Loading...
2019-02-21MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 6:00 PM 1.Roll-Call Attendance __X__Lisa Holland __X__Andrew Seal __O_Rhonda McCarvel __X__Reid Olsen (Left at 6:47PM) __X__Ryan Fitzgerald __O__Bill Cassinelli 2.Adoption of Agenda Adopted as Presented __X_ Jessica Perrault - Chairperson 3.Consent Agenda [Action Item] A.Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Pine Four-Plex CUP (H- 2018-0135) by Amanda Bidwell, neUdesign Architecture, Located at 645 W. Pine Avenue B.Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hill's Century Farm Wireless Communication Facility CUP (H-2018-0087) by Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless c/o Powder River Development Services, LLC. Located off the Southeast corner of E. Amity Road and S. Eagle Road C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Excalibur Metal Design (H-2019-0139) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 1322 E. Watertower St. D. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Approved 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 may be 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 Harvest Church Preschool (H-2019-0007) by Church of the Harvest, Located at 831 W. Main St. Approved 1.Request: a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center on 0.83 acres of land in the O-T zoning district Page 171 B. Public Hearing for Real Life Church (H-2019-0004) by Real Life Church, Located 1098 N. Hickory Ave. Continued to April 4, 2019 1.Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a church and ancillary daycare center on 0.68 acres of land in the I-L zoning district C. Public Hearing Continued from January 17, 2019 for Stapleton Subdivision (H-2018-0129) by Stapleton, LLC, Located at the SW corner of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69 and W. Harris St. Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled March 26, 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 9:56 PM Page 187 Page 205 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 21, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 21, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Acting Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Members Absent: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel and Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Reid Olsen __X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald ______ Rhonda McCarvel _______ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening, Ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on the date of -- what's today? February 21st. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I don't believe we have any changes or additions. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as printed? Perreault: So moved. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION. CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Pine Four-Plex CUP (H- 2018-0135) by Amanda Bidwell, neUdesign Architecture, Located at 645 W. Pine Avenue Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 4 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 2 of 79 B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hill' s Century Farm Wireless Communication Facility CUP (H-2018-0087) by Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless c/o Powder River Development Services, LLC. Located off the Southeast corner of E. Amity Road and S. Eagle Road C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Excalibur Metal Design ( H- 2019-0139) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 1322 E. Watertower St. D. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have multiple items on the Consent Agenda. Are there any removals from the Consent Agenda or changes? If not, can I get a motion? Olsen: So moved. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda as printed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: At this time I would like to give the audience -- and bear with me as my very able chair is sitting next to me sick, so she's happy to be here, but can't talk and thank you for letting us delay you guys a little bit. We had a meeting with the full City Council a little bit before this and we were just taking a break in between. So, I appreciate your letting us take a little break in between. At this time we will open each item individually and start with a staff report in regards to how the application a d here s to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application, responding to staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open to public -- to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet -- actually, it's -- it's a tablet now, so if you would like to testify, please, make sure you sign up for the application on the tablets in the back and we will go down the list and make sure everybody has a chance to testify. Any person who wants to testify will come forward and have three minutes and wish to do so. If you're speaking in behalf of a larger group or an HOA and there is a show of hands on who they will be speaking for, they will be given ten minutes to speak on behalf of the HOA. After all testimony has been heard by the -- the applicant will have an option to come forward and close the testimony and have ten minutes to do so on that, to close the discussion. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to discuss and, hopefully, make a recommendation or a decision on the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 5 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 3 of 79 application. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Harvest Church Preschool (H- 2019-0007) by Church of the Harvest, Located at 831 W. Main St. 1. Request: a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center on 0. 83 acres of land in the 0-T zoning district Fitzgerald: So, at this time we will turn to the staff and open the public hearing for -- and I'm looking for -- H-2019-0007, the public hearing for Harvest Church Preschool and we will start with a staff report. Stephanie, it's all you. Leonard: Thank you, Mr. Acting Chair and Members of the Commission. The first project before you this evening is for a conditional use permit. The site consists of 0.83 acres of land that's zoned OT, Old Town, and is located at 831 North Main Street. To the north is East Pine Avenue and commercial or -- and retail space zoned Old Town. To the south is retail and restaurant, zoned Old Town, and to the east is North Main Street and retail and commercial space, zoned Old Town. And to the west are residential properties, which are also zoned Old Town. In 2018 the site received CZC approval for group daycare, which allows for up to 12 children. The applicant is requesting a CUP to operate a daycare center for up to 60 children in the existing church building. The daycare center is proposed to operate with three staggered class times. The first class time starts at 8:30, the second at 11:00 and the third at 3:30. Classes are set to finish at 6:00 p.m. The staggered class start times should help to alleviate site congestion and allow for more parking opportunities. However, staff does recommend the applicant provide further information regarding the enrollment for each of those staggered class times to further assess what their parking and circulation needs are adequate. There are 46 existing parking sites on site, which exceed the UDC standards for Old Town. However, the UDC does allow the Commission to require more restrictive standards in analyzing a conditional use. If the Commission determines the dirt lot to the south to be used as an extra parking -- or as an extra space for parking -- so, this site here -- the applicant shall improve the lot in accord with UDC standards and a cross-access shall be provided to adjacent properties. If approved the applicant shall amend the existing CZC to establish the new daycare center use and if Commission does require the improvements for parking, they will also need to submit a design review application to be reviewed by staff. No written testimony was received on this project. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report and will stand for any questions . Fitzgerald: Are there any questions for staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and your address for the record, sir, ma'am. Butterworth: Ben Butterworth. Address is 3128 South Gunnel Avenue. That's in Meridian, Idaho. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 6 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 4 of 79 Richter: Joanne Richter. 2301 Lower Bluff Road, Emmett, Idaho. Butterworth: First of all, thank you for hearing us on this conditional use permit and one of the reasons we actually initially started launching this, just so the commission team here is aware, is because of the need for the preschools in our community. We actually -- it was started out of us trying to meet a need in our city and going through and we read an article that listed how there were wait times for preschool age children and up to a year in advance sometimes to -- in order to get into preschools and so we as a church decided that what we wanted to do is meet a need in our community, so we started with that, got our approval for the CZC as you heard earlier and at this point it has grown to the point where we are -- with the exception of a few times slots, are at capacity. So, we would like to extend this to meet the need in our community. We keep our -- our fees to a very minimum just to pay our staff. W e actually don't pay to the church any sort of rentals at this point, just because we are trying to make it an area to meet a need in the community and our teachers and our staff are very qualified, very wonderful people who really should be getting paid a whole lot more, but they have decided to help us out. So, to address the one question that was brought up before the recommendation is the parking situation. We are not a hundred percent sure where it will land as far as which time slots will be the most -- in the most demand and so it is hard to say, because we do not have a baseline of which to base, you know, which ones will be the highest demand areas. The morning tends to be a little bit more in demand, but other than that it is just something where as it's staggered, especially for pick up times, it is -- we haven't had any sort of issues at this point and also we do not have any plans, but one of the comments that was listed in the application was that we may develop the dirt lot. We have no plans to develop that dirt lot for parking at this time. We would not be using that for parking for parents or staff, because it is a dirt lot and does not meet with city codes. Other than that, we are just thankful for your time and we would really appreciate your thoughtfulness on this. Okay. And Joanne doesn't want to say anything. Fitzgerald: Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Do you have an outside area for the children to play in and can you -- excuse my voice. I'm so sorry. Can you share with us more about -- is this going to be an educational daycare or is it just, you know, can you elaborate on that? Butterworth: Yeah. Absolutely. At this point we do not have an outside play area. It is more scholastic based. We do have some indoor areas that we use for play. Well lit. Open windows to help with the lighting. In our upper -- what we call chapel area. It's on the plans as you would see in -- that's listed there and it is a very educational program and is not -- we had a hard time trying to figure out what we were actually supposed to apply for, because it is not -- we don't see it as a daycare, it is a preschool. It is a -- we use Abeka curriculum as our base and it is a very wonderful, great curriculum based that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 7 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 5 of 79 -- oh, actually one of the parents here wants to testify on it a little bit later and just say how great they love our preschool and so it is very educational and -- yeah. The only -- the -- the biggest caveat for us that was requiring this -- so it was not seen as a as -- what's the word I'm looking for? A religious education as well, is because we were offering it to three year olds instead of four year olds. Otherwise, the state law did not require that we work with Idaho STARS, but because we wanted to work with three year olds as well to open that up for the community, we decided to go that route. Perreault: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. Fitzgerald: Follow up? Perreault: Will -- will any of the -- will any of the children be there the entire day or is each child limited to a three hour time period and are you going to set limits for each of those blocks of how many can be there at a time? Butterworth: Yeah. So, the -- some children are there all day, based on the need for it. The -- the best scholastic time really is in the morning time and -- and, then, it's the options of the -- how long they really want them to stay. So, it -- it does come down to the 8:30, 11:30 and 3:30 time slots. We have it set as a -- as a 6:00 p.m. time slot, more so just for the parents that have the -- the high need for that, but very few have chosen that at this point. Seal: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a quick question on the pick up and drop off. Is there a procedure in place where you have staff members out to receive the cars or is it more just we are going to park and bring the kids in? Butterworth: Yeah. At this point we have the crosswalks that are set up, cones set up, reserved parking signs, because we want to make it very clear and very available . We have put out the child safety flags at this point. As it grows we will have staff members out there, but with 12 children at this point it's not a very high need . W e do lock the doors after 9:15 every morning just for security purposes and, then, our number is posted so they can call and have a staff member come and unlock it after that. Seal: How many children are you looking at in order to have something in place for the direction? And the reason I ask is, you know, being a parent myself and having to go through this, sometimes -- especially in the downtown area like this, traffic congestion can be a really big deal. Butterworth: Yeah. Correct. Yeah. We would probably be looking at -- I would say about -- about 20 kids and that's where we would be at. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 8 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 6 of 79 Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just one clarification. Sixty kids total, not 60 kids at a time, or is it 60 kids at a -- per class period. Butterfield: Well, that's a great question. It depends on what's actually a llotted in there. The way it -- I read it as -- according to the law is 60 kids at a time is the way I read that. But if that's not correct I would appreciate the Council telling me that. Holland: I'm looking at staff, because it looks like they have got -- Fitzgerald: Stephanie, do you want to clarify? Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I believe our code -- maybe Bill can correct me if I'm incorrect, but our code does say that we need to state the maximum number of students allowed, so that we can approve that number here. So, if you're thinking it's going to be 180 compared to 60, that's a difference that we would need to discuss and -- Parson: Yeah. Commission, I think the intent behind the code on that particular requirement is -- I don't anticipate them having 120 -- 120 kids there all at one time. As Stephanie said in her presentation to you, it's staggered. But, yes, our code does require that you deliberate on the number of children for that facility . But I also want to preface that the building code will also dictate as to the number of children that can be in that facility at one time. So, there is a couple things working against them on this, but certainly if you're comfortable with that number, I think we want something in the conditions of approval either say as allowed by building code maybe the more flexible route to go , but if you're -- you're comfortable -- I'm not sure if -- if your curriculum says no more than 30 children -- what is it per class for those time frames, if you would elaborate on that a little bit more. Butterfield: Well, due to the class sizes it's about -- no more than 18 kids per class, but we have multiple rooms. The other thing is because it is a preschool it's not a -- typically a Monday through Friday -- most parents don't want their kids coming five days a week is what we are finding. There is some that do, because their kids are very -- at that age class driven and they thrive in that -- that kind of environment, but there is a lot of kids that find they just do better at three days a week. So, when you limit to the 60 kids total students, what you're doing is you're -- you're really saying about 30 at a time. So, that's kind of where that lands, because some parents are going to want two, some parents are going to want three. So, we built it to meet the parents' needs and fit the -- the community need there. Holland: Mr. Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 9 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 7 of 79 Fitzgerald: Follow up? Holland: Follow up question. So, is the daycare just running Monday through Friday for the most part or are there weekends, too? Butterfield: No weekends. Holland: Okay. And one more question, too. During the week, obviously, the church isn't doing services on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, but are there other purposes happening throughout the church building on the same days that you're doing the preschool? Butterfield: Yes. So, they are -- actually Joanne would be the best one to answer that. Richter: So, right now we have mainly the women's Bible study, which is on Friday morning and we do have a prayer meeting that's on Tuesday morning, but it is over by 7:00. Some people are still around, but if your question is concerning availability for parking, we have that already sorted out with our 40 some parking spots. So, it actually works really well in the way we have it right now it works -- we have got plenty of parking. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Staff had mentioned in their staff report a parking lot that is not currently paved that may provide additional parking. Can you comment to their suggestion on that and what your thoughts are? Butterfield: Yeah. Earlier I did mention that we do not have any plans to do anything with that gravel parking lot -- or that -- it's not actually a parking lot, it's a gravel lot is what it is. So, we are not planning on using that for any sort of parking. Perreault: If it's in the Commission's desire to do so, is the church open to --- or is the -- are you guys open to that consideration? Richter: We don't have the funds to do anything with that lot and I think sometimes it gets called a parking lot, because a lot of downtown people will park there and go eat at a restaurant or different things like that. But right now you could propose what you want and, then, we could go back to our table and see what we could do. But right now as of today we probably aren't sure what we -- I don't know. That's a big question. It's a lot of money. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 10 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 8 of 79 Fitzgerald: Do you own that property? Richter: Yes, we do. Fitzgerald: Okay. That's a whole different discussion. Okay. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Butterfield: Thank you. Richter: Thank you. Pogue: Mr. Chair, I would just point out that in UDC 11-4-3-9 under daycare facility, Section A-1 states that in determining the type of daycare facility, which includes daycare center, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator 's children, is the determining factor. Fitzgerald: It can be staggered. Thank you. Chris, do we have public testimony? Johnson: Mr. Chair, there is one person signed in and I apologize if I'm mispronouncing. Lily Mulyar. Fitzgerald: Ma'am, thank you for being here tonight. Please give us your name and your address for the record, please. Mulyar: Lily Mulyar. 