate and the area already has sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 69 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 21 3. Resource needs - There are no additional staffing, equipment needs or other resources needed to serve the proposed development. 4. Other comments- The Meridian Police Department already serves this growing area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 70 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 71 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 23 5. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) 6. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) No comment on the subject application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 72 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 24 7. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 73 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 74 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 75 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 76 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 28 8. IDAHO TRANSPORATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 77 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 29 9. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 78 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 30 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 79 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 80 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 32 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 81 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 33 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 82 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 34 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 83 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 84 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 36 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 85 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 37 IX. FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request on the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts and the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed education institution in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts is a desired use. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the education institution should be compatible with agricultural and existing and planned residential uses in the vicinity. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the character thereof. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If approved, conditions of approval will be included in Exhibit VIII of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation were provided to this property with development of the subdivision; services will be extended to the proposed building by the developer. The Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 86 of 153 EXHIBIT A Page 38 The Commission finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 87 of 153 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Number: H-2018-0135 CUP Item Title: Public Hearing for Pine -Four Plex H-2018-0135 by Amanda Blackwell, NeUdesign Architecture, LLC Located at 645 W. Pine Avene Request: Meeting Notes: L on -Vi nie J to Z _7 G I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for P ine F our-Plex (H-2018-0135) by Amanda Blackwell, neUdesign Architecture, L L C , L ocated 645 W. P ine Ave. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 88 of 153 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 3, 2019 Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Recommended Micropathh location Recommended 10-foot multi-pathway location West Tap Sublateral Countryside Collection Garden Collection Woodland Collection Conceptual Building Elevations Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Countryside Collection Garden Collection Woodland Collection Conceptual Building Elevations Changes to Agenda: • Item #4A: Alicia Court Sub. — Applicant requests continuance to February 71h — Failure to post the public hearing sign on the site within the allowed timeframe • Item #4D: Stapleton Subdivision — Applicant requests continuance to February 71h Item #: 4B Oakmore Subdivision (H-2018.0118) Application(s): ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 7 acres of land, zoned R-4, located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Future SFR subdivision (Westbridge), zoned R-4 South: SFR subdivision (Jump Creek), zoned R-8 East: N. Black Cat Rd. and SFR subdivision (Bainbridge), zoned R-8 West: Future phases of The Oaks zoned R-4 History: In 2008, the property was annexed and zoned as part of the Oakcreek Subdivision (subject to Oakcreek DA). In 2013, rezoned to R-15 and platted as part of The Oaks North when the property was expanded and split into The Oaks North and South (with new DA associated). Current DA includes concept plan with multi -family depicted on the subject property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a rezone from R-15 to R-4 and a preliminary plat consisting of 18 single family residential lots and 6 common lots. Lots range in size from approximately 9,500 sf to 15,000 sf, for an average lot size of 11,495. The gross proposed density is 2.44 units/acre. The proposed density is below the desired density for MDR, but staff feels it is consistent when included with the entire Oaks development. The applicant has submitted a separate modification to the development agreement to be consistent with the proposed development for 18 SFR homes on the subject property. The DA modification will be heard before City Council on February 19th. Approval of this project is contingent on approval of that modification since the current site plan depicts multi -family rather than single-family residences. A stub street is proposed to the north into the proposed Westbridge Subdivision and to the south to the Jump Creek Subdivision. Internal access will be through future phases of The Oaks. No direct access is proposed to N. Black Cat Rd. One common driveway is proposed to provide access to two lots at the northwest part of the property. That access exceeds UDC maximum length of 150' and will be redesigned prior to the Council hearing to comply. Five-foot detached sidewalk is proposed throughout the development. Staff is recommending the applicant add a micropath to the southwest part of the site to provide pedestrian connection to the Jump Creek subdivision. Staff is also recommending that the City's ten -foot multi -use pathway be continued along N. Black Cat Rd. The West Tap Sublateral crosses Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 in the proposed plat. The applicant shall relocate the lateral or tile it. The applicant needs to specify how wide the easement will be on the buildable lots. If the easement width is greater than 10' it needs to have a 20' common lot unless waived by Council. Renderings of a variety of SFR detached homes were submitted with this application that demonstrate what future homes within this development will look like. Renderings match those that were approved with the DA and will be consistent with development in the area. Staff is concerned that the number of amenities provided with the overall development may not be adequate since the conceptually approved multi -family would have been required to provide additional open space and amenities. This parcel was originally proposed to develop with 60 multi -family units which would have been required to provide 10% open space and at least 3 amenities With the addition of the two projects currently proposed, Oakmore and Oakwind, there will be approximately 100 more SFR than was originally approved, which means roughly 750 SFR will be using the same amenities. Staff feels that the recommended micropath and continuation of the ten -foot multi -use pathway would provide useable open space for residents. Written Testimony: [name(s)] - [issue(s)] Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval w/conditions in the staff report. Staff recommends the Commission determine whether the number of amenities provided with this development are adequate 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- 2018-0118 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17, 2019, 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- 0118, as presented during the hearing on January 17, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0118 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #: 4C Oakwind Subdivision (H-2018-0119) Application(s): ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 16.5 acres of land, zoned R-15, located near the intersection of N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Roads. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Future SFR subdivision (The Oaks) zoned R-4 and undeveloped land zoned RUT in the County South: Future phase of the Oaks, zoned R-5 East: Future phases of The Oaks zoned R-4 West: N. McDermott Rd. and undeveloped land, zoned RUT in the County History: In 2008, the property was annexed and zoned as part of the Oakcreek Subdivision (subject to Oakcreek DA). In 2013, rezoned to R-15 and R-4 and platted as part of The Oaks North when the property was expanded and split into The Oaks North and South (with new DA associated). Current DA includes concept plan with multi -family depicted on the subject property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a rezone from R-4 and R-15 zones to R-8 and a preliminary plat consisting of 82 SFR lots, 6 common lots and 1 common driveway. Lots range in size from approximately 5,400 sf to 8,600, for an average lot size of 5,843 sf. Previously, multi -family was proposed with this phase of development, which was consistent with R-15 zoning; the applicant requests R-8 to make consistent with the development now proposed. The gross proposed density is 4.96 units/acre and is within the desired density for MDR. The applicant has submitted a separate modification to the development agreement to be consistent with the proposed development for 18 SFR homes on the subject property. The DA modification will be heard before City Council on February 191h. Approval of this project is contingent on approval of that modification since the current site plan depicts multi -family rather than single-family residences. Two access points are currently proposed via W. Cherrybark Dr. and W. Vercelli Dr., both of which connect to future proposed phases of the Oaks. With the current proposed plat the common driveway depicted meets UDC requirements. The Fire Department has requested an additional access as the two proposed do not meet spacing requirements for emergency access. Staff recommends the applicant add two additional stub streets; one to the north in lieu of the common driveway and one to the south to provide better connectivity. Five-foot detached sidewalk is proposed throughout the development, Because of our conern with the open space and site amenities provided with the project, Staff is recommending the applicant add a micropath to connect the southern portion of the subdivision through the development to future phases of the Oaks North. The addition of the micropath would provide useable open space and increase pedestrian connection through the subdivision. Renderings of a variety of SFR detached homes were submitted with this application that demonstrate what future homes within this development will look like. Renderings match those that were approved with the DA and will be consistent with development in the area. Staff is concerned that the number of amenities provided with the overall development may not be adequate since the conceptually approved multi -family would have been required to provide additional open space and amenities. This parcel was originally proposed to develop with 200 multi -family units which would have been required to provide 10% open space and at least 5 amenities. With the addition of the two projects currently proposed, Oakmore and Oakwind, there will be approximately 100 more SFR than was originally approved, which means roughly 750 SFR will be using the same amenities. Staff feels that the recommended micropath and continuation of the ten -foot multi -use pathway would provide useable open space for residents. Written Testimony: [name(s)] - [issue(s)] Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval w/conditions in the staff report. Staff recommends the Commission determine whether the number of amenities provided with this development are adequate 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- 2018-0119, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17, 2019, 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- 0119, as presented during the hearing on January 17, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0119 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Number: H-2018-0118 RZ, PP Item Title: Public Hearing for Oakmore Subdivision H-2018-0118 by TOLL ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. Request: Y-e—C'o [A rNp-,a � N CA� Meeting Notes: coo "\C1, / I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Oakmore S ubdivision (H-2018-0118) by Toll ID I L L C , L ocated near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat 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 1/15/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 89 of 153 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 1/17/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Oakmore Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0118 Active: ✓ There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 HEARING DATE: 1/17/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0118 Oakmore Subdivision (The Oaks North PP-13-014) LOCATION: Near the intersection of W. Gondola Drive and N. Black Cat Road, in the NE ¼ of Section 28, Township 4N., Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of eighteen (18) single family residential lots and six (6) common lots. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 7.39 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR) (3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Rural residential and agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residences Current Zoning R-15 Proposed Zoning R-4 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 24 lots total; 18 building lots/6 common lots Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units (type of units) 18 single family detached homes Density (gross & net) 2.44 units/acre (gross); 3.25 units/acre (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 0.50 acres/0.50 acres buffer/6.77% qualified Amenities Staff is recommending micropath and ten-foot multi-use pathway 29 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 90 of 153 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 9/19/18; no attendees History (previous approvals) AZ-13-008, RZ-13-015 (DA Inst. No. 114030972); PP-13- 014 Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access via W. Webster Drive (local) and N. Oakstone Ave. (local) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Stub streets proposed to the north into proposed Westbridge Subdivision and to the south to the Jump Creek Subdivision. Internal access through future phases of The Oaks North Sub. Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers None (undeveloped) Proposed Road Improvements Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Approximately 2/3 of a mile to Keith Bird Legacy Park Distance to other key services Fire Service 29  Distance to Fire Station Approximately 2 miles from Station No. 5  Fire Response Time 6 minutes (does not meet response time requirements; level of service expectation= 5 minutes)  Resource Reliability 77% (does not meet the targeted goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 1 (residential) – current resources would be adequate to supply service to this propose project  Accessibility Does not meet all required access, road widths and turnarounds; will need revisions to meet IFC requirements. [Common drive is over 150’ in length; two access points for subdivisions over 30 buildable lots]  Special/resource needs An aerial device will not be required  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for two hours  Other Resources Police Service 29  Distance to Police Station 8.5 miles from Meridian Police Department  Police Response Time 4-5 minutes  Calls for Service 10  % of calls for service split by priority % of P3 CFS – 10% % of P2 CFS – 90% % of P1 CFS – 0% % of P0 CFS – 0%  Accessibility Access for the Meridian Police Department is not an issue for the proposed development in this area.  Specialty/resource needs No additional need  Crimes 13 total  Crashes 1  Other Reports West Ada School District Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 91 of 153 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Pleasant View Elementary (planned to open 2020): ¼ mile Planned Middle School (SWC Chinden and Black Cat): +/- 1 mile Owyhee High School (planned to open 2020): +/- 1 mile  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Grocery Store Approximately 1 mile (Walmart) COMPASS (Communities in Motion 2040 2.0) Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 92 of 153 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Toll ID I LLC 3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: New Oaks, LLC. 5662 Calle Real #254 Galeta, CA 93117 C. Representative: Engineering Solutions, LLP. 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 12/28/2018 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/26/2018 Applicant posted notice on site on: 1/7/2019 Nextdoor posting 12/26/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. The applicant proposes to rezone 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 zoning districts to the R-8 zoning district and to construct eighteen (18) detached single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from approximately 9,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet for an average lot size of 11,495 square feet. Previously, multi-family was proposed with this phase of development, which was consistent with R-15 zoning. The proposed rezone to the R-8 designation will allow for dimensional standards consistent with the size of lots and type of development now proposed. This subdivision is proposed to develop in one (1) phase. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit VII.A, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be rezoned. The applicant has submitted a separate development agreement modification application (H- 2018-0117) to omit the multi-family component as conceptually approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat (PP-13-014). That application will be heard before City Council on February 19, 2019 per UDC Table 11-5A-2. The Oaks North plat included 653 single-family homes with two (2) multi-family phases on approximately 252 acres of land. The currently proposed modification to The Oaks North and South development agreement is replacing both multi-family phases proposed with The Oaks North with single-family residential lots. The Oakmore Subdivision will add eighteen (18) single- family homes, while the other phase that is proposed to develop with single-family residences rather than multi-family (Oakwind) will add eighty-two (82) single family homes. With the substitution of 100 single family residences for the multi-family phases the total approximate build-out (as currently proposed) of The Oaks North and South will include approximately 750 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 93 of 153 Page 5 single family residences, which is approximately 150 more single family residences than originally proposed and approved. The concept plan (shown in Exhibit VII.D) included with the original preliminary plat for this phase of development depicted approximately sixty (60) multi-family units which would have required a minimum of 10% open space and approximately three (3) qualified site amenities. The applicant is not proposing any qualified site amenities with this phase of development. Without the added amenities that the multi-family developments would have been required to construct, approximately 750 single family residences within The Oaks North and South will be utilizing the same package of amenities originally approved and shown on the concept plan in Exhibit VII.D below. Staff is concerned that the lack of qualified site amenities provided with this phase of development will put undue strain on the existing and planned amenities for other phases of The Oaks. Staff recommends that the applicant provide an updated list of amenities and a concept plan depicting current and planned qualified open space and amenities prior to the Council hearing. Further, Commission should determine whether there are adequate amenities and open space for a subdivision that will have approximately 750 single family homes at completion. Typically, a minimum of 10% open space is required for subdivisions that are 5 acres or more in size as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3. The applicant is proposing 0.50 acres of qualified open space or 6.77% for this phase of development. 10% open space is not being provided with this phase of development because it will be part of the overall Oaks North subdivision and open space was determined for the entire development. The percentage of qualified open space provided with this phase of development is consistent with that required with the original plat and development agreement (10.72% of the total development or 27.03 acres). Staff would like the Commission to determine the adequacy of planned qualified site amenities for the entire development. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) “Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.” (3.03.03C) “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one existing rural residence on the site that is proposed to be removed. In the applicant’s narrative they indicate that the structures are vacant. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant obtain a demolition permit for the Building Division and remove all structures within 60 days of Council’s approval of the rezone ordinance. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct 18 single-family detached dwellings on lots ranging in size from 9,000 to 15,099 square feet, one (1) common driveway lot and five (5) common lots. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 94 of 153 Page 6 E. Traffic A full traffic impact study (TIS) was prepared for The Oaks Subdivision. ACHD has indicated that a further TIS is not necessary for Oakmore Subdivision. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The minimum street frontage required per lot is sixty (60) feet in the R-4 zoning district. Lots 6 and 9, Block 1 in the proposed preliminary plat shall be revised to comply with that minimum requirement or access shall be taken from a common driveway. The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district; minimum lots size is 8,000 sq. ft. Buildable lots range in size from approximately 9,000-15,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 11,495 square feet, exceeding UDC standards. G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Stub streets are proposed into the proposed Westbridge Subdivision to the north and to the Jump Creek Subdivision to the south. Internal access is proposed through future phases of The Oaks North Subdivision. Direct lot access to N. Black Road is not proposed or approved. The proposed access points are consistent with Comprehensive Plan action item #3.06.02D and UDC 11-3A-3 which restricts access points on arterial streets; only one access is proposed via the arterial street (i.e. N. Black Cat Rd.). H. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) One common driveway is proposed that shall be revised to comply with UDC standards. Per UDC 11-6C-3D-3 common driveways may be a maximum of 150’ in length. The proposed 187- foot driveway shall be modified to comply with this requirement with the final plat application An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that are not taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. I. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit (i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or on a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad) in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Two and three-car garages are proposed with parking pads in front of the garages in accord with UDC standards. J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): A micropath is depicted in the eastern part of the site providing connection to a common lot abutting N. Black Cat Rd. An additional micropath shall be required in the western part of the development through the common area in Lot 1, Block 1 to provide connection to the Jump Creek Subdivision to the south and in accord with Comprehensive Plan Action Item #3.07.02C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 95 of 153 Page 7 Additionally, per the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, a ten-foot multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the west side of N. Black Cat Rd. adjacent to Lot 7, Block 2. K. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed along both sides of W. Webster Ct. and adjacent to common lots, in accord with UDC standards. L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Black Cat Rd., in accord with the development agreement and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along each side of the pathway consisting of a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. A minimum of (1) tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. Stormwater swales are required to be vegetated and designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped with lawn (either seed or sod) and a minimum of one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3E. Parkways are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.5 and UDC 11-3A-17. Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. The applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888- 3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site The mitigation plan should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Typically, properties over five (5) acres in size are required to comply with minimum open space and site amenity requirements as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (7.39 acres), a minimum of 10% (or 0.74 acres) qualified open space and one (1) qualified site amenity would be required to be provided with the development if constructed on its own. Staff recommends additional qualified open space be included with this phase of development as discussed in the qualified site amenities section below. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Proposed amenities for The Oaks North Subdivision consist of the following: The City’s ten-foot multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek, a community swimming pool, children’s play structure, picnic shelter, pocket parks with amenities and additional qualified open space. As mentioned in the analysis above, Staff is concerned that the qualified site amenities originally approved may not be adequate for the number of single-family residences proposed for the entire development. Staff is recommending that a micropath be added to the western part of the site and the continuation of the ten-foot multi-use pathway along N. Black Cat Rd. be provided as additional amenities for this phase of development. Additionally, Staff does recommend that the Commission determine the adequacy of site amenities for the entire development during the hearing January 17, 2019. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 96 of 153 Page 8 O. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Six-foot tall closed vision fencing is proposed at the rear of building lots along the boundary of the subdivision and adjacent to existing and future subdivisions. Five-foot wrought-iron fencing is proposed along the pathway to the common lot in the eastern part of the subdivision. The proposed fencing is in compliance with UDC standards. P. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The West Tap Sublateral crosses Lots 2-3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 in the proposed plat. The lateral shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B-3. Any required easement shall be depicted with the final plat submittal. Q. Storm Drainage: (UDC 11-3A-18) An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. R. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII-B Below for Public Works comments/conditions. S. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevation renderings were submitted for future detached homes within the development, single-story and 2-stories in height. Building materials consist of a mix of materials with different types/styles of siding with stone veneer accents (see Exhibit F in Section VII.) Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes will be highly visible from the arterial street (i.e. N. Black Cat Rd.), staff recommends articulation is incorporated through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. NOTE: the proposed elevations in this staff report are similar to the ones that are already approved and tied to the recorded development agreement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: The proposed density (2.44 gross units/acre) of the subdivision is at the below the desired density in MDR designated areas (3-8 units/acre). However, when this phase is included with entire The Oaks North subdivision the density aligns with the desired density for MDR and adds lot diversity to the subdivision. The proposed rezone from R-15 to R-8 will allow for dimensional standards consistent with the type of development now proposed. For these reasons, Staff recommends approval of the proposed RZ and PP applications per the provisions in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 97 of 153 Page 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description and Exhibit Map for Zoning Boundary Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 98 of 153 Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 99 of 153 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 100 of 153 Page 12 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 10/8/2018) Micropath location Ten-foot multi-use pathway location Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 101 of 153 Page 13 C. Landscape Plan (date: 10/8/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 102 of 153 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 103 of 153 Page 15 D. Approved Concept Plan for The Oaks North (PP-13-014) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 104 of 153 Page 16 E. Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 105 of 153 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 106 of 153 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 107 of 153 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 108 of 153 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 109 of 153 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 110 of 153 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 111 of 153 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 112 of 153 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 113 of 153 Page 25 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-13-008, RZ-13- 015, DA Inst. No. 114030972; PP-13-014) associated with this property. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Note #10 shall be revised to include the name of the organization or entities responsible for maintaining the common driveway serving Lots 2 and 3, Block 3. b. Note #6: Revise to include the approved addendum to the development agreement (Inst. No. 114030972) and omit the previous development agreement. c. The West Tap Sublateral crossing Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B-3. Any required easements resulting from the relocation of the lateral shall be depicted with the final plat submittal. d. Lots 6 and 9, Block 1 shall have a minimum 60-foot wide street frontage unless access is to be provided via the common driveway. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. The West Tap Sublateral crossing Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B-3. Any required easements resulting from the relocation of the lateral shall be depicted with the final plat submittal. b. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred percent replacement as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5; contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, (208-489-0589) to schedule an inspection to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees from the site. c. A micropath shall be depicted within Lot 1, Block 1. d. Provide a ten-foot multi-use-pathway with a public use easement to the west of N. Black Cat Road. 4. If there are any irrigation easements greater than ten-feet in width, they shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet in width and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council per UDC 11-3A-6D. 5. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 6. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. 7. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11 - 6B-7. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 114 of 153 Page 26 8. The amended development agreement shall be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for the proposed development. 9. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a public access easement for a detached, multi-use pathway running the length of the development on the west side of N. Black Cat Road to the Planning Division for Council approval and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14’ wide (10’ pathway + 2’ shoulder each side) and may fall within the required landscape buffer. 10. The amended development agreement shall be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for the proposed development. 11. The preliminary plat is approved contingent upon City Council approval of the associated modification to the Oaks North and South development agreement. 12. The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 1.2 As proposed, the water distribution network can supply 1,500 gpm flow at build-out. If a fire flow greater than 1,500 gpm is needed, applicant shall contact the Public Works Department to determine availability. Each phase will need to be modeled individually at the time of platting. 1.3 Any existing water mainline stubs from Black Cat Road must be abandoned at the mainline in Black Cat Road per Meridian Public Works Standards. 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. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 115 of 153 Page 27 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 addressed 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 116 of 153 Page 28 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/159192/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/fol/158920/Row1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 117 of 153 Page 29 E. PARKS DEPARTMENT F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159241/Page1.aspx G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160261/Page1.aspx H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159660/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 118 of 153 Page 30 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 rezone the subject 7.39 acres of land from the R-15 to the R-4 zoning district and to develop eighteen (18) new single-family residential homes. Staff finds that the proposed rezone complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and future land use map (see section VII above for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-4 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in the adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the property is already annexed into the City. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 119 of 153 Page 31 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission’s or Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05- 1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 120 of 153 K%94T'.�- .'.�,.i%���aG�/y�,/H.>'i' ,.... s II e ` z 175' = o Ng -- �W W 56' � f*7I o -----"w_ 89-22-'02" E- M 76' a COMMON COMMON 35' 48� 80' — — — — — 10- _ COMMONS iB5 75' — 85' �,-. 75' 75' _ 75' 120' n Ipt 75' 75' 75' 75' 8g' 0 0 � 75' p nt N COMMON 7s' 7s' 1312. gloa 16 o N BLOCK 14 5 0 p © O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q O © 0 QN 7 163' 14 `� O © Q Q O9 10 11 12 73 14 i6 16 BLOCK 16 11 0 v BL 15 t 136' 131' BLOCK 15 I gL��K n 151' 12 t 13 m O BLOCK iJ © 10 I�--' --�- OGK ot. 13 \ 14 t30' 130, BLOCK 10 I I 130 II I II I I I iSo' � Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Project File Number: H-2019-0119 RZ, PP Item Title: Public Hearing for Oakwind Subdivision Request: Meeting Notes: H-2018-0119 by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rds. I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Oakwind S ubdivision (H-2018-0119) by Toll ID I L L C , L ocated near the intersection of N. M cD ermott and W. M cM illan Rds 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 1/15/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 121 of 153 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 1/17/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Oakwind Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0119 Active: ✓ There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 HEARING DATE: 1/17/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0119 Oakwind Subdivision (future phase of The Oaks North Subdivision PP-13- 014) LOCATION: Near the intersection of N. McDermott and W. McMillan Roads, in Section 28, Township 4N., Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 16.52 acres of land from the R-15 and R-4 zoning districts to the R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of eighty-two (82) single family residential lots, six (6) common lots, and one (1) common driveway. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 122 of 153 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 16.52 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR) (3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Rural agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single family residential Current Zoning R-15 Proposed Zoning R-4 and R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 89 lots total; 82 building lots/6 common lots, 1 common driveway Phasing plan (# of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 82 single family detached homes Density (gross & net) 4.96 units/acre (gross); 6.33 units/acre (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 1.19 acres, 2.2% Amenities Staff is recommending a micropath Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 9/19/18; no attendees History (previous approvals) AZ-13-008, RZ-13-015 (DA Inst. No. 114030972); PP-13- 014 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 123 of 153 Page 4 Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access via W. Cherrybark Dr. (local) and W. Vercelli Dr. (local) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Internal access through future phases of The Oaks North Sub. Additional stub streets are being recommended by staff. 6 Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers McDermott Road – Undeveloped (no sidewalks or buffers) McMillan Road – Undeveloped (no sidewalks or buffers) Proposed Road Improvements Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) +/- 1 ½ miles Fire Service 29  Distance to Fire Station +/- 2 ½ miles to Station No. 2  Fire Response Time 7 minutes (does not meet response time requirements; level of service expectation= 5 minutes)  Resource Reliability 77% (does not meet the targeted goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 1 (residential) – current resources would be adequate to supply service to this propose project  Accessibility Does not meet all required access, road widths and turnarounds; will need revisions to meet IFC requirements. [Two entrances are too close together between phase 1 and 2. Needs to be a fire ]  Special/resource needs An aerial device will not be required An additional truck company will be required in the event of a structure fire [Could result in time delays]  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for two hours Police Service 29  Distance to Police Station 8.5 miles from Meridian Police Department  Police Response Time 4-5 minutes  Calls for Service 10  % of calls for service split by priority % of P3 CFS – 10% % of P2 CFS – 90% % of P1 CFS – 0% % of P0 CFS – 0%  Accessibility Access for the Meridian Police Department is not an issue for the proposed development in this area.  Specialty/resource needs No additional need  Crimes 13 total  Crashes 1 West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Pleasant View Elementary (planned to open 2020): +/- 1 mile Planned Middle School (SWC Chinden and Black Cat): +/- ½ mile Owyhee High School (planned to open 2020): +/- 1/2 mile Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services  Sewer Shed Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 124 of 153 Page 5  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s  WRRF Declining Balance  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Water  Distance to Water Services 1,000 feet  Pressure Zone 1  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns  Other Project will need to be modeled at final plat stage. Developer will be responsible for the installation of 12-inch diameter water main in McDermott Road fronting the project. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 125 of 153 Page 6 B. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Toll ID I LLC 3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: New Oaks, LLC. 5662 Calle Real #254 Galeta, CA 93117 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 126 of 153 Page 7 C. Representative: Engineering Solutions, LLP. 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 12/28/2018 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/26/2018 Radius notification published on 1/7/2019 Nextdoor posting 12/26/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. The applicant proposes to rezone 16.52 acres of land from the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts to the R-8 zoning district to construct eighty-two (82) single-family detached dwellings on lots ranging in size from 5,400 square feet to 8,600 square feet with an average lot size of 5,843 square feet. Previously, multi-family was proposed with this phase of development, which was consistent with R-15 zoning; the R-4 designation is minimal and is located at the northeast corner of the subject property. The proposed rezone to the R-8 designation will allow for dimensional standards consistent with the size of lots and type of development now proposed. This subdivision is proposed to develop in two (2) phases. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit VII.A, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be rezoned. The applicant has submitted a separate development agreement modification application (H- 2018-0117) to omit the multi-family component as conceptually approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat (PP-13-014). That application will be heard before City Council on February 19, 2019 per UDC Table 11-5A-2. Development of this subdivision is predicated on the Council’s approval of the MDA application. The Oaks North plat included 653 single-family homes and conceptually approved two (2) multi- family phases on approximately 252 acres of land. The current proposed modification to The Oaks North and South development agreement is replacing both multi-family phases proposed with The Oaks North with single-family residential lots. The Oakwind Subdivision will add eighty-two (82) single-family homes, while the other phase that is proposed to develop with single-family residences rather than multi-family (Oakmore) will add eighteen (18) single family homes. With the substitution of 100 single family residences for the multi-family phases the total approximate build-out (as currently proposed) of The Oaks Subdivisions will include approximately 750 single family residences, which is approximately 100 more single family residences than originally proposed and approved. The concept plan (shown in Exhibit VII.D) included with the original preliminary plat for this phase of development depicted approximately 200 multi-family units which would have required a minimum of 10% open space and approximately five (5) qualified site amenities. The applicant is not proposing any qualified site amenities with this phase of development. Without the added amenities that the multi-family developments would have been required to construct, approximately 750 single family residences within The Oaks North and South will be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 127 of 153 Page 8 utilizing the same amenities originally approved and shown on the concept plan in Exhibit VII.D below. Staff is concerned that the lack of qualified site amenities provided with this phase of development will put undue strain on the existing and planned amenities for other phases of The Oaks. Typically, a minimum of 10% open space is required for subdivisions that are 5 acres or more in size as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3. The applicant is proposing 1.19 acres of qualified open space or 2.2% for this phase of development. 10% open space is not being provided with this phase of development because it will be part of the overall Oaks North subdivision and open space was determined for the entire development. The Commission should determine whether there are adequate amenities and open space for a subdivision that will have approximately 750 single family homes at completion. B. Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) The site is designated MDR (Medium Density Residential), which allows for smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units or less per acre (d.u./acre). The applicant proposes to develop this 16.52 acre site with 82 single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 4.96 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):  “Require new residential development to meet development standards regarding landscaping, signage, fences and walls, etc.” (3.05.02C)  “Require appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).” (3.06.02G)  “Require usable open space to be incorporated into new residential subdivision plats.” (3.07.02A)  “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) D. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes single-family detached dwellings which are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district. Future structures should comply with the minimum setbacks of the district. The proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 district. F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Two (2) access points are currently proposed via W. Cherrybark Dr. and W. Vercelli Dr., both of which connect to a future proposed phase of The Oaks North. The proposed access points are consistent with Comprehensive Plan action item #3.06.02D and UDC 11-3A-3 which restricts access points on arterial streets. Staff recommends the applicant add two (2) stub streets; one (1) to the north and one (1) to the south to connect to future phases of The Oaks North development and meet the Fire Department’s request for a third access point. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 128 of 153 Page 9 Adding stub streets to the north and south would also further implement the goal of Comprehensive Plan action item #3.03.02O: “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets)”. Staff would like to point out that a stub street to the north could create a block length exceeding the UDC maximum allowance of 750 linear feet depending on placement. If the stub street is constructed, Staff will be tasked with ensuring the connection meets City code and does not create a safety issue for residents. G. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3): All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. One (1) common driveway is proposed and complies with UDC standards. Staff is recommending that a stub street be constructed which could affect or eliminate the currently proposed common driveway. Note: if a public stub street replaces the location of the common driveway, the condition for the common driveway will not apply. An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit (i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad) in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Two- and three-car garages are proposed with parking pads in front of the garages in accord with UDC standards. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development and are landscaped in accord with UDC standards and Comprehensive Plan Action Item #3.07.02C. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer and berm is proposed in accord with the development agreement; both shall be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and Comprehensive Plan Action Items #3.05.02C and #3.06.02G. The two- to three-foot berm proposed along N. McDermott is consistent with the requirements of the development agreement. Staff recommends the berm be at least three (3) feet in height and be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-5 and UDC 11-3B-7C. Staff recommends that the six-foot privacy vinyl fence proposed be placed at the top of the berm to provide sound attenuation for the future SH-16 expansion. Parkways along local streets within the development are proposed consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-3B-7C. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E as proposed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 129 of 153 Page 10 Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Properties over five (5) acres in size are required to comply with minimum open space and site amenity requirements as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (16.52 acres), a minimum of 10% (or 1.65 acres) qualified open space and one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided with the development. Staff recommends additional qualified open space be included with this phase of development as discussed in the qualified site amenities section below. L. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Proposed amenities for The Oaks North Subdivision consist of the following: The City’s ten-foot multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek, a community swimming pool, children’s play structure, picnic shelter, pocket parks with amenities and additional qualified open space. As mentioned in the analysis above, Staff is concerned that the qualified site amenities originally approved may not be adequate for the number of single-family residences proposed. Staff is recommending the applicant add a site amenity such as a micropath to connect the southern portion of the subdivision through the development to future phases of Oaks North. The addition of a micropath would provide useable open space and increase pedestrian connection through the subdivision. Ten (10) days prior to the Council hearing the applicant should provide a revised plat depicting common lots (micropaths) in the location depicted in Exhibit VII.B below. M. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18) An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. N. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Six-foot tall vinyl closed vision fencing is proposed at the rear of building lots along the perimeter of the development and adjacent to common areas that are entirely visible from streets. A five-foot tall open vision wrought iron fence is proposed at the rear of Lots 2-9, Block 1 and adjacent to a future phase of The Oaks North. O. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. P. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevation renderings were submitted for future detached homes within the development, single-story and 2-stories in height. Building materials consist of a mix of materials with different types/styles of siding with stone veneer accents (see Exhibit F in Section VII.) Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes will be highly visible from the arterial street (i.e. N. McDermott Rd.), staff recommends articulation is incorporated through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 130 of 153 Page 11 street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. NOTE: the proposed elevations in this staff report are similar to the ones that are already approved and tied to the recorded development agreement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds that the proposed gross density (4.96 units/acre) of the subdivision is consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas and that the proposed rezone from R-4 and R-15 to R-8 will allow for dimensional standards consistent with the type of development now proposed. The proposed preliminary plat meets UDC standards and shall be revised as conditioned in Section VIII. Common open space meets minimum requirements and sidewalks provide pedestrian connections throughout the development and to future phases of The Oaks. Staff is recommending that the applicant add an additional site amenity, such as a micropathway and two (2) stub streets to encourage inner-connectivity to future subdivision phases. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed RZ and PP applications per the Findings in Section IX. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 131 of 153 Page 12 VII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description and Exhibit Map for Zoning Boundary Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 132 of 153 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 133 of 153 Page 14 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 10/8/2018) Stub street Stub street Micropath Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 134 of 153 Page 15 C. Landscape Plan date: 10/5/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 135 of 153 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 136 of 153 Page 17 D. Approved Concept Plan for The Oaks North (PP-13-014) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 137 of 153 Page 18 E. Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 138 of 153 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 139 of 153 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 140 of 153 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 141 of 153 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 142 of 153 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 143 of 153 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 144 of 153 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 145 of 153 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 146 of 153 Page 27 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-13-008, RZ-13- 015, DA Inst. No. 114030972; PP-13-014) associated with this property. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised ten (10) days prior to the Council hearing as follows: a. Note #6: Revise to include the approved addendum to the development agreement (Inst. No. 114030972) and the previous development agreement. b. Note #9: Revise to include Lot 14, Block 2 as a common lot to be owned and maintained by The Oaks North Subdivision Home Owners Association. c. The applicant shall include two (2) stubs streets; one (1) to the north (parcel #S0428325600) and one (1) to the south (parcel #S0428336630) to connect to the future collector street as depicted in Exhibit VII. d. The applicant shall construct micropaths between Lots 9 & 8, Block 1; Lots 9 & 8 and 19 & 20, Block 2; Lots 3 & 4 and Lots 14 & 15, Block 3 to add additional open space and amenities for the proposed development. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised ten (10) days prior to the Council hearing as follows: a. The applicant shall construct micropaths between Lots 9 & 8, Block 1; Lots 9 & 8 and 19 & 20, Block 2; Lots 3 & 4 and Lots 14 & 15, Block 3 to add additional open space and amenities for the proposed development. b. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred percent replacement as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5; contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, (208-489-0589) to schedule an inspection to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees from the site. c. The applicant shall include two (2) stubs streets; one (1) to the north (parcel #S0428325600) and one (1) to the south (parcel #S0428336630) to connect to the future collector street as depicted in Exhibit VII. d. The applicant shall construct the entire street buffer, sidewalk and three-foot berm along N. McDermott Rd. with the first phase of development. e. The six-foot privacy vinyl fence proposed be placed at the top of the berm to provide sound attenuation for the future SH-16 expansion. 4. Commission shall determine whether there are adequate amenities and open space for a subdivision that will have approximately 750 single family homes at completion. 5. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 147 of 153 Page 28 6. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. 7. If a public stub street replaces the location of the stub street common driveway, condition numbers 6 and 7 above will not apply. 8. If there are any irrigation easements greater than ten-feet in width, they shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet in width and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council per UDC 11-3A-6D. 9. The rear and/or sides of 2-story homes on Lots 16-27, Block 1 visible from the arterial street (i.e. N. McDermott Rd.) are required to incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the public street. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement. 10. Future homes constructed in this phase shall be consistent with the approved elevations and design guidelines contained in the recorded development agreement. 11. The amended development agreement shall be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for the proposed development. 12. The preliminary plat is approved contingent upon City Council approval of the associated modification to the Oaks North and South development agreement. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 1.2 As proposed, the water distribution network can supply 1,500 gpm flow at build-out. If a fire flow greater than 1,500 gpm is needed, applicant shall contact the Public Works Department to determine availability. Each phase will need to be modeled individually at the time of platting. 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 148 of 153 Page 29 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 addressed 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 January 17, 2019 – Page 149 of 153 Page 30 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/159193/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160226/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 150 of 153 Page 31 E. PARK’S DEPARTMENT Nothing required. F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159240/Page1.aspx G. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159446/Page1.aspx H. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160089/Page1.aspx I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159537/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 rezone the subject property from the R-15 and R-4 zoning districts to the R-8 zoning districts and to develop 82 new single-family residential homes. Staff finds that the proposed map amendment complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. (see section VII above for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in the adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the subject request is for a rezone. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 151 of 153 Page 32 B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission’s or Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05- 1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 152 of 153 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 D Project File Number: H-2019-0129 AZ, PP, VAR Item Title: Public Hearing for Stapleton Subdivision H-2019-0129 by Stapleton, LLC, Located at the SW corner of S. Meridian Rd./SH69 and W. Harris St Request: Meeting Notes: �'� �� f, 2 -2 (-1 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for S tapleton Subdivision (H-2018-0129) by S tapleton, L L C, L ocated at the S W corner of S . M eridian Rd./S H 69 and W. Harris S t. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2019 – Page 153 of 153