584 East Chateau Drive, Meridian. I'm sorry, I get so nervous public speaking. Fitzgerald: We will take care of you. Don't worry. Mulyar: Thank you. Try to remind myself it's only you guys that I see. I have a daughter and she's a very strong willed daughter that we have and so she's -- she was three and a half when we started -- almost four and we were looking for an option for school. She's very smart, very intelligent, and really all we found was that Abeka program that would work really well for us personally and my sister does it for her kids, but there is nothing locally that I could, you know, take her to and that she could have somebody teaching her and I just couldn't see her sitting in front of a computer listening to a teacher with how strong willed she is and we actually heard about this opportunity and that it's flexible and it was just a huge blessing to us, because I have two kids with disabilities and -- sorry. And I take them to therapy five days a week and for me it's a very big blessing to drop off Isabel, so she can learn and improve and to be taught by somebody which I -- I don't know that I would have the time to do myself and she has thrived so much. She -- the educational part that they offer, our daughter went from knowing all her uppercase ABCs -- she's actually a beginner reader and this has been since September. It's been a very huge blessing for us, because she has learned so much. They are really good with discipline. She follows the rules. They follow through and they are very consistent and they are very kind and loving and I mean I have only amazing things to say about their Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 11 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 9 of 79 teachers. Their teachers are just so good. Their teachers just think outside the box, depending on which child it is. You know, our Isabel is just very smart, but she -- she is quick -- quick to catch on, but she will fight you. But the teachers always follow through and she learned that what they say goes and she follows the ir directions and she is -- does all her homework and she has learned so much and just a quick example is her teacher was so smart, she said I'm going to give you homework to actually not go to your parents' bedroom. In four years she's always coming at night and we are telling her not to and that -- just because how much she listens and respects her teacher, she actually listened to that and she has no longer come to our bedroom since October or September it was and -- I mean -- and just on the standpoint of Isabel moving forward, she's already a beginner reader. So, for us it would be really nice if they could expand and give her the opportunity to go next year to a higher skill class group , because if she -- if I just put her in a regular daycare, because she's -- yeah, she won't be five until November, then, you know, it's -- I feel like I'm going to actually hold her back by not letting her have the opportunity to get into a slightly higher educational point , if that makes sense. And so for us this would be huge. I have three, maybe four nephews that are planning -- my sisters are planning to put into the school. So, just that alone is going to increase their number. I can rave about the school. My sisters have all seen the difference. Our daughter is so much better discipline wise and her knowledge and how much she 's soaked in has improved so much that all my family sees the difference , so -- I mean I drop her off five days a week and with my children, you know, with disabilities they have disabled parking and they always have the cones and, you know, marked spots, so I have never had to like search for a parking spot or anything, I just park right at the beginning right by the door. So, it's really easy in and out and it's just -- I really hope that they could expand and give me the opportunity. Otherwise, I just have to home school her with the -- Abeka program myself and it will be really hard for me, so -- Fitzgerald: We appreciate you being here, ma'am. Thank you very much for your comments. Mulyar: Sorry I'm such a crybaby when I'm nervous. Fitzgerald: We appreciate your passion and your -- is there anyone else in the audience who would like to testify on this application? Would the applicant like to come and close the discussion or do you guys have anything else to add ? Olsen: I do have a question of the applicant. Fitzgerald: Okay. Ma'am, please, state your name and address for the record please. Bryan: I'm Diane Bryan. 2183 West Santa Clara Drive, Meridian, Idaho. And I'm like -- my husband and I pastor the church over there, but my daughter's adopting a little child. After two little children from the foster care system and this little child has been very incorrigible and the woman that's there -- we have a couple women there that are just outstanding, brilliant, smart, know how to capture the most needy child and bring them into a really happy environment and I just want to say personally just as a grandma what Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 12 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 10 of 79 I'm seeing with my grand -- my granddaughter to be -- we are going to adopt -- I think they are going to adopt in a few months -- just the change and she's been in the program for three weeks and I feel like it's a great program. So, many parents don't know what to do with their children, they are kind of lost and they want to keep them near and keep them at home, but, you know, it's pretty tough and pretty hard when you don't know what to do and we have these women that have had years of experience , they are educators and they have decided to come back down from their higher education to work with little children. Really cool program. I'm happy. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Would the applicant like come back. We have a real quick question for you, sir. Commissioner Olsen, go right ahead, sir. Olsen: So, you're an existing program and you're expanding to take in four year olds? Butterfield: So, we currently take three and four year olds, because that's the standa rd preschool age in our education system and we would like to expand that. Right now we are capped at 12. One of the comments you heard earlier was expanding to another level of preschool education is essentially what we are looking at. So, like a pre-K kind of situation. But it still fits under that same umbrella. Olsen: I see. Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I apologize. Going back to the parking questions. The necessity for that as a Commission is that our role is to make sure that the community -- that we both meet the needs of the applicant, but that the community is also not affected -- affected in a -- in a negative way and so what would you say are the amount of vehicles for church staff, volunteers, individuals visiting the church and teachers, parents, that may be there helping, volunteering, what's the overall number of vehicles that are there during the day that are not parents dropping their children off? Butterfield: You know, that's actually a good question. Joanne, can I get you to answer that for me, please? Richter: We use about ten parking spots for staff and we do have a Bible college at the church, which operates from early in the morning until 12:00 o'clock and so we have some student parking in our west parking lot and they are -- they have to park over there and walk, because we keep our main parking lot -- or larger parking lot open for the preschool and we -- like Ben had said earlier, we have signs out there that -- that's reserved parking for the preschool. So, that gives us plenty of parking for parents coming to drop off their children or pick them up and we can extend that if we need to and right now it's working out great. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 13 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 11 of 79 Fitzgerald: Follow up? Perreault: Do you typically have siblings that are coming together where there might be two or three -- or I guess they probably don't have three -- three five year olds. But where there might be two that are coming together? I mean where you're not having to -- Butterfield: Yeah. We do have some that are coming in as multiples or -- Perreault: Multiples or -- Butterfield: Yeah. Uh-huh. Perreault: Okay. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? Butterfield: If I can also go back to your statement. Also some of the staff that come to the church that she mentioned, the ten, they also enroll their children as well. So , that helps alleviate some of that. Perreault: Okay. Richter: And we have a lot of part-time staff, so they come and go throughout the week. So, it's not like consistent every day. So, the parking needs can change a little bit. Yeah. Perreault: Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Richter: Anything else? Fitzgerald: I think we are good. Thank you. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on this application. Perreault: So moved. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0007, Harvest Church preschool. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Commission, it is properly before you. Any comments? Holland: Mr. Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 14 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 12 of 79 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go for it. Holland: I will go first. Everyone wants the silence. My first comment is I really like when churches can use their space besides just on Sundays, because I always hate seeing an empty building just sit empty. I think having a preschool center makes a lot of sense for this facility. There is definitely a need for more preschool facilities throughout the valley. There is a lot of -- a lot of kids in our region that need education and need opportunities, so as far as the function I think it sounds like a good fit for a conditional use permit. I don't have a lot of concerns with parking, because I know on Sundays a building like that houses many more people than they are looking at for the Monday through Friday. If you're looking at real parking issues, it would probably be more for the Sunday events than anything else. You know, I have walked through this building in the past. Attending at one point. They have got a lot of great classrooms in there and I mean you can see that on the floor plans that they have submitted, too. There is a lot of space to spread out and I think it -- it looks like a good fit to me. That's first comments. Fitzgerald: Commissioner No Voice, would you like to say something? Madam Chair, would you like to speak? Perreault: Again, I appreciate everybody forgiving my voice this evening. This is -- I mean we have heard a daycare and early education application for this one is un ique, because typically they have their own building space and so you have the multiplicity of uses happening in one building and people coming and going. So, this is -- in that -- in that there is multiple uses happening in the same building, even though it is much larger than a daycare would be. I think that's what makes it a unique decision. For the most part it sounds like the applicant has already thought through how the vehicles are going to move, who is going to be on site, security issues. They are already running the daycare -- I don't like calling you a daycare. Early education center. Because there is a difference. It sounds like they have already thought that through and, then, they are not necessarily going to take it from currently 12 students to 60. I think that was the main concern is that you're not doing this for the student jump job at one time and so it sounds like that they will -- they will appropriately staff and adjust things as necessary as they bring on new students. So, that -- all that to say I'm in agreement with the staff's recommendation. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal or Commissioner Olsen, do you have -- Olsen: I believe this is a good application. I don't think -- I see no problem with it. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, any comments? Seal: I would agree and I appreciate the educational factor , too, and not just a daycare, the fact that there is actually a curriculum to follow and -- and you brought people in that actually are testifying as to the effectiveness of it. Fitzgerald: And I would agree. I -- obviously you're doing something exceptional with that family behind you, so kudos to you guys. I -- as you grow and look to -- I -- I would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 15 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 13 of 79 love to see something that's outside. That's just -- I'm a -- get kids outside and let them play kind of thing. So, I would love to see something -- if you guys -- as you grow would love to see that -- something in the future, whether that's taking them to a park or something like that, but I -- I think this is a good move for the city, so -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more additional comment I just want to make, too, is because this is in our business district in the downtown area, the one nice thing is that when you have more people coming to a facility in the downtown, dropping the kids off for a couple of hours or three or four hours, they might be going to a restaurant in the downtown , they might be going to walk around. So, it drives economic development a little bit as well. Just another comment to make. Fitzgerald: Great point. Holland: Just to make sure after the consensus of the Commission -- I don't think there were any concerns with anyone here about having the 60 kids at a time. Was there anything we need to stipulate about that or would you be comfortable with a motion that has wording in there about 60 kids at a time or as allowed by the building code? Perreault: Mr. Chair, can I ask a clarifying question? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go right ahead. Perreault: To staff. Was that -- was the 60 children request made by the applicant or was that something that the staff had -- had recommended as a maximum or how did that number come about? Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant had indicated that they wanted to do 60 kids maximum and our code does state that it needs to be a maximum number of clients. It reads: The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated the improved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. So, a number would be great. And, additionally, if you would -- if you're not wanting to require the parking lot, we will need to strike that from the conditions in the staff report. Fitzgerald: That was my -- Leonard: So, just make sure you mention that in your motion. Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just to provide comment on my previous testimony on -- on the requirements. So, even though this -- you may -- the Commission may say 120 maximum or 60 students maximum -- maximum, if the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 16 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 14 of 79 building code comes back and it's more restrictive, they are going to be capped to that number. So, that's -- that's the point I wanted to make here . It's not -- that's why it's important that we have a maximum number. But, again, if it -- if your number is greater than what the building code allows, they are going to be capped at what the building code allows. Just clarification on that for the record. Fitzgerald: And, Commissioner Holland, I think your motion to that point -- I think per Andrea's comments before, I think that having the building code stated in there would probably be a good thing and I don't have a need to refer a parking lot. I'm not sure what everybody else's comments or thoughts are for the paving of that parking lot -- or the dirt lot. Seal: Mr. Chair, if I -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: If I could ask Mr. Parsons. Do we know what the maximum capacity would be for an educational facility like this? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't. I don't. It's going to be dependent on the space and the age of the kids. There is a lot of factors in the building code that kind of dictates what happens in that space. Seal: And the reason I ask is because we have the -- the dirt lot in question where as the facility would grow we would probably want to see something in terms of more parking space or, you know, an outdoor facility for the children to play in. Perreault: Mr. Chair, I don't -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: -- think we as a Commission specifically need to require the paving of that, but would recommend highly to the applicant that -- that that be kept in mind and I totally agree an outdoor play area would be excellent. I know if you construct that on that, then, that limits parking for your other services. So, that's -- that's the -- the -- I'm sure the concern primarily. But I don't -- I don't think that as a Commission we need to require them to pave that -- or ask that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, did you have a thought or a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm happy to make a motion, unless there is other further deliberation we need to make. Fitzgerald: Motions are always in order. Holland: All right. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 17 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 15 of 79 Fitzgerald: Go forth. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to -- and we are not actually recommending this to -- sorry. Pogue: That is correct. Holland: We are just approving the conditional use permit; correct? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Holland: Okay. So, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve the conditional use permit for Harvest Church Preschool, file No. H-2019-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2019, with the following modifications: That we would strike the condition in the staff report of requiring the parking lot to be paved and that we would limit the use to 60 kids at a time or maxed out at what is allowable by building code. Perreault: Second that motion. Fitzgerald: Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Congratulations. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Olsen. You are absolutely -- Commissioner Olsen needs to leave and so we appreciate your being here for the time you could be, sir. Olsen: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We will see you next time. Olsen: Okay. B. Public Hearing for Real Life Church ( H- 2019-0004) by Real Life Church, Located 1098 N. Hickory Ave. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a church and ancillary daycare center on 0.68 acres of land in the I-L zoning district Fitzgerald: Okay. At this time I will open the public hearing on H-2019-0004, Real Life Church, and we will start with the staff report. Leonard: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next project before you is for a conditional use permit for a church and an ancillary daycare. The site consists of 0.68 acres of land. It's zoned I-L and is located at 1098 North Hickory Avenue. To the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 18 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 16 of 79 north is an auction facility, zoned I-L. To the south is undeveloped land and office space zoned I-L. To the east are offices and it's also zoned I-L. And to the west is North Hickory Avenue and undeveloped land, which is also zoned I-L. In 1982 as part of the Upland Industries project, this property was annexed as part of a large area of land that was annexed. A preliminary plat and final plat for Treasure Valley Business Center was processed in 1984 as well and a planned development was processed in 1991 that categorized this and other land as I-L, but also able to develop into residential, retail, commercial or industrial land. A CUP is being requested to use the existing 7,500 square foot building as a church and daycare center as required in the I-L zoning district. This property is subject to the planned development agreement that I just spoke of, which allows them a mix of uses. The applicant is requesting to operate a church with t wo Sunday services between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Attendance at their current location is about 100 adults and 50 children. They plan to accommodate more people at the proposed location. The daycare is proposed to accommodate 54 students Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. There are currently 31 parking spaces available on the site, which exceeds the UDC standards for the I-L zoning district. However, due to the number of projected parishioners and daycare students, the director has approved an alternate compliance request to allow for parking standard alternatives. One of those proposed alternatives includes shared parking agreements with two properties to the north of the subject site. The applicant is currently -- those are depicted here to the north. The applicant is currently discussing an app -- or an agreement with this property to the south. They are finalizing kind of the wording with that. The applicant has also worked with ACHD to allow for on-street parking along Hickory Avenue throughout the weekends. The parking agreements do provide an opportunity to accommodate parking needs for church -related traffic on Sundays. The staff is concerned that church and daycare members may park in unimproved areas out of convenience, which could create code enforcement issues and a nuisance to surrounding properties. Since the church's hours of use occur on Sunday mornings, extra parking required for that use may not interfere with the parking needs of surrounding properties, which would help to mitigate congestion and parking issues. As parking needs for the daycare can be staggered, the impact on surrounding properties might also be mitigated. However, we do feel that a permanent solution to parking would be preferred, since the shared parking agreements can be canceled by either party at anytime and are only applicable during the weekend hours and onsite parking would be more readily available, if -- if they could figure something else out. Staff was under the impression that the same entity would own the subject property, as well as the property to the south and so recommended this lot to the south be improved and paved. However, the applicant actually intends to just purchase the property, the subject property that is depicted here and so the -- the property -- or the property to the south wouldn't -- may not be an option for permanent pavement or expansion of parking options. Written testimony was received from Jim Boyd, who is concerned with the amount of on-site parking provided for the proposed church use and daycare use. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and will stand for any questions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 19 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 17 of 79 Fitzgerald: Any questions for staff? Thank you, Stephanie. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please give us your name and your addresses for the record, please. Or names and addresses. McNulty: Matt McNulty with neUdesign Architecture. 725 East 2nd Street in Meridian, Idaho. Jordan: I'm Justin Jordan, the lead pastor. 35 East Fairview, Meridian, Idaho. McNulty: So, new to -- Madam Commissioner -- or Madam Chair and Commissioners, Justin is the pastor and I brought him up here to help with any of the particular questions that came up in the previous session. So, just kind of little background. Real Life Ministries, they launched in 2008 with a focus to reach the world for Jesus one person at a time. They have leased various facilities throughout the Treasure Valley and at this time we are taking a step to establish a more permanent home at the present facility and, hence, the CUP at this time. So, there are two sessions for church on Sabbath -- or on Sundays with a forecast of growth of about 120 adults with children that -- that come with them and just to clarify, the daycare is not a daycare, they are also seeking a preschool setting, which we feel would be a benefit to the surrounding area for those that work there, as well as the future developments that are relatively close to the current property of single family and multi-family dwellings. So, just trying to be a good member . Real Life Church has reached out to various community neighboring parcels to alleviate parking concerns and have established the additional parking a greements, which total up to 48 between the two property -- the two properties, which, again, are only four Sundays. As the staff has mentioned, they have worked with ACHD to adjust the current sign language or parking on Hickory for the weekends only. Both the daycare times, which run from 9:30, until noon, and, then, there is a break in between that session and the following session, which is at 1:00 o'clock until 3:30 and both Sunday services we fill our lot. At times that traffic is very light in the surrounding area, but it also provides a benefit, again, right to those individuals. And as far as students for the preschool program, there are multiple programs. The individuals can be in the morning or the afternoon of both, but there is that break in between the two sessions that an adult have to arrange , you know, some sort of alternative time for -- for that hour. Currently they are -- they are looking at two teachers and two classrooms and, then, about 16 three year olds and about 18 four year olds. With the future to, you know, grow into that about -- 54 number that was mentioned previously by the staff. There are currently no plans for external playgrounds or anything of the nature. However, right as things grow, you know, that could be explored as -- you know, that is a benefit to children. As was mentioned, the church only has funding to purchase the current property and the 31 finished parking installs. So, that's because -- I guess I will end there and open it up for questions. Fitzgerald: Are there questions of the applicant? Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Chair, so I'm curious, the staff report says that you currently have about a hundred adults and 50 children that she mentioned and -- but the capacity would be about 200. That only allows for 50 more. Is that going to work long term? And I'm just curious Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 20 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 18 of 79 about that, because I'm wondering about your lease agreements with the parking and whether those are annual or -- if you're buying the building I assume you intend to be there for a long time, so how does that play into these arrangements with the parking and, then, your growth and how does all that tie together? Jordan: Go ahead and answer? McNulty: Yeah. Jordan: So, in sitting down with the businesses to the north and the one in the south , there is 30 parking spots where we have currently, the one on the south I believe has 25 and they have allotted another 30 to the north from reading public auction and, then, Diamond Line deliveries offered 20. So, total 30, 25, 55 -- it would 85 and another -- about 105 parking spots, not including, obviously, parking on the street with ACHD as well, so -- so, that would be the total amount of parking spots that we would try and utilize. When it comes to those agreements I have sat down with each of the business owners and asked them about that in regards term and they -- each of them said I'm going to partner with you on this, but I need to be able to protect my asset and my private property as well and so any moment I want to cancel the agreement, I want to be able to do that and I said, okay, I understand that. So, to the best of my ability to create a partnership agreement with them, but they also said a t any moment if they wanted to step out, that they need to have that ability, so -- Perreault: And has the church considered a contingency plan if that happens or what conversation has been had in that regard? Jordan: Yeah. I mean the next step would be to -- if -- if any of that were to happen, then, we would have to go back to the drawing board of talking to other businesses in the area and say, hey, we have had a good relationship with these other businesses , but is there a way for us to partner potentially in using park -- parking in other spots as well, so -- other than that I don't have a -- don't have a plan other than that for right now. Perreault: One more question. Has there been any conversation that -- I apologize if you already mentioned this. Has there been any conversation with the -- the owner -- the same owner to the -- to the parcel to the south about the church acquiring that piece and using that for the church's purposes or -- Jordan: The property to the south? Perreault: The property to the south. Jordan: And seeing if we can use their land or buy their land? Perreault: Or at least lease it, although it's my understanding that that would need to be paved in order to do that, but I would assume that at some point there will be another Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 21 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 19 of 79 building that will be put in there and that paving would be used. Has there been conversation with the owner? Jordan: We haven't had any conversations in regards to using that land yet, but I -- I have reached out to our realtor to figure out there is a shared use access -- shared access when it comes to there being parking there in the future and I haven't heard back yet from him on that. That just recently came up yesterday, so -- Perreault: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I guess the -- can you give us a little more information on the -- the modifications to the street signs that you have worked with ACHD on and exactly what -- what was accomplished and, you know, what do they say, how are you trying to steer traffic? McNulty: Yeah. So, currently the street signs on Hickory state that there is no parking at any time. The new modified -- modified sign is for weekends only. So, it allows for weekend only parking and, then, weekdays there is no parking allowed on that street. Jordan: Okay. Can I also just clarify that there is no parking just in the front of the building that we are purchasing, because the business that was there was a Century Pediatric business that didn't want loud vehicle noises in front of their business and so just in front of the property there is no parking, but to the north of the business and to the south there is street parking that's available right now. So, they would be changing it to parking allowed in front of -- from my understanding in front of our -- our building for -- for Sundays -- Seal: To the north of the building? Jordan: To the north of the building as well, yeah. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: My question -- just -- I am curious to -- to know why the area that's around this site is very industrial in nature. I don't know if that causes any concerns h aving a daycare facility next to a lot of, you know, different industrial companies out there , but I don't know if you would be willing to share any thoughts about why you kind of looked at this area in an industrial area, instead of maybe another commercial area in town. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 22 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 20 of 79 Jordan: You know, we have looked -- we looked at different places for about a year and the reality is is we are on a budget and there isn't a lot of commercial buildings that are available within our budget and so this was the one that met our budget, but also we have a desire to stay in Meridian, too. We feel called to be in Meridian and so with our budget the buildings that are available and staying in Meridian, this was one of the only ones that we know of at the time that were available and that could actually work for us. We looked at one other building here in Old Town, but it wasn't cost effective for us to actually look at remodeling it and use -- allowing it to be used for our use, so -- Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The modifications that were done to the signage to allow for parking to be there on the weekend is things -- is that something that's permanent or is that something that they are doing just for now? I mean -- and the reason I ask is because as things develop around there there could be other businesses, obviously, that go in there that have a lot of weekend traffic as well. McNulty: At this time and it is permanent. However, things -- things could change in the future, but the agreement between ACHD and the church is that they will be paying to replace the signs for the new verbiage, so -- Seal: Thank you. Fitzgerald: How do you all intend to manage people parking on -- I mean that you have got a bunch of vacant land around there and I think code enforcement for the city is a very important thing, how do you plan to -- to manage that? Jordan: For right now I went and looked at the property a couple times for where the parking lot is paved, there is a -- there is a cement barrier that if someone wanted to drive over top of it I guess they could if they wanted to, but there is a cement barrier that's actually prohibiting people from going into that vacant dirt lot and so, obviously, if we see our members -- if we were to purchase the building doing that, it -- we would be enforcing saying you can -- that's private property, you can't -- you can't utilize that property, so -- Fitzgerald: I think my concern would probably be the bar across the street, but that's -- I mean similar situation. Jordan: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Any additional comments or questions? Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Chris, do we have people signed up to testify? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 23 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 21 of 79 Johnson: Yes, Mr. Chair. First is James Boyd. Fitzgerald: Mr. Boyd, you want to come forward and, please, give us your name and your address for the record, please, sir. Boyd: My name is James Boyd. Reside at 7103 North Spurwing Rim Place, Meridian, Idaho and I'm the guy that wrote a letter in and you probably have read my letter so I won't try to repeat it, but I -- for the record I will state that I -- I'm not opposed to the church occupying the facility. What I am opposed to is the church occupying -- not meeting the parking standards for -- that are -- that are needed for -- for -- for the facility and I realize that they have got some -- some parking off site and I look at a map and see how far people have to walk to -- to get to the church and knowing that most of us, including myself, want to park as close we can to the front door, I think that it's -- it's going to be -- especially this time of the year a tough one get people to walk that far and one thing you brought out is they are industrial properties and the first property to the north, the photo you see is -- it looks like an empty parking lot -- big, big lot, but you didn't buy it recently, it's an auction facility, it's all -- all fenced and gated and I'm sure they probably have a plan. You would have to ask them what the plan is, but when you look at it I don't see parking. It's just jam full of product for -- for sale or for auction and, then, private property on further to the north of the trucking facility, I don't know if it operates just Monday to Friday, most -- I don't know, but if it's a 24 hour facility, weekends, trucks coming and going -- most truckers run weekends, then, you got trucks coming in and out of there and you got kids and all that parking going to church, you got is a safety problem and so that's my -- my thought and I know some of the other parking lots around that they have asked, you know, that people aren't willing to -- to sign an appropriate long-term parking arrangement and it sounds like maybe these folks aren't either. So, if you don't have a long-term agreement, you don't really have much of anything. So , bottom line I just think other businesses, other churches in the community have been the community for a long time and, you know, every city has parking requirements and there is a purpose for that, you know, so you can handle the parking and -- so, like I say, while I don't have a problem with the church, but I think just an underside -- undersized facility for where it -- I would think they would want to grow to and meet the parking, unless they want to acquire land to do that and I'm sure -- also I guess one of my other thoughts in my mind I -- they state that they are strictly a Sunday morning church. The church I attend and some of the others, you know, they usually have, you know, women's Bible studies, they have got youth groups and so on and so forth. So, a little bigger impact I think that's probably been presented this evening and that's why I'm here. So, thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir, very much. Appreciate it. Johnson: Next is Sam Johnson. S.Johnson: Hello. Sam Johnson. I work at 2701 East Pine in Meridian. That's 83642. I'm here on behalf of the owners of the -- all the four -- the four lots that are just across the street of this property, as well as the two office buildings that are just south of this . We -- we own those four lots that are vacant currently. The building at 8501 Hickory and, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 24 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 22 of 79 then, also the newly built building at 2501 State Avenue and -- and we are -- we oppose this for the same reason that the previous testimony is given, that it fills like this is an incomplete application that doesn't -- the parking is -- is a concern. The -- the -- I completely understand a joint partnership with temporary parking agreements. I'm also the -- my main job is chief of staff for Scentsy and we have used and allowed others to use parking lot -- our parking lots for different events in the community and well aware of those temporary challenges that those -- the challenges that those temporary agreements cause, the damage, the -- the wear and tear on grounds and landscaping that -- that occur. But for a permanent, long-term solution I don't -- there is no permanent long-term solution for enough parking spaces for this property. So, we are concerned that -- that -- that will encroach into our property, cause our property, you know, issues. I'm not completely in agreement with why ACHD decided to change the parking on that street , on Hickory, without even notifying or discussing those -- that change with us, the other property owners. So, similar -- similar concerns with Mr. Boyd, but I stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions? Thank you very much. S.Johnson: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Chair, there are no additional sign-ins. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify on this application? Do you want to close, sir, or do you want to testify? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back forward. McNulty: I just have kind of a brief synopsis to share. I do want to kind of point out that we do meet city standards for current requirements of parking, albeit t hey are pretty -- they are pretty -- they are pretty lax for industrial areas for a purpose and a reason, as well as running the numbers in our office we meet them for any commercial zone as well for any adopted and approved city parking. They have -- you know, the church has gone above and beyond basic code to provide additional parking for their members at this time. But what funds they can afford to do. Jordan: Since the beginning of our existence as a church ten years ago we have been a church that desired to be a giver to this community, not takers. We have -- we have invested heavily into this community because we want to make the city great and we desire to show this community the goodness of Jesus that we profess and serve. One example of how we have done this is by investing and giving back. In the fall of 2016 we gave every teacher and student at Meridian Elementary, which is a Title One school that shows with poverty, 500 brand new pair of shoes as a way of saying we b elieve in you and we appreciate you. We have been a mobile church meeting in Mountain View High School for the past eight years and have a fantastic relationship with them and I had the honor blessing of their faculty over the years. When we approached the city about purchasing this building we were directed to work with ACHD on street parking and partner with local businesses on parking agreements. We were fully aware that the use of parking on Sundays would be problematic without a plan of cooperation with ACHD Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 25 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 23 of 79 and business neighbors when it comes to this facility. ACHD responded quickly after reaching out, they would be able to open up parking for us on Sundays. As you already know, we have parking agreements with two other businesses and one that we are in process with. We have done our best to provide solutions that we continue to be a blessing to this community, like we started out ten years ago. We desire to see a community come together and support each other. We have seen and heard churches in downtown Meridian who have come against similar obstacles and have come to create solutions. Churches that have parking agreements that I have been told of -- Harvest Church and Meridian United Methodist Church. Parking is problematic at both these churches, but the community coming together has created solutions to those obstacles and allowed them to be a blessing to this community. Our potential preschool that we desire to launch in this location during the week is driven by the fact that we can serve those at work and live close by. In addition, the lack of preschools that are wanted by residents in this community would be a benefit to those who will be living next to us as a resident -- residential development is being built to our west currently. We do not believe parking will be an issue as parents will just be dropping off and picking up. They will not be parking for a long period of time. I have driven down Hickory Avenue nearly every Sunday at 9:30 a.m. since our December 11th meeting with the city. I have counted one car on all those Sundays parked on Hickory Avenue. With our parking -- the parking agreements and street parking allowed by ACHD, the impact hours being on Sunday morning when all businesses are closed. We do not believe that we will have a negative impact on our community. If we did we wouldn't be moving forward with the desire of purchasing this building, as we only desire to have a positive impact on our city. In addition, we are only impacting others through street parking and partner agreements on two percent of the total hours given in a week. We are asking you would grant us our CUP and allow us to have a permanent base of operations in this city for years to come so we can continue to be a blessing and partner with other businesses and public entities in making Meridian the great place it is. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: My concern -- this is a question and a statement. My concern regarding the parking agreements are really involved -- really involve liability. So, if you have somebody -- and, hopefully, your church members would not do this, but there is always a possibility of those parking lots not being cleaned, not being appropriately maintained and someone gets injured and there is a legal action that's taken and then -- and, then, the owner of that parking lot is counter-suing the church for -- for coverage; right? So, that being said, I would say that -- I don't know if you have had those conversations, but that might be a reason that a parking lot agreement would -- would fail and that parking lot owner would withdraw because the lease agreements do allow them to do that and, then, all of a sudden you're -- you're having difficulty and you're having church services every Sunday. So, it's an immediate challenge. So, that being said, has there been any conversation Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 26 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 24 of 79 amongst -- amongst your decision makers, regarding those possibilities and how would you address that? Jordan: Yeah. We reached out to our insurance agent and said can we extend liability insurance on these parking agreements -- on these parking lots and he has informed me that we can extend our liability insurance onto their parking lot, so that if anything happens during those hours our liability insurance would step in and take care of any -- any accidents or injuries that take place. Perreault: And for clarification -- I know that's private property, but, obviously, then, the city gets involved, that there is police services and other services that are being provided. So, that -- that's the nature of the question, so -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland? No? Holland: No questions right now. Fitzgerald: Good. Holland: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Jordan: Thank you. McNulty: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Holland: So moved. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: And the application is before the Commission. Thoughts? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, you look like you're ready to go. Seals: Still formulating. I mean I very much appreciate the -- the nature of an educational facility like this for -- for children. The concerns that I have are definitely -- and I think it's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 27 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 25 of 79 been shared by everybody here -- is definitely the parking and traffic situation. You know, we are creatures of convenience, so the fact that ACHD came in and did allow parking on Hickory during the weekend to me is -- to me that causes concern and as you can see there is already, you know, one person here that's -- that -- there are two people here that are giving testimony to that, that that is a concern that there is going to be parking on that street in an area that there -- we don't know what the use of all that other land is going to be at this point in time. Is it going to be a business that will be impacted by that. If it is, then, obviously, those businesses have the ability to go back to A CHD and ask for that -- you know, the signage to be changed as well and, you know, considering it was prior no parking, then, they would likely have a leg to stand on with that. So, I would like to -- as -- my concern with the parking is that there isn't anything permanent in place and that I believe that there does need to be something permanent in place in order to help facilitate parking, you know, as a plan A, not necessarily a plan B and there will more than likely be more activities that go on as the church expands and grows. As, you know, somebody that, you know, has attended churches as a youngster and youth programs and things like that develop and take off and they are very -- you know, they are very much an integral piece of the church, but they are also something that's going to cause more -- more traffic and other things like that to happen in the church itself as it does grow. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair. This is a tough one for me, because, obviously, we always want churches to be successful and they are a great community asset and you have done your due diligence, you have been working really hard with ACHD, with neighboring properties and trying to figure out a plan and a formula and I know how tough the real estate market is right now, especially if you're going to be considering a new construction project it's really tough to find land at affordable prices to be able to put up a building like this. My biggest concern is echoing my fellow Commissioners' thoughts here is parking could be a big challenge for this site and I know they are looking for a long-term location and I think that's what makes it more challenging, too, is it doesn't allow for a lot of growth opportunity, too, be on where they are at right now and it's also an area that's industrial in nature and I always like to see the highest and best use we can for -- for areas of town as we -- as we can and this area wasn't necessarily designed for this type of -- of use, even though it certainly could be retrofitted and -- and -- and function there, I -- I worry about the parking, I worry about the circulation. Pulling up just a Google image search of what that street looks like, there is -- it looks like there is sidewalk on one side of the road, but not on the other side. So, the -- the two properties that they have looked at on the north would have that sidewalk on there, so that -- that's good, but if they ever decided to work with the group across the street, there might be some challenges, too, with having safe pedestrian access to the site. So, I guess that I echo similar concerns. I worry about the parking and I worry about the long-term plan if -- if their partnerships didn't work out. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 28 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 26 of 79 Perreault: I think my fellow Commissioners said it very well. I'm -- I agree with all of the concerns that -- that they brought up and it also limits the -- the church's ability to have -- you know, if they want -- in their expansion want to have additional events and functions, that that might limit them and you just don't know what -- what may come. So, the question I have for my fellow Commissioners is do we want to continue this and allow them to discuss possible parking options with the owner to the south , because they -- that owner does own both -- both pieces or -- or your thoughts. Fitzgerald: That was actually more my -- my exact question is do we want to allow them to go back and figure out if they can get permanent parking in place for at least an extended period of time, because I want to see churches grow in our community and do well and I have the same comment Commissioner Holland has said, using industrial space in our city is going to be used well and it's the best use possible. But I don't want to turn the good pastor and his church away from having a space that they can utilize. It sounds like you guys have been great neighbors to Rocky Mountain High School and that's great. We just want to make sure you're successful and not at war with your neighbors immediately out of the gate and so what are your thoughts, Commissioners? Because I would love to hear if we want to give them a chance to see if they can put something more permanent in place that they can bring back to us for comment or what are your thoughts? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Thank you. I think it's worth, you know, definitely letting -- letting them see if they can come up with, you know, an alternative to the current parking situation, something that's going to be more permanent or something that would include some kind of permanent expansion to the parking that's -- that's already there. I think they have done a good job in approaching -- in approaching this. I mean, obviously, you worked with ACHD, you got the signage that's there. You have worked with your neighbor s. But the -- the fact that a lot of this is temporary in nature is -- is definitely very concerning and -- and, you know, we would like to give you another chance to -- to see what you can do about it to make it more permanent. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Chair, I agree with Commissioner Seal. I would like to give the church additional opportunities to see what other options they may find in and also just want to say we see a lot of applications and I appreciate how well you have tried to see through everything that the staff has recommended to you prior to coming and that you have had those conversations and made every attempt to figure out a solution prior to coming. That's very appreciated by -- by the Commission for sure. So, yes, I think it would be -- and I -- if I understand it correctly, Andrea, would we need to reopen the hearing to continue? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 29 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 27 of 79 Pogue: Yes. Yes. And, then, the clerk might be able to provide you with a date. Perreault: Okay. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One other thing we didn't really talk about, too, is -- is the site itself and I know in the last application we were talking about having an outdoor play area if there is going to be a daycare facility or preschool learning facility, whatever it might look like. The one limitation I see with this site is it's going to be really tough to have some of those outdoor amenities because of the nature of the surrounding area and so while I'm opening to continuing the application to discuss potential parking solutions, I wish I could go help them and have a perfect building that's in the right location for them, but that's not something we have. We are looking at the application that's in front of us, but I see some other challenges potentially with the site, too. So, I don't want to lead them down a rabbit trail to come back and, then, have other challenges to address later, too. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: On that topic I have a question for staff . Is it in the Commission's purview to allow conditional use permit for the church operation with -- with their parking as is or if we continue and they have another solution , but not regarding the daycare usage. Are those -- is it all together or they -- can they be separated or what's our -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, you can -- the -- the request is really twofold, daycare and church. So, you can deny one and make the findings for denial or what you think they could do to gain your approval for that particular use. The other thing that I wanted to provide clarification on is a couple things happening with this application. One is as the applicant has testified, they do meet current code for the parking, but this is a conditional use permit and you can require things -- require more parking, so that's -- that's not my point, but my point is our conditions in our staff report we have required the applicant to pave the property to the south, 1070, to include more parking. That's a condition in the staff report right now. So, if you feel that's something that's going to mitigate your concerns, that's a condition and the applicant can work with the owner and figure that out. The other -- the other issue that I don't want to get too sideways on is the offsite parking, the shared parking. The directors, staff, already approved that offsite parking through alternate compliance. Certainly, again, that -- so, we are kind of -- we are in a gray area there where we have already agreed to let it have some of that offsite parking, so we made those findings that they did meet what code requires. The code requires that the parking be within a certain walking distance from the proposed use and it met that criteria. They were to have an executed agreement. Two of the three properties have given us that. So, they have executed that agreement. What Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 30 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 28 of 79 code doesn't say is the terms -- how we handled the -- the terms of that agreement and that's where it's -- we -- so, we are -- don't -- don't hear me wrong -- don't get me wrong, we are concerned that there is -- we can cut this off at any time. I think that's a valid concern. But right now when we analyze the alternate compliance request for the shared parking, we found that there is a sidewalk -- so, the areas that they are going to use the shared parking has a pedestrian connection to this property. That's check one. Two, there is a shared agreement for two of the properties. Two --check two. And, then, they are within that thousand foot linear distance that they needed to be . So, that's why we made a finding that it was consistent and it did meet code and we supported the alternate compliance and, then, to throw that on top of it is they worked with ACHD to get a segment of that road to be on-street parking. So, they remove those hurdles. So, I think the applicant -- he's stated it correctly, he's done everything that staff's asked him to do. Now, it's in your purview, whether or not you want to see more onsite parking. That's really what you need to dive in and so if you feel like that property to the south of this needs to be landscaped and parked as recommended by staff, then, that's where you may want to continue and give them direction to work with that property owner and figure out a parking solution to provide more onsite parking for this use and the daycare use and it is within your purview if you want some kind of outdoor space , too. Code doesn't require it, but if that's something, because of the industrial nature of this particular use for a daycare and having children it makes some sense to have -- maybe it does have -- make some sense to fence off the back here and use that lawn area or do something. I don't know at this point. But I'm just giving you things to consider as you deliberate . Fitzgerald: Well, I'm going to take us further down the rabbit hole , then, because I -- so, we talk about coordinate code enforcement things where we lose the ability to -- whether it's annexation or it's -- you know, we are going through a CUP or whatever it is, how do we make sure that after five minutes after this conversation is over those agreements go away. How do we make sure that -- I mean because that's my biggest concern is there is no certainty for the home -- or the -- the property owners around that that those additional -- those conditional agreements go away. How do we enforce that? Parsons: Well, Mr. Chair or co-chair, Members of the Commission, it's -- it's -- it's a land use approval. It's -- it's an alternative compliance and that's one of the requirements or findings that we have to make that they are meeting the intent of that shared agreement. That's a condition that they comply with that alternative compliance. So, if the adjacent properties see that parking is an issue, they call the city and, then, we pull that and we see that that's been revoked, then, we have an issue and we can revoke their approvals. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Additional questions, comments for staff? Thoughts? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I -- I still struggle with this one, but I think at a minimum I would like to see more onsite parking for the nature of the reasons we have all talked about, whether that's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 31 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 29 of 79 working with the property to the south and seeing if they can purchase it and pave it. If there is a daycare facility I would like to see some outdoor space, because of the nature of the area that it's in and its industrial in nature. I would like to see a fenced area that kids could play in safely, especially if they are working with little kids, but just a couple thoughts, too. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts, Commissioner Perreault? Perreault: Stephanie or Bill, do we have the approximate square footage of the building? Leonard: Square footage? Sorry, I didn't hear. Perreault: I'm curious about -- Leonard: I think it's approximately 7,500 is what the applicant had stated in the -- Perreault: I'm just thinking about interior versus exterior use and space and -- and how much space there is. I agree with Commissioner Holland that I would like to see some more onsite parking, just -- I don't know that it's our responsibility to figure -- figure out what that looks like, but I think that that is -- is necessary. Seal: I would agree with that. I mean, essentially, more parking is going t o be required, so it's -- if we can allow them to figure out how to address that, I think it would be in, you know, the best interest of everybody. That way it gives them a chance to, you know, take a stab at that, see what they can come back with, and, then, we can talk about that at the next meeting, without -- I mean, essentially, that's -- to me I agree with the outdoor area -- I mean for anything that's going to be considered a daycare. I mean we, you know, addressed that in the last application as well, where, you know, obviously, as -- the more children grow we would -- we want to see them, you know, move outside when possible and -- you know. And especially in a daycare educational facility. But the parking piece for sure is something that I think needs to be addressed. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, they are requesting approximately 54 students, just six less than the last application, and in our conversation the consideration that was in my mind for -- for why we would not require them to have the exterior, because that's a very large building and their space there, but this is a much much smaller space for almost the same amount of students that would be present and so thinking that through a little bit more, I -- I think it would be wise for us to require an outside area be used as part of the daycare. Fitzgerald: And there is space to the east, at least along that property line that's grassed in. I'm not sure how it can be utilized, but there is a little bit of space there. I think the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 32 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 30 of 79 parking issue is not necessarily daycare, it's the Sunday mornings and that's my challenge. Does anybody have a consensus thought to formulate into a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I wonder if we open up the -- the public hearing and we could ask the applicant to come back forward if we were to open it to address any of these concerns before we make a continue motion, if we would like to do that. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for Andrea. In the past I believe you have that the purpose of reopening the hearing is just to get a date set and to not continue with testimony. Pogue: You can open it and continue it for a purpose that is stated and there could be additional testimony received on the reason for the continuation. Perreault: Okay. Pogue: And we like to have a date to which it's set over to, which is provided by the clerk. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: I'm fine with opening the public hearing if you would like to hear from the applicant. I have no problem with that at all. Perreault: Okay. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to reopen the public hearing for Real Life Church, H-2019-0004, for the purpose of asking the applicant some additional questions and also establishing a date to continue the hearing, if the applicant chooses to do so. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing on H-2019-0004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Would the applicants like to come forward real quick. So, we can ask you a couple questions. Commissioner Holland, do you want to start? Holland: Sure. Mr. Chairman. We appreciate you guys being here and you guys have done a lot of work and, again, we want to reiterate we want you to be successful and we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 33 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 31 of 79 want you to find a good long-term location that's going to work really well for your church. There is, obviously, some concerns about long-term location from some of the comments that were made from public testimony, some of the written comments received, the industrial nature of the area, but I don't know if you have any thoughts on what we were deliberating on here on whether or not you would be open to working with the property owner to the south to create some additional onsite parking. Jordan: The -- I guess the quick answer would be yeah. I don't know how that's going to happen, but we can go back to an ownership -- or our eldership and talk about this is what the city wants, do we want to walk down that path or not. I don't -- I don't know how we are going to do that financially, so -- Perreault: Mr. Chair? I would suppose that you could have a conversation with the current owner about a lease or something like that, but I would encourage you to -- to have that conversation if you haven't already. The question I have is is there a particular reason that it's no longer working for you to be at the high school ? Is there something about that that's causing you to pursue this avenue or is it fine for you to stay there if you choose to take a different course? Jordan: Right now we have a great relationship with Mountain View. At the same time at any moment if they told us that they no longer wanted us there or that they weren't going to have custodial staff to be there for us on Sunday morning, we would have to go in and figure out another alternative. We have a good relationship with them, but, obviously, it's not long term. It does have limitations in the sense of classroom space. You know, we have -- we maxed out our classroom space there when it comes to use of -- the teacher has to be willing to open up the classroom when it comes to us renting and using that facility. It has limitations in the sense of, you know, it's -- do we have our own home and that has implications with our -- our congregation and -- and all of that, but how we can also bless the community in other ways, so -- Perreault: Thank you. I -- again, echoing their thoughts, we -- we definitely think churches are a huge asset and that -- that we want to make it as possible for you guys as we can, so -- Fitzgerald: This is a tough one. So, we -- we -- if you're willing and able to take this on we really -- I think we -- we would like to be able to give you an opportunity to bring us something that -- that might fit more in with our -- I think what -- I think what the staff has outlined for us is that we need additional parking onsite and I think -- and I think with the daycare piece having some outside -- some type of an outside activity that the kids can utilize. I think that those are the two directions, if I'm not mistaken, that we are looking for. Is that something you're willing to do if we give you guys some time? Jordan: I would be open to investigating to figure out how that could possibly take place. Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 34 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 32 of 79 Fitzgerald: Okay. Because I -- what I don't want you to do is -- we want you guys to be successful and that's the biggest piece and I -- what I don't want to do is set you out for failure right out of the gate, where there is the challenges from the neighbors are immediate and that's a big concern of mine. Jordan: Do I -- do I -- sorry. Go ahead. Perreault: Oh. I was just going to say for clarification our options as a Commission are to approve or continue or deny and if we deny an application -- or in this case it is our final decision, it doesn't go to City Council -- then you're not permitted to resubmit that application for a year -- Jordan: Okay. Perreault: -- and so it's a benefit to you for us to -- to suggest a continuance. Just for your understanding. Jordan: Yeah. I appreciate that. Fitzgerald: Did you have any additional comment? Jordan: I just had a question in the sense -- am I allowed to -- Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Jordan: It seemed like there was some miscommunication that we found out about this week in regards to the city. They thought that we were actually leasing the building and that's why they brought up about that parcel of land before and my understanding from Jeremy at neUdesign he informed me that the city can't mandate or ask for us to purchase that land, as long as we are meeting code. So, is that -- is that true or not true? I don't know. Fitzgerald: We can't mandate that you're purchasing the land, but they can ask for offsite improvements to make sure you meet code or -- or Comprehensive Plan requirements and I don't want to put words in Bill's mouth, but I will let him answer that specifically, but they can ask for our offsite to make sure you're meeting the intent of what our -- our code says. Jordan: And so that goes back to what you were saying about potentially leasing that land is what I'm hearing you say. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 35 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 33 of 79 Perreault: So, not only can they ask for the offsite , but they could say we want you to have more onsite, which -- which only leaves you so many options and -- Jordan: Sure. Perreault: -- well, the reason we are suggesting that area to the south is because that was something that the staff had mentioned in their staff report as an option that you would potentially pursue, but, again, like you said we can't make you go buy that piece of property. Jordan: Sure. Perreault: If staff recommended that there were offsite improvements we could do that, but it sounded to us like that was a consideration that staff wanted you to make . Jordan: Okay. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: In looking at the -- the land that's available there, I mean, essentially, the -- the land to the south already has a paved area that looks like -- I mean instead of having to go and purchase a big plot of land or an ything if you just, you know, essentially, need, you know, some kind of long-term lease agreement or long-term agreement or understanding of, you know, being able to designate that as parking, stripe it out as additional parking to, you know, probably double the amount of parking that's available right there and, then, with the tenant or the owner of that land, when they go into business if it's a Monday through Friday kind of place, obviously, that's going to work for both places to have that parking there and available, so -- I mean something that if I were looking at this and, you know, thinking outside of the box, that might be something that I would bring to them as, you know, in order to have some kind of long-term lease agreement or understanding that's in place, you know, the ability to stripe that out and provide that additional parking at your expense and, then, when they develop that -- that business that they are going to also be using that parking and, then, it would be a win-win, something along those lines. So, you know, again, we want you guys to be successful and, you know, we -- we would like to see something come back on the parking, but, you know, also we understand that budgets are budgets. Fitzgerald: Thank you guys very much. We appreciate it. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Do we need to establish a date for the -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 36 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 34 of 79 Fitzgerald: Yeah. I was going to ask -- Perreault: I'm sorry, would you come forward. Fitzgerald: Sorry, gentlemen. I forgot. W hen -- when would you like to come back and see us? When -- Bill, when is our next -- sorry. As I'm reaching for my calendar. Johnson: Your next three hearings -- sorry, I'm not Bill, but March 7th, March 21st, and April 4th are the next three. Fitzgerald: You -- how long do you think you need -- it's March 7th, the 21st, or April 4th. Jordan: Just to be safe, I guess April 4th would probably best in the sense of I have no idea. I don't know how long the process will take. It could -- I don't know. But if I -- April 4th is the next date -- the latest date, I would be willing to -- Fitzgerald: We could -- and we can move it beyond that if you need to . Those are the next three. Jordan: Yeah. So -- Fitzgerald: And if you get caught into a situation I'm sure you could request a continuance from the city. Jordan: Okay. Fitzgerald: So, there is always an option for that. Jordan: Okay. Let's go April 4th then. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Jordan: Thank you. Fitzgerald: With that can I get a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move to continue file number H-2019-0004 for Real Life Church to the hearing date of April 4th for the following reason: That we would like the applicant to come back with -- after doing some due diligence to see if they can work with the neighboring property on the south to get more onsite parking for their facility and also b ring forward some considerations for outdoor space for the daycare -- preschool facility. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 37 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 35 of 79 Perreault: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion in a second to continue the public hearing for Real Church -- Real Life Church, H-2019-0004, to the date of April 4th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your patience in working with us. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving to the last item on our docket. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes. Perreault: Can we take a five minute break? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Perreault: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We are going pause for a moment. (Recess: 7:43 p.m. to 7:49 p.m.) C. Public Hearing Continued from January 17, 2019 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 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 Fitzgerald: So, we will reconvene the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and we will open the public hearing on H-2018-0129, Stapleton LLC -- or Stapleton Subdivision. Sorry. And start with the staff report. Allen: All righty. Thank you, Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a variance. The variance does not require Commission action, although the Commission can recommend -- make a recommendation if you wish. This site consists of 35.67 acres of land , zoned RUT in Ada Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 38 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 36 of 79 county and is located at the southwest corner of West Harris Street and South Meridian Roads and State Highway 69. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are single family residential uses zoned R-4 and R-9. To the west is future multi-family residential zoned R-40. To the south is future mixed use developments zoned RUT in Ada county and to the east is State Highway 69 and across the highway is future mixed use development area. It's currently undeveloped land. This property was part of a larger area which included the property to the south that was part of an annexation that amended the future land use map to change the land use designation from medium density residential to mixed use regional for the overall property. An annexation application was also approved. However, the development agreement was never signed, so the property was never annexed and the approval has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use designation for this property is mixed use regional. I will just read you a little bit about that designation from the comp plan. The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residen tial and to avoid predominantly single use development, such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Development should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 38.15 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district, a preliminary plat consisting of 213 building lots and 22 common lots on 35.67 acres of land and a variance to UDC 11-3H-4B for access via State Highway 69. The site is proposed to develop with a mix of residential uses consisting of 212 single family residential units, 96 of those attached units and 116 of those detached units and 28 multi -family residential uses, seven structures, fourplexes, for a total of 240 residential units at a gross density of 6.73 units per acre. A concept bubble plan was submitted as shown that depicts how this site is proposed to develop and how the adjacent property owner to the south plans to develop the adjacent property with a mix of office, multi-family residential and commercial uses. The overall mix of uses planned for this area is consistent with that desired in the mixed use regional designation. In all the staff would prefer to see a higher density in this area because of its proximity to a major transportation corridor, State Highway 69, the density which falls at the low end of the six to 40 units per acre desired in the MUR designation is within the desired range at 6.3 units per acre. There is a north - south collector street designation on the master street map across this site and that is shown there on the map on the right. It was -- the intent was for -- to provide access between Harris Street and Amity Road. This designation was placed on this property back in 2008 when the future land use amendment to mixed use regional was approved because of the intensity of uses planned with the associated development and that development plan is shown there on the left and the need to disperse traffic to the e xisting and future signals at Harris Street and State Highway 69 and Amity and State Highway 69. The street was intended to serve as a backage road for the commercial development along State Highway 69 as required by the UDC. However, the property was never annexed and the property wasn't developed as intended. The proposed plat depicts a short segment of the collector street at the north boundary from Harris Street to the first intersection and at the south boundary from State Highway 69 to the north to the first intersection and to the south boundary for future extension. And that is just -- go to this map right here. The collector street will go to here and, then, it will come in here at the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 39 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 37 of 79 southeast boundary and, then, go up to this street and, then, to the south. Staff and ACHD agree that the construction of two discontinuous collector streets meet the intent of the master street map and doesn't preclude construction of the southern segment in the future and is acceptable in the absence of the previous development plan. One access is proposed at the north boundary via West Harris, a collector street, and one full access is proposed via State Highway 69, although ITD is only in support of a right-in, right-out, left-in access. The police department is not in support of the left-in access to the site for safety reasons. A collector stub street is proposed at the south boundary for future extension. Staff is requiring access to be provided to the west to the future multi- family development where none is currently proposed in accord with the comp plan, which encourages interconnectivity between developments, and the UDC, which requires local street access to be provided to any use that currently takes access -- excuse me -- direct access from a collector street, which is Harris Street at the north boundary. The UDC prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. Public street connections to the state highway are only allowed at the section line road and at the half mile mark between section line roads. This access is at the quarter mile. However, request for a variance can be made to City Council for the placement and/or number of access points to state highways as requested by the applicant with this deve lopment. However, findings do have to be made in order for Council to approve a variance as follows: The variance can't grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allow -- otherwise allowed in the district. Two. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. And, lastly, the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The plat is proposed to develop in five phases as shown on the phasing plan on the left. The first phase is dependent on access via the state highway. The second phase will have access via Harris Street, followed by the third phase at the corner of Harris and State Highway 69 and the fourth phase directly west of phase one . The fifth phase will be the multi-family residential development, which will require approval of a conditional use permit prior to development. But the applicant proposes the following improvements with each phase. The State Highway 69, South Meridian Road, roadway improvements, ten foot wide multi-use pathway and street buffer landscaping along the full length of the project boundary along State Highway 69 and South Meridian Road and phase two, the West Harris Street roadway improvements, including curb, gutter and detached sidewalk and street buffer landscaping along the full length of the project boundary along West Harris Street and installation of the traffic signal at West Harris Street and State Highway 69 when traffic warrants. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancies for each of these phases the associated improvements, as proposed by the applicant and required by staff, are required to be completed. If Council doesn't approve the variance for access via State Highway 69, the Harris Street improvements, including the signal, are required to be completed with phase one. The traffic impact study will need to be updated to reflect the new trip distribution and volumes. The preliminary plat will need to be revised and reconfigured to remove the access and a new phasing plan will need to be submitted. A minimum of ten percent or 3.57 acres of qualified open space and two site amenities are required for this development. The applicant is proposing open space and site amenities in excess of the minimum required. A total of 13.9 percent or 4.95 acres of qualified open space is proposed consisting of half the street buffer along State Highway 69, the buffer along collector streets, a few parkways along local streets, common areas containing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 40 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 38 of 79 pathways, a small dog park and a half acre central common area. Site amenities consist of a segment of the city's multi-use pathway system within the northwest pipeline corridor at the southwest corner of the site. A multi-use pathway within the street buffer along State Highway 69. A park with children's play structures consisting of a 24-by-36 foot play structure, swings, climbing dome, rock climbing boulders, basketball court, big wheel track and seating area with four foot tall wrought iron fencing with a gated entry surrounding the park for children's safety and a dog park for small dogs with seating areas. A six foot tall concrete fence on top of a four foot tall berm as shown there ten feet above the center line of the adjacent road is proposed in accord with UDC standards for residential developments adjacent to state highways. And that -- that is proposed adjacent to Stay Highway 69. The Carlson Lateral runs along the -- oops. Wrong way. West boundary of the site and that is in this common area right here and it has been piped. The easement for the lateral is outside of the adjacent building. The northwest gas pipeline runs along the southwest corner the site and that is this area right here and it lies within a 75 foot wide easement contained in a common lot. All development within this easement is required to comply with the Williams Pipeline Developers Handbook. Because of the narrow lots, which -- around 32 feet wide for detached homes and associated driveways, there is not adequate room for on -street parking in front of those lots for guest parking and in some areas parking is quite a ways away. W here attached homes are proposed there is room for approximately one space for every two lots for on- street parking. On-street parking is also available adjacent to common lots. The applicant submitted an exhibit as shown that demonstrates available on-street parking for the development, which amounts to approximately 109 spaces available for guest parking. Conceptual building elevations and photos were submitted for the proposed single family attached and detached units and the multi -family structures. The single family attached and multi-family structures are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Structures adjacent to Harris Street and State Highway 69 are proposed to all be single story in height, except for those on Lot 60 and 62, Block 1, which will be two stories in height and those are just these two lots right here. To avoid monotonous wall plains, the rear of structures visible from Harris Street -- Harris Street and State Highway 69 are required to have varied setbacks. This property is on a significant slope. The ground is quite a bit higher and it slopes down to the state highway. So, it's likely that these homes will be visible even -- even with the wall across the frontage. Written testimony has been received from Kimberly Porter, Evan and Annalyn Frazier, Sandy and Randy Nelson, Will Dilmore and they are all in favor of the housing options and affordability provided with this development. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat and denial of the variance. Staff is recommending a change to the development -- excuse me -- development agreement provision, number 1-F in Section 8, to require local street connection specifically, rather than just a vehicular connection to the west property boundary to the future multi-family development as required by UDC 11-3A-3A3. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. Any questions for staff? Not yet? Would the applicant -- Allen: Also on clarification -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 41 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 39 of 79 Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Allen: -- if I may. The applicant did submit a response to the staff report. One thing specifically they asked to not be required to provide painted curbs and no parking signs for the areas, like where the 27 foot wide street section was proposed where parking is only allowed on one side of the street. After I received the applicant's request I did touch base with Joe Bongiorno in our fire department and he did specifically say that he did want both the curb and signage provided. Thank you . Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Chair. Sonya, it states in here that the lots will be approximately 32 foot wide. Is the -- are the interior setbacks also less than five feet? Allen: They are. Yes. The 32 foot wide lots I believe are for the detached homes. The applicant can clarify if I'm incorrect. But, yes, they do have the three foot wide setbacks, unless a greater easement is required. Perreault: On all of the attached and detached structures? Allen: Yes. The R-15 district does allow a three foot wide setback. Perreault: All right. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening. Nelson: Good evening. Fitzgerald: Please identify yourself and your address for the record, please, ma'am. Nelson: Let's see if I can make sure I know how to work this. Good evening, Members of the Commission. My name is Deborah Nelson. My address is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise. I'm here tonight with the development team for Stapleton Subdivision. I think we can skip through some of these items, because Sonya has given a really thorough presentation. A couple of items to add to her description of the location that we are really excited about is this -- this property is also located close to Roaring Springs, Wahooz, the Majestic Theater, and a lot of other shopping opportunities that we think provide some additional offsite amenities for the residents. It's also close to schools and parks. Here is the detailed site plan. The overall density is 6.73. You can see here the centrally located large neighborhood park. There is also a lot of passive open space and landscaped areas throughout the development, including nice touches like landscape endings to each one of these streets, landscaped boulevard parkways coming into each side of the development on the north and the south . It's got three types of residential products. The single family detached we have got 116 of these units. These are two stories and range from 1,377 square feet to about 1,850. The single family attached we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 42 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 40 of 79 have got 96 of these units. These are two units attached with a shared wall . They are single level townhouses and these will border the existing public streets on both the north and the east and provide a really nice housing product for more mature empty nesters with that single story. In addition, we have got the multi-family townhomes, which are really, you know, vertically integrated apartment homes, because they each have an exterior entrance and so they really are structured more like townhomes. This is just conceptual at this point. Obviously we will have to come back with a conditional use permit for those uses. But there are 28 units there. And similar housing products have been used in numerous developments throughout the city and -- with great success. There continues to be high demand for the price point and quality of these home s as has been seen by the success of those developments , including Solterra and Sobe, Verado Estates and Movado Greens. Part of I think this success is also driven by the great amenities that these guys always provide in their developments and Sonya went through this in detail, so I won't spend too much time here, but just to hit a couple of things. This -- this play area that's in this community park is amazing. The fencing to keep everybody safe for toddlers to be in there, the -- the youth soccer field, the half basketball court, all the play structures, I mean it's decked out and it's -- it's open to the neighbors to use and the central location helps that. In addition, we have got the regional pathways with the ten foot wide regional pathway being constructed along the Williams Pipeline to the southwest corner and all the way along the east boundary. They are building 1,200 feet of regional pathway with this one small development. That's incredible. If you count all of the open space, not just what counts as qualified open space under the code the way that staff has counted it, they have got 6.9 acres at 19.3 percent. Significant. It has great pedestrian connectivity here. As the slide illustrates, there is more than a dozen access points on all sides of the development. This is going to create great walkability , not just for the residents of Stapleton, but also for the surrounding residents to connect them to the future commercial and mixed uses to the south and to the east. With parking staff commented that there are some narrower lots. That's -- that's also what happens when you have a higher density development and if it was even denser that would be even more concentrated and yet these guys have designed this in order to not just meet what's required by code, which is two spaces in garages and two on the driveway, but in addition their design accommodates at least 109 additional guest spaces on the streets. Phasing. Sonya went through that really well, so I won't go through this, but I just want to highlight that it's -- what's amazing about this phasing plan is that with phase one, even though it's just down here on the southeast corner, they will do all of the Meridian Road improvements with phase one. Similarly, with phase two, even though it's just in this northwest corner, they will do all of the Harris improvements with phase two. They will also bring in the entire community park in the center -- in the center with phase two. So, they are front loading the amenities and a lot of the expensive improvements that are going to benefit this neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood. As -- as Sonya mentioned, staff is asking for a condition of approval that requires a vehicular connection to the west that we have not shown on our plat. We are worried about that connection for a number of reasons. It doesn't fit within the design that we have got here. It also -- we are worried about the traffic and parking spilling over from this R-40 zoned site from apartment uses to come onto this property. This R-40 site has already been annexed and zoned by the city. That's when it received the R-40 zoning. At that time the city did Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 43 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 41 of 79 not require any connection. Nothing has changed. Their concept plan has private streets. So, it -- we are still within code for them not to have a connection here. Prior development of this -- or approval of this development here was also annexed and zoned. They did not require connection here to this R-40 zone, but they do have connection down here to the east already. Both of them connect up here to Harris to the mid mile collector, which is the appropriate street to funnel them onto -- to head east. Providing any kind of shortcut through this development doesn't really help those commuters get to where they need to go any faster than just coming up to the street that should funnel them. We visited with the property owners to the west, which this is the same developer for both projects. They do not need or request full access, all they wanted was emergency access, which we have provided right here. ACHD reviewed this -- this roadway network and approved it and even provided specific comment on that exact issue about whether there should be vehicular comment -- or vehicular connection to the west. Christy Little, in a comment to Sonya sent January 10th, said that if the city requires emergency access, that's fine. Vehicular access for the apartments will need to come through Graycliff and Harris Street. ACHD agreed that the prior developments had not been required to provide that connection and that the appropriate place for that higher density traffic was to go directly to the mid mile collector. A couple of additional transportation items . ACHD and ITD have both reviewed this and offered favorable recommendations and comments . ACHD has approved the plat and the proposed roadways. They have required a 25 percent contribution to the cost of the signal at Harris, which the developer is in agreement with. That will be paid as soon as the development connects to Harris at that final plat and if -- according to both ITD and ACHD there will be analysis of whether the signal is warranted beginning at that time and, then, annually and as soon as it is warranted the signal has to be constructed. Neither of those agencies expect the developer to pay more than their fair share and so if this development ends up having to front it at that time, if that's when the warrant come through, ACHD is going to start a road trust and ensure that other properties in this area contribute to that cost as well. In addition to commenting on the Harris Street signal, ITD has also provided preliminary approval of the -- the access that we have requested on 69, limited, though, not to be full access, but right-in, right-out, left-in. It's preliminary only in the sense that we just need to come forward with construction plans with your standard access agreement with ITD. They -- a little history here. ITD has approved this before, as has the city, when Hawkins first came forward in 2012, as Sonya mentioned, with the prior applications for developing both this property and the property to the south. They asked for three access points on Meridian Road. The city approved those through a variance. ITD approve them. And, in fact, they were constructed. Then the development did not happen and the property did not end up annexing into the city. With this development we have agreed to take out one of the two of those access points that falls within the Stapleton portion of that property, leaving just the access point on the south and ITD has agreed. They have looked at it again under their current traffic flows and their current safety evaluation and have decided that access there is appropriate, so long as it's limited to those three turning movements. This is an issue that's really presented for Council for their decision on the variance and modification we have requested, but I just wanted you to have that additional history of -- that we are asking for an access there, but we are also letting one go. That access is important, not just for the connectivity and flow of our development, but for the future Hawkins Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 44 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 42 of 79 development to the south for commercial uses there. Staff has suggested or requested staggered rear setbacks, not because this is required by code, but because they are worried about the aesthetic appearance of a monotonous wall plain along major roads where you have got a lot of houses backing up to public streets. We actually share that aesthetic concern and that's why we always build single story homes along those streets and so that -- that concern here doesn't apply, because given the height that we have already self restricted, all of the rear facing homes that are along Meridian and Harris, they are -- they will be single story. There won't be that second story wall that's facing and given the significant fencing and berm that is required along these streets, you don't see a second story wall. So, it's not an issue here. In fact, from these pictures you can tell that all you really can see is the contours of the roofline and given the space limitations we don't have much to work with to do the staggering, so we ask that that not apply here given the single story limitation. So, in -- in summary we did provide a response to the staff report. We have got some items that we are asking to be changed. We are mostly in agreement with the staff 's recommendation. We appreciate their recommendation for support. We ask you to also recommend this for approval with just a couple of items to address. We ask that the conditions of approval that were recommended by staff regarding the vehicular connection to the west and the staggered rear setbacks be deleted and, then, just a couple of modifications, clarifications on the signal timing. There was some language in the staff report that suggested it had to be done with phase one . I think Sonya has addressed that in her staff report and presentation tonight that she understands it will be with phase two and only when warranted and that's consistent with ACHD and ITD's conditions of approval. So, we just ask that that language reflect as they have recommended that. On the no parking signage, you know, ACHD restricts parking to one side of the street for certain streets within the development. We did look up the fire code language and it is an or, so -- and it is a residential development, so we would prefer the signage over the red paint on the curb and given the -- the fire chief's answer to Sonya, maybe the best way to handle this one that we would ask of you is to say, you know, in accordance with the building code, fire code language, that if -- if it is and if -- if that's required, we will -- we have to comply, but if it is or we certainly do want to preserve that choice and be able to put more attractive signage up to restrict the parking , rather than red curb paint. So, I have a handout just with those few items that's on this slide . It's just a printout of this slide, so that if you're in agreement with our request that you could incorporate those into a motion and so I will hand those to you and, then, I would stand for your questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Is there any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair. Could we go back to the site plan again, Sonya. Nelson: I can. Yeah. Let's see. I think. Oh, no. You're -- you're overriding me, which is fine. What do you want me to do? Do you want to get my hand off of it and you drive? Holland: That slide actually works great. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 45 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 43 of 79 Nelson: Okay. Holland: So, one question I have got for you. Just looking at Highway 69 -- and I know it's a popular road with a lot of people driving on it and it gets busier and busier every day, similar to Chinden Road, similar to State Street, similar to Eagle Road. I think one of the biggest challenges on the Commission is just making sure that we don't create another Eagle Road in the way that we -- we plan developments out and so in the initial site concept that come forward that didn't move forward there was a collector road that followed the west boundary, kind of backage road. Did you look at any other concepts of how a backage road might integrate better to exit traffic onto Amity further south through the other development that's being proposed to the south of you ? Nelson: Co-chair people, Commissioner Holland, thanks for your question. It -- with the change in the uses from the prior development, a backage road wasn't needed to support this level of uses now. That wasn't originally part of the Comprehensive Plan, that came into -- that master street map was adopted only in response to the Hawkins original proposal on this property and so the volumes of traffic we have just don't -- don't warrant that. It eats up a lot of the development space with nonfronting houses and -- and I think, more importantly, the city has already worked around it, because all of the development approvals that have come into the west have created a different connector between Harris and Amity just west of these developments that you can see here with a Graycliff Estates and so that -- there is an opportunity to get down there. You don't need to interrupt the flow of these properties to create yet another one. Holland: One more follow-up question. So, just looking at this, Harris would be a road that would be where the signal would be requested to be at and , then, you're also requesting a variance to have the other entrance to the south on this map to be a full access into the property or this would just be a right-in, right-out on that one? Nelson: Commissioner Holland, we initially requested full access, but we are in support of ITD's conditional approval to limit that to three turning movements only, right-in, right- out and left-in and as is the case with any access onto a state highway, ITD always holds the cards on when they take that away and require an even more restrictive median. So, in the future, you know, they may de termine that as safety warrants a right-in, right-out there. That's their determination. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Chair. Are you in -- in agreement with the staff 's comments if the Council does not approve the variance where they stated that -- that phase one -- that phase one would start off Harris Street -- or that you would change the phasing plan and submit a new plat and whatnot? Is there agreement from the applicant with that if Council does not approve the variance? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 46 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 44 of 79 Nelson: Commissioner Perreault, no, not at this time. That's -- our design and phasing plan, everything for this development is -- is intending to have that access to the -- to the south. It's, as I mentioned, not just critical for our development, but also for the development to the south to succeed to have mixed use and commercial there. So , no, not at this time. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thank you very much. Nelson: Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Chris, do we have -- Johnson: Mr. Chair, you have several. First is Ronnie Winks. Fitzgerald: Thank you for being here. Please state your name and your address for the record, please, ma'am. Winks: Yeah. It's Ronnie Winks. 2172 East Sharptail Street in Meridian. And I actually live in the Verado Subdivision and I'm actually a first time homebuyer, so there is a lot of struggles coming into trying to find a home in my budget for being , you know, a college graduate, having two degrees and, then, also trying to work as a public employee's payment -- pay scale and so trying to find anything that was a reasonably priced home for a first time home was ridiculous and so with this neighborhood -- we kind of stumbled upon it and the first thing we saw when -- since I grew up here in Meridian, went to school here in Meridian, left, came back and so I grew up here and wanted to move back home here and the first thing we saw was the park and so we were like, okay, they are -- they are ready, they got their park ready, but now they need homes. So, we always saw that when we would drive past on Ustick and with the home we were starting to look at other developments out in Nampa, because we heard it was cheaper out there and I'm like it's Nampa. And so it really -- wasn't feeling quite so great about living out there when my office was moving to the old HP complex and so looking at different developments, we were looking at CBH homes, Hubble Homes, we were looking at all these different options and looking at the prices, the starting price point for some of these homes out in Nampa just starting -- just for the home itself was around 200,000 dollars, plus if you wanted the land -- and plus you had to pay for the land the house was on, so that was like another 40,000 dollars and, then, if you want any type of upgrades it was another like five to ten thousand per each upgrade that you did and so it just started piling up and piling up and piling up and, then, when we came across this neighborhood, the house -- they don't -- you don't get to have the choice of like all your colors, but they have these options that's going to come in and they are like, hey, this is what's available, but you had everything upgraded. You have stainless steel appliances, you had quartz or granite. So, you had everything included all for this reasonable price and it would have been the same as the base price of that home out in Nampa, plus the land and I got all these upgrades included. So, I think it's a great -- great option and especially for first time homebuyers who want something that's got quality, but to stay in Meridian as well. So, I stand for questions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 47 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 45 of 79 Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Madam. Perreault: You said you're a resident of Verado; is that right? Winks: Uh-huh. Perreault: Have you seen any concerns regarding the parking or the proximity of the homes to one another or can you share with us any thoughts on that for our knowledge ? Winks: I haven't had any issues and I actually back up to the model home , too, so I was like, oh, great, I'm going to have to worry about all these people seeing into my house. I haven't had any issues once I got blinds. Didn't have to worry about that. And I'm actually right next to the park, so I have -- I'm a little bit on a different side, because I don't have a neighbor to -- to the east, but I will be having a neighbor to the west , because I am one of them that they are still getting ready for phase two, they are working on that, so I'm right at the edge, but I haven't noticed a whole lot of issues. It seems pretty good and what they do with these homes, if you have these windows that are next to each other, they put in like these kind of privacy type classes, so that it makes it a little bit better. So, I couldn't really tell a whole lot with mine behind me and it's been great, they take care of the yard maintenance -- maintenance, which is great, because if it's just me I don't want to sit and mow every week by myself and all that fun stuff, especially if it breaks and I have to call my father -- be like, dad, come help me, you know. Do that typical thing, so -- Perreault: Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Questions? Johnson: Next is Debbie Jeske. Fitzgerald: Welcome, ma'am. Jeske: Hi. Fitzgerald: Please state your name and address for that record, please. Jeske: Will do. I am Debbie Jeske. I live at 1886 North Chandra Avenue in Meridian. I am -- I live in Solterra Subdivision with my husband. It's a BlackRock home and I'm here to tell you why it works for us. We came from Anchorage, Alaska, and this is exactly what we needed and what we wanted. It is a small home and a small yard , but it's a positive thing and we even have green space, which we are very happy for. It's a comfortable -- comfortable floor plan and it's modern finishes and it is new. Lawn care is taken care of. We have a two car driveway and a two car garage. It's walkable . We have sidewalks. We have shade trees. And we even have evening light on the exterior in the front at dusk. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 48 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 46 of 79 So, it's also a safety measure. It's attractive, mature landscaping. I think we actually have larger, more mature trees planted in our subdivision than we personally would have planted in our three bedroom ranch home in Alaska. So , we are quite excited about that. It has a mixed play and sports space, very very similar to what is being proposed, and it is really very very nice. We do not have a ny children, but we do walk past it -- almost every day we walk the subdivision, we walk many of the subdivisions in the area. We enjoy our subdivision, because it is clean, it is compact, but it is also breathable and we really appreciate everything that we have. We appreciate the quality in the construction. We are in an attached one story home, so we are in a very comfortable space, a comfortable design, quality features. We also do appreciate -- we love the floor plan. It's very bright. We also believe, from what we have seen in the three and four bedrooms that they are also very bright, very well designed. We appreciate the siding. We -- actually, it sounds strange, but we actually do appreciate the siding. We come from a house that was sided with T111 on three sides, so we can really appreciate the siding. We also appreciate the layout. We actually do appreciate the fact that the one stories back up to one stories and two stories back up to two stories. We also appreciate what we believe is a staggered window placement between each of the units and we also believe that that carries through with the two story, as the previous resident had indicated with some -- a window treatment, some opaque window treatments and staggered windows. So, we really do appreciate that. So , I just have to say that it does meet our needs price wise and size wise and we really enjoy the subdivision and we enjoy the look. We think it's very attractive. We think it has a nice palette color. We think it has a very nice design and it's very consistent and, again, like I said before, it is clean, it's very compact, but it's also very breathable for -- for us. So, I thank you very much for your time. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. Johnson: Dennis Green. Green: My name is Dennis Green and I live at 2185 East Sharptail also in Verado and I will keep my remarks short, but, hopefully, not redundant. The reason I like where I live -- and I looked at just about every development in Meridian and Eagle. It was very affordable, but I don't want to imply that it was cheap. I have a very nice four bedroom , two and a half bath house that's laid out very comfortably. The quality of the construction exceeded all my expectations. They are very well built. And one of the areas I would like to talk about is the clean construction of the area . When you come into Verado, even though there is a lot of houses being built, you won't find any messes anywhere. They go through a great deal of trouble to clean up after themselves , keep the streets clean, keep the sidewalks clean. I personally really appreciate that. My other comment would be I would like to -- this -- this is very important to me. I found that the builder is a very responsible company and I will give you an example. I recently had a couple of adjustments that, of course, you have to make to a new house, a door being loose and they sent some -- and they have a website, all I had to do is fill it out, say what I wanted, it wasn't a day later that they responded. When can we come over. Well, they wanted to come over that day. It didn't work out. The next day they came over, they did the repairs, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 49 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 47 of 79 the guy was unhappy, he said I think we can do a better job. I want to bring the carpenter in. The next day the carpenter came. As he was leaving he said your front door is just a little bit loose, let me take care of this for you. So, I really wanted to give the credit to the builder and the way they manage the property and the cleanliness of the property and, lastly, we talked about affordability for young people getting started, I would say half my neighbors are senior citizens. They moved out of their big house s like I did to something that's very comfortable and affordable. Any questions? Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Green: Thank you. Johnson: Brandon Whallon. Andrew Newland. I'm sorry. Brandon. Fitzgerald: Sorry we skipped you. Just joking. Just -- you can beat on me later. Whallon: No worries. Madam Chair, Members of the Meridian Planning Commission, my name is Brandon Whallon. I'm with Hawkins Companies in Boise, Idaho. Address of 855 West Broad Street, Boise -- Boise, Idaho. I just wanted to say that Hawkins Companies purchased this land and we entered into a pretty brisk entitlement process with staff. We had that whole mixed use plan set in place. We had an anchor that was very interested in being located between south Meridian and Kuna. The mid boxes were looking to follow and so we had everything falling into place, we were working with staff. They were really happy with the site plan that we were working on. We had the retail, office, a multi-family component, so everything was looking good and so we purchased the land and one of the key items that I think is important for this discussion is the land that we purchased they had deeds that were attached to them that when ITD widened that highway back in the early '80s, instead of paying the land owners for the right of way taking for the widening of the road, they just conveyed a -- an access point. ITD would guarantee you an access point through that -- through your property. So, when we purchased the property we were purchasing 11 access points or, excuse me, seven access points as well. Well, so, then, we were working through the site planning process, the development agreement with the City of Meridian and, then, we were showing three access points to 69, saying, hey, we bought seven, but we will relinquish four of them and keep the three and that really stalled the process, because we couldn't get to an agreement with staff. Planning Commission denied. Then we had to appeal and, then, we ended up having to go to the court system and, finally, it was decided that three access points would be allowed, ITD approved that variance and, then, we went before City of Meridian, they also approved that variance and so we moved forward -- or wanted to move forward, but at that point in time we had lost our major anchor. The entitlement process was taking too long and they needed to move forward with the store and so they went to another location and so by that time we have -- you know, our -- our entitlement process had lengthened out, we had lost our anchor and, then, during this time, actually the whole entire retail sector kind of got flipped upside down and so we still have a lot of interest in that property, we have great plans for it, we want it to be that regional mixed use development that we have always thought and the city thought it would be, but, you know, we are going to have to really think hard on Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 50 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 48 of 79 how we are going to use our property, but one of the key things that -- that our success of having a regional mixed use development from -- from the Stapleton project going south to Amity, we will need to access and so that access point staying there , not only as a benefit and requirement for Stapleton , but for our continued success or possibility of having a mixed use center, we still need that access point. So, respectfully, I ask that you approve Subdivision H-2018-0129 with specific reference to the previous variance approvals that have been provided by ITD and the City of Meridian. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Whallon: Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I feel like the information that you're sharing is really important for us to hear. The history is really helpful. So, is there anything else -- would it be okay with the Commission if we allow him to finish anything else you might need to say? Fitzgerald: Yes. Whallon: I just -- I do appreciate the discussion. The staff presentation and also the application that has been submitted by Stapleton, this is something -- like I said, we had purchased when we had anchor interest and we were going through the entitlement process and we thought we had kind of a slam dunk on the access points and that stalled us and it was an abrupt stop and so as we went through that process, you know, the economic downturn was kind of coming out of it, retailers were, then, kind of downsizing and so the -- the layout and what we had planned, you know, had all changed and the shops were going to be smaller, the anchors -- everything changed and so, then, we had to look at what other options might be and we always knew there was going to be a residential component to our mixed use development and so we thought the Stapleton purchase and development of a highly -- very densely single family and mixed housing product would be a good compliment to our retail mixed use development right next door, but for that to be successful, that access point that we negotiated with ITD and the City of Meridian, it is crucial for us to have an opportunity to get those tenants back onto the property and get the intensity that we envision on that property. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Am I to understand correctly that all that property to the south is still owned by Hawkins and Hawkins intends to develop the potential retail and commercial -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 51 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 49 of 79 Whallon: Yes, ma'am. Perreault: -- in that location? Okay. Whallon: That is correct. Fitzgerald; And you have -- how many access points do you have an Amity? Do you have two or just one? Whallon: There were three between Harris and -- oh, excuse me. On Amity. Fitzgerald: On Amity going south. Whallon: I think we had -- we had two. Fitzgerald: Okay. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Johnson: Andrew Newland. Fitzgerald: How are you? Newland: I'm Andrew Newland. I live at 2166 East Ringneck Street and that's in the Verado Subdivision. I'm also a realtor in the area, so I just want to talk to you a little bit about my opinion and the need for a product like this. In the last 12 months I have sold four properties in the Verado Subdivision. A very good variety of the type of property and home. As well I have sold the townhomes -- the two story homes and as well as the single level detached home. I sold from first time homebuyers to a client that's retiring in, you know, a week from now. So, it really speaks to the need and the fit for not just first time homebuyers, but an array of everyone in that there is a product in this neighborhood and this development that really can hit a lot of different demographics and age requirements as well. The other thing I want to talk about is how much it's a needed alternative to affordable new construction. As you heard one of the others speak about looking at, you know, CBH Homes and Nampa and being able to find something here in Meridian as well. There is so few affordable new home builders and having something that BlackRock is able to do to really fit a need for the community is very important . You have also heard about how clean it is and how great the green spaces i n the parks and they are also used very often as well. I live very close to the park in the Verado Subdivision and when the weather permits it seems like there is always someone out there either shooting hoops or kids running around the little racetrack there. Really fun to see and nice to see that those spaces are being used. You have heard they do top notch work. They really do. And I think that's really about all I have to take up your time for. So, if you have any questions I would be happy to answer. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 52 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 50 of 79 Newland: No problem. Johnson: Randy Nelson. Fitzgerald: Mr. Nelson. R.Nelson: My name is Randy Nelson. I live at 1873 North Marnita in Solterra community and the redundancy was going to have to be h ere, but the idea that when we came up here two years ago looking for a place to retire and we looked all over this valley and we saw things that weren't going to make it and the added costs for fences and backyards and things were -- it just took us out of our price range and if I tell this story short, my wife had to go back home and I kept looking and we came across the Solterra community and just driving down the first street -- it's still got construction, but the one gentleman said they keep up the construction so it's not a mess and the house -- the Dilmores -- I met Will out in the street, he's busy as can be, he is the on-site realtor. He tosses me the keys. Go look at that one over there if you want to and it just turned out to be already done, already in. The granite matched the bathrooms, matched the ceiling -- it had ceiling fans, it had everything about the house and the quality. We -- we are in an attached single story. It fits everything. It's the biggest little three bedroom home -- my wife says more storage than the homes we have had in the past. So, everything about this builder that we can see has done all the details. We have a patio in the backyard when we lived in Las Vegas and they gave you three by three and say have fun wit h that and, you know, we have 16 by 12 or 16 by 14 . We have put a cover over it and we have an additional space out in the backyard in this nice little patio home that works so well for us to retire here and have somebody do the yard and we can lock up a nd everybody knows everybody. We live behind the lady that came up to speak . The siding -- everything about this is just the perfect home. It 's well built. They do try, they do care. Their response time for the new home fixings -- no complaints whatsoever. They have good staff. So, I'm just -- I -- I endorse it completely. We can't -- can't believe how well they have done up here. Las Vegas was put to shame with, you know, low two hundreds, everything done -- you can't beat it. And so I just -- I wanted to make sure I could come up and say the same thing, because we are very happy up here. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Thank you, sir, very much. Johnson: Will Dilmore. Dilmore: Will Dilmore. 1979 North Locust Grove Road in Meridian. I have been a realtor in the area for 25 years. Work with BlackRock Group for 20 plus years -- or almost 20 years. Stapleton will be the fifth project in Meridian with this housing style. All four previous neighborhoods have been extremely successful and sold out in record time. The goal of these communities is to offer affordability. They have succeeded in meeting that need with this housing product, as you have heard. Verado is a similar neighborhood to Stapleton. In 2018 it was the top selling new construction community in Meridian under 300,000 with 49 sales. Currently in all of Meridian there are only 54 actual finished new construction homes available under 300,000 and another 41 use d homes available. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 53 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 51 of 79 That's less than one month's worth of inventory. I believe BlackRock is succeeding with this housing sale for two key reasons. Number one, buyers recognize the value of these homes. They offer high a quality compact, low maintenance, carefully planned development. BlackRock can do this because of their unique designs and carefully planned out -- planned layouts, allowing them to buy more expensive land that is closer into town, while passing lower prices on to the buyers. The landscape an d fencing is always included. So, everything is complete when the buyer moves in . Number two. These homes meet a price point that the average Meridian household can afford. Per the city stats on the Chamber of Commerce's website the average Meridian household makes just over 62,000 per year. That average household income can generally afford to purchase a home priced between 260,000 and 295,000. Stapleton's housing product is expected to meet that price point. It's housing style and neighborhood may not fit your personal needs or demographic, but it may meet the needs of someone in your family. Maybe your son or daughter who just recently graduated from college or got married and wants to stay in Meridian or your brother or sister or is recently divorced trying desperately to try to stay within the Meridian area to keep their school -- their kids in the same school district, just giving them some stability. Or your mom who was recently widowed, downsizing from the big home, looking for something that's more affordable, easy to care for, with nice finishes. I have personally worked with each one of these demographics in these neighborhoods and I believe that the Stapleton product will meet each one of these demographics and demands. That's it. Appreciate it. Johnson: Brittany Elliott. Elliott: I'm Brittany Elliott. 2277 East Kamay Drive. I actually live in Verado Subdivision as well. I am I guess meeting a different demographic. I am recently divorced, so I have two small children, single mother, work full time. This subdivision really spoke to me, because I don't have time to come home and do the lawn and take care of everything and I just recently moved in and they have been awesome to work with. They were very fast in getting into the house and I just really appreciate everything they have done for me and I know that a lot of other people really like it, too. So, thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Johnson: There were no additional sign-ins. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify on this application? Please come forward, ma'am. Hi. Welcome to the Commission. Please state your name and address of the record, ma'am. Daily: I am Carol Daily and I live at 2192 East Kamay Drive in Verado. I'm the one that's retiring in a week. Andy sold me my house. So, I found my house like in the nick of time, because I am retiring. You know how hard it is to buy a house after you don't have a job anymore. I looked off and on for five or eight years for a house to trade my house for -- within about the same price range. I had just about given up when I found Verado. Okay. Now I'm getting really nervous. I had a corner lot with an unattached garage slash shop , Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 54 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 52 of 79 so I had the big yard and when it snowed I had a three car driveway and all that sidewalk to shovel. I just can't do the work anymore. So, I was basically looking to downsize. There were a few beat up old crappy houses in my price range and I wanted a house that was at least as nice as the one I lived in and took care of them, live for 28 years. I found that with Verado and BlackRock. My new home is affordable and beautiful and there is almost no maintenance for me to worry about. And they have amazi ng finishes that I only dreamed of. I have to believe that there is dozens or hundreds of people like me in the Boise and Meridian area, kind of old and retiring and I can't do the work anymore. These houses are perfect for people like me. I had just about given up on this dream when I found BlackRock and Verado. Thanks. Fitzgerald: We appreciate you being here. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else that would like to testify? Would the applicant like to come back and close the discussion. Or do you have anything else to add, ma'am? Oh, anyone else have -- yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Perreault: I do have questions. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I'm on a roll tonight. Fitzgerald: For not having a voice you're talking a lot. Perreault: I know. I wasn't supposed to. Okay. My question is regarding the request of the items to be modified. Number three on page 15 of the staff report. And on that page it says per the applicant's narrative the following improvements are proposed to each phase and in phase two it says that the applicant had proposed the installation of a traffic signal in phase two. So, I would just want a clarification from you that staff had stated that that was in the written narrative provid ed by the applicant that they would agree to the installation of a traffic signal in phase two. So, has something changed since the -- the application was submitted? Nelson: Commissioners, yes. Nothing had been discussed yet in enough detail with ITD and ACHD. The agencies indicated that a signal is not warranted and so cannot be constructed until it is warranted. Also we did ask to -- to make sure that we were only being required to build what was necessary for our proportionate share and agencies agreed and so it is still going to be done as soon as it is warranted and that requirement is triggered with our connection to Harris. So, the timing is still there once it's warranted and -- and it begins with that first final plat phase that touches Harris. So, that is still true. Fitzgerald: And you're putting your funding in for the road trust to be able to pay that 25 percent; correct? Nelson: Commissioners, that is correct. So, even if it's not warranted yet, upon that phase two final plat we have to go ahead and provide our 25 percent of the signal into a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 55 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 53 of 79 road trust to them and, then, ACHD will collect all of the funds for the road trust, so that if it's not warranted during our development, we are still on the hook for our share and, then, they will work with the other developers to build the signal. Perreault: Thank you. I wanted to make sure that was clear for the record . Nelson: Thank you. Appreciate it. Fitzgerald: Any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just one more clarification question. So, the variance you're requesting is for the access that's on this southern portion; right? For that full access? Not for the Harris Street? Just to make sure I'm -- Nelson: Commissioners, Commissioner Holland, that's correct. The variance is just for that one access point that we are asking to retain on the southern part of our property onto 69. There is no variance needed at Harris. Holland: And one more follow-up question. Fitzgerald: Oh, absolutely. Holland: How many units are coming in with the first phase on that variance request? I know we don't decide the variance, but just so we kind of know on the phasing. Nelson: I have that in here. Hang on just a second. I just -- there is not a fast -- okay. Phase one, 52 units. Holland: Okay. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Staff had mentioned that the fire department would like to keep the requirement for the parking signs and the curb painting. Can you share your thoughts on that? Nelson: Commissioner Perreault, I appreciate the opportunity to. We would just ask you to modify that condition to say as required by the fire code and the building code , so that in case the fire chief was mistaken on that being an and or an or we can provide the necessary signs, but not paint the curb red. Fitzgerald: You're willing to do one or the other, but rather not -- Nelson: We are willing to comply with the code. Absolutely. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 56 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 54 of 79 Fitzgerald: -- paint the curb. Okay. Nelson: Yeah. Perreault: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, are you good? Seal: I am good. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much, ma'am. We appreciate it. Nelson: Thank you. Appreciate it. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Holland: I move we close the public hearing for Stapleton Subdivision, H-2018-0129. Fitzgerald: I have a motion -- Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2018-0129, Stapleton Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: The application is properly before you, Commissioners. Who wants to lead off? Holland: I led off the last two times. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I appreciate all the testimony and -- I mean, you know, with -- with the people that fit the demographic of affordable, you know, quality home construction, I'm glad to see something like this that -- that's out there and available. About the only concern that I -- that I have on this is the request for the variance to allow for -- you know, basically a variance outside of what ITD is accepting at this point, which is, you know, all access to -- to come in and out off of the -- off of the highway and I mean we had touched on it before as far as, you know, we don't want to create another Eagle Road, basically, so -- and I think allowing that variance would send us in that direction on this, where we already Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 57 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 55 of 79 have something that comes in on -- on Harris. Allowing people to go in and out in all directions is, you know, something that would be a safety concern for sure and probably point us in that direction where we don't want to go, which is, you know, building something like an Eagle Road again. Fitzgerald: I -- my only comment to that is for it to be a truly mixed use regional development that -- that commercial use is going to have to have an access there. I mean I think it's almost impossible for them to not -- I mean to bring it up to the midpoint and I think what ITD will do is they will say right-in, right-out and, then, they will take away the left turn in, so that they could -- it will only be right-in, right-out at the base of their subdivision, give them another access. It's not our decision anyway. Seal: Right. Fitzgerald: It's the -- I think the City Council will make that decision, but I think the challenging thing -- and I appreciate the folks from Hawkins being here to give us some history. I think with their being a legal precedent on this, too, I think it's challenging for me to hop in the mix and say that's not going to happen , but I have a tough time saying that -- having a viable commercial entity there and not having access to the highway will be challenging, but I don't think that's our call, unless you all want it to be. I -- to what Commissioner Holland said, I think -- and I will lean to my realtor to the right and to my lovely wife who sells these things -- zero lot line product and these types of products are necessary right now. There is not enough product for -- at this price point in this valley and it sounds -- I appreciate the folks from these subdivisions -- or these neighborhoods coming to talk to us about what they are seeing in their neighborhoods, because I think they are -- I appreciate they are letting us know they are building a good product and -- and hitting a certain group -- group that needs to be served and I -- so, I appreciate that and I think this is where it fits. It's on a state highway. It's less dense than it would have been with the current -- with what was being brought forward first and so I think it's the right spot. There is -- there is certainty in there for the people around them . Across the street is -- I think chicken coops, slash storage units, so I think if we are -- and I think this is the right place for it. So, just my thought. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have several thoughts and, then, a question for staff, so, please, bear with me. Yes, as -- as an associate real estate -- real estate broker in this valley there is a definite need for affordable housing and offices in downtown Meridian, so we are -- we are selling here frequently, so it always makes us happy to see when there is additional housing options that are added. So, as far as the -- as far as the -- I wanted to speak to the -- the open space and the landscaping and -- and address that, because it is in the staff report and the staff report talks about that there are sections that the staff doesn't really consider to be qualified in the open space . I wanted to know if the -- if my fellow Commissioners had any other -- had any concerns about that. After looking at everything Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 58 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 56 of 79 that the staff had laid out, it still looks to me like there probably is sufficient open space. So, I wanted to ask that question befo re -- before you respond. I also wanted to ask the staff in -- in the staff recommendation on the -- in the staff presentation on the summary here, I wanted clarification where you had said denial of the -- you're recommending denial of the variance and, then, you recommend a change to the DA provision number 1-F, requiring a local street connection. Are those two things tied together, just not part of the variance decision? Allen: Madam Chair, they are all tied together. No. Perreault: Okay. Allen: Madam Chair, the variance staff is recommending denial of. The other change was just a site modification based on code that staff saw after the report went out, but it does specifically require local street connection, rather than just a vehicular connection as the condition currently states. Perreault: So, the UDC currently requires that street connection? Allen: Yes. Perreault: And so how do we -- I mean are we permitted to not require that as a -- or to not recommend that that be required to City County? Allen: I would defer to legal on that. Perreault: Okay. Allen: I know it's a code requirement. Perreault: Just to understand how that would work or how we should go about -- Pogue: Can you repeat that? Allen: Madam Chair. If I -- if I may. The UDC requires -- a local street connection to be provided to adjacent -- let me -- let me bring the code up specifically and I will read you exactly what it says. Fitzgerald: So, we do have a local connection to the south. Allen: So, all subdivisions must provide a local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial or collector street. The adjacent property to the west will take access from the collector street. Harris Street. It has no other public street access. So, that's the reason that staff is requiring a vehicular connection and I just explained to the Commission that currently the -- the condition reads a vehicular connection should be provided. I asked for the Commission to change the wording on Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 59 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 57 of 79 that to require a local street connection per UDC 11-3A3-A3. They wanted to know if they can not require that. Pogue: So, as Sonya just indicated, that -- the code requirement applies. Perreault: So, there isn't any discussion for us to have, it just -- that is what it is. Okay. I wanted to understand that. Thank you. So, I think that's -- that's just about everything that I had initial questions or thoughts on. I'm still curious the commissioner -- my Commissioners -- or should we have discussion on the landscaping? Fitzgerald: I'm okay to have a discussion on -- Perreault: The open space. Fitzgerald: I'm okay with the open space. I think -- we are not -- they weren't counting that -- I think the applicant said 19 percent and as we take out the things that the staff doesn't count we get down to that 13.9. It's above the ten percent. I think the -- that park place in the middle provides that center point and I -- it's -- the walking area is -- I think is awesome. So, I think the balance point there is -- especially if you have a retired community, you have a place for the parks -- or for kids to play inside and you have lots of walking areas for the folks, but that's just my thought. In regards to code versus whatever, I think tying a fourplex, which has to come in for a conditional use permit into a -- an apartment complex is an awful idea. So, I -- whatever code says I understand that, but that's -- I think that makes no sense. So, I -- I think that's a train wreck at that intersection waiting to happen. So, I'm not sure how to state that in -- and I can't make a motion, so -- but I think that's for City Council to read my comments, I think that is an awful concept. So, love my staff members, but I just don't think that's a good idea. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Perreault: So, then, in that regard are you saying you would not -- that you don't like the idea of multi-family anywhere in this or -- Fitzgerald: No. I think the fourplex units that have to come in -- and we are talking about a local connector up there -- Perreault: Right. Fitzgerald: -- where there is -- emergency access is bollards. It's access. We have a local street access down to south that ties into Graycliff, but I don't think having an apartment -- there was several -- I can't remember how many units. We are talking about a hundred units or over a hundred units of apartment complex -- Perreault: In the R-40 -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 60 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 58 of 79 Fitzgerald: -- in the R-40 to the south, going up through a fourplex community, tying into Harris. I just think that's an awful idea, so that's just my thoughts, so the Council can do what they want in that situation. But if we don't have an access -- the ability to say anything, they have that ability to change it if they want. Commissioner Perreault, do you have any comments? Perreault: You know, I just am -- what I am trying to understand is is it a matter of the -- the look or is it because the -- the two wouldn't be connected. Fitzgerald; So, Sonya, can you bring that up, the Graycliff. Perreault: It's not a traffic concern, it's -- Fitzgerald: It is a traffic concern, actually. Perreault: Okay. Fitzgerald: So, can you bring up the Graycliff exhibit that you have on there that shows the other neighborhood next to it? So, this is all -- all that section in the first part is all apartment -- that's all attached -- or I mean it's apartment complexes. I am correct; right, Sonya? You're dumping that into the middle of a fourplex community. Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, the property is zoned R-40. If I remember right, though, the -- the Graycliff Estates originally came in with a preliminary plat and they showed -- and a development agreement and they showed a concept plan that looked like that or similar to that. They did come back in and resubdivide the property within the last couple years, though, and I -- I'm pretty sure that with the development agreement at that time they did not show a concept plan on the R-40 zoned portion. So, I -- I'm not entirely sure how that will develop in the future, if it will be like it's shown or if it will be different. They will be required to come back and do a conditional use permi t, though, regardless. Fitzgerald: We do have a local connection down to the south; correct? I mean going into the Hawkins property itself, so does that not meet code? Just so I'm making -- make sure I'm -- Allen: So, the reason for the code -- honestly, staff's fine with a vehicular connection. Staff does believe there should be a vehicular connection. The reason being so that folks over here don't have to go out of their development, back onto the collector street, out and into this development. So, they can -- they are interconnected. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to interconnectivity between developments, you know, but having said that, the -- the code specifically requires a local street connection to properties that have access from a collector street. This property here only has access from a collector street. So, that's -- that's the reason for the code requirement. You know, Council and legal can look at that more at Council. I don't have a problem -- I'm certainly willing to forward -- if Commission doesn't feel there should be a connection forward that recommendation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 61 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 59 of 79 Fitzgerald: I think there -- an emergency access, it makes total sense there, but having it -- if that literally develops as an apartment complex -- I mean it's almost dumping into apartment complex parking lot. I mean, I'm sorry, a fourplex parking lot that -- I mean that just seems challenging. Allen: If it's a local street connection it wouldn't be through the parking lot. Fitzgerald: I understand that. I get that. It just seems like a challenge. Allen: The design wouldn't change. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Any other questions? Commissioner Holland. Sorry. I will get off my soapbox now. Holland: I just wanted to go back to your earlier comment about the open space. There was a note underneath the picture that said it was revised per the staff report recommendation. So, I think we have kind of already covered that, but I think they have offered a lot of good amenities. I like the walking paths around it. I -- when we are looking at mixed use we certainly can't tie Hawkins to their development plan there, because they haven't attracted tenants and we don't know what it's going to become , but I like the ability to have denser population next two centers like that where they can walk, go get groceries if we get a grocery store there, go get clothes, whatever it is that comes in there. So, I think that's a good fit there. I would agree -- we heard a lot of residents talk about how nice their facilities are. They have got a good reputation, BlackRock does, for -- for quality construction with the upgrades. There is a need for a variety of housing. I know -- I just looked at the stats from 2018 average prices of homes sold in Ada county and -- of new construction and it was 399,000 for new construction average. So, certainly having a housing product that's between the 200 to 300 thousand range would be attractive for the community. I also like that they -- they didn't do a typical multi-family type project, but it's more of a townhome feel, because I think it looks more attractive. I agree completely with your comment that I -- I would rather see just an emergency access through that, because it's always tough when you go through a multi -family complex into a bigger multi-family complex and you have just got a lot of traffic going through there. So, that's a challenge I agree with. I had one other comment, but I lost my train of thought, so -- Commissioner Perreault, I know you had something to say. Perreault: Mr. Chair -- now I'm losing my train of thought, too. So, I apologize if I'm stumbling over my words right now. It -- but it is my understanding that -- that even though maybe there is a preference for just the emergency access, we can't change the UDC and so it sounds like that there won't be another option for the applicant , but to amend the -- the plan to include that local street connection. Fitzgerald: I think my comment there would be to work with -- have staff work before Council to figure out something that's going to work there, because I -- and I think Council can look at the picture and say either we know what's coming or we don't and let's figure out a different way to do this. But I also think -- and I'm not sure how you read it, but there Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 62 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 60 of 79 is a local connection down south on the Hawkins property that does meet code, so -- and it will be in a gray area, but it will -- I will let you guys work that out, at least in my opinion. Allen: Madam Chair. If I could clarify something. Just looking at the code -- Perreault: Please do. Allen: -- a little bit closer, I'm sure the applicant would be happy for me to clarify. So, looking at the -- the beginning of that section of code -- you always have to look at more than just the -- you know, some of the provisions. So, the proceeding comments on the code standard says: The following standard shall apply unless otherwise waived by Council. So, there is a provision for a waiver in there. So, with that staff will withdraw the request for a local street connection, but will stand with the vehicular connection. But you can certainly make a recommendation to Council on that. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner Perreault, did you want an additional comment? Perreault: Mr. Chair, no, I -- I'm very glad, though, that we -- Fitzgerald: Thank you. Perreault: -- that we got that addressed, because that's pretty significant. Fitzgerald: I appreciate you kicking the soapbox out from under me. Commissioner Seal, did you have any additional comments? Seal: I did. I just -- I wanted to go back to the variance and I wanted to basically better understand that. So, exactly what -- what is being requested and what staff, basically, said they -- they recommended denial of it, so I just want to understand exactly the variance that's being asked for and the -- what would be denied. Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you walk through that? What variance are you -- Seal: And I guess I'm just -- I'm thinking about the traffic on -- on the -- on the highway itself and I -- and I understand that there is going to be other things that go in there, but for the subdivision to go in there and just thinking of safety, because you're going to have -- you know, if you got 50 some residents that are in there , you're talking 50 to 100 cars coming in and out of there on a daily basis. So, I just want to make sure that I understand what that variance is that has been requested and if it's denied what is denied. Is it like denied access to the Highway 69 all together or it just isn't going to go with just what ITD recommend, which is right-in, right-in -- right-in, right-out left-in. Allen: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. The variance is specifically for access to the state highway. It is at the quarter mile section. Our UDC specifically prohibits access other -- other than at the half mile on state highways. So, in order to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 63 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 61 of 79 grant a variance there is three findings that they have to make and that is included in your notes there. Anytime -- anytime we allow access to state highways it interrupts the flow of the highway and it creates safety hazards for folks, especially when you have a full access or left-in, left-out, you know, you have cars, you know, crossing traffic at high rates of speed, 55 miles an hour. So, the police department had definite -- definite concerns with that and they did not want the left-in access, even if the right-in, right-out is approved. Staff doesn't, you know, necessarily have as much of an issue with the right -in, right-out if it is designed to these standards with decel and accel lanes. However, our code does prohibit it. So, staff can't -- can't support the variance. If Council supports it, they will have to make those findings for approval of the varian ce and those -- if you would like me to go through those real quick I can. It's -- it's -- where is it at? So, the variance can't grant -- grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site and the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . So, they have to be able to make all three of those findings in order to grant a variance. Fitzgerald: So, my questions -- Allen: If they deny the variance, then, there will be no access to the state highway. Fitzgerald: My question becomes how does historic findings and how does historic agreements come into play here. If you had -- I mean that's a done issue. So, there -- there -- because there were three -- Allen: The concern -- that approval for access went away with that annexation . They lost their -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Allen: -- their approval for access with the city. ITD is a different matter. You know, they -- I -- I'm not sure legally what they have with that, but they didn't -- they chose not to sign their development agreement -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Allen: -- so everything that went with that approval went away. Fitzgerald: At the city, but not necessarily at ITD. Allen: Yes. They need approval from -- from the city and ITD for any access to the state highways. Pogue: Mr. Chair? If I could also direct you to the UDC 11H, development along federal and state highways, which we are talking about. The code does allow that while staff shall review all development applications for compliance with these standards -- and they are saying they aren't met, the right-in, right-out, left -- the decision making body, which Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 64 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 62 of 79 will be City Council, may consider and apply modifications to the standards of the article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department. So, it -- so, they have submitted a variance application, which City Council will consider, but according to the UDC, City Council also has the authority, given the specific approval from ITD, to consider waiving the standards and approving it. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you so much for that clarification . I think that will make a significant difference for us and maybe the applicant will breathe a sigh of relief . Thank you very much for -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, did that answer your question? Seal: It did. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any other additional comments or thoughts? Seal: I do not. Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I have a few additional thoughts. Fitzgerald: Go -- go for it. Holland: Can we flip back to the Graycliff match up to -- I know that was on the other presentation, but -- sorry to make you keep flipping back and forth. So , looking at where the collector road is, does that collector road that's on there right now that connects down to Amity, does that road go through right now or is that something that's to be constructed in the future? Allen: Madam Chair. I don't believe it goes -- I'm not sure if it's been constructed yet or not. I -- but I don't believe it goes clear through to Amity if it has. There is some development property between there and Amity that's yet to develop. Holland: Okay. One other thought I had, just looking at the way that the phasing of the plot lays out. And I don't know if the applicant would even be open to this, but the challenge is the number of ITD access points for me, too. I worry about having two access points, because I read somewhere in the report that there were 11 accidents somewhere in the last six months and 60 percent of those were injury accidents. There was something in the report about that. So, it is concerning to see people -- and I know if they restrict the left out onto Meridian that helps a little bit, but the west end of the neighborhood still worries me a little bit. I just -- I just don't like seeing injury accidents Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 65 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 63 of 79 on that highway if we can avoid it. But I was wondering if the applicant might be interested in flipping the phasing and doing phase two first, which has the park in it, which would also have that amenity there for the first residents that move in. Just as a thought. Again, I like the development project. I think it's -- it looks like a well laid out plan. I like that they have got single family on the perimeter. I think that makes a lot of sense and with that I will just go back through these -- these notes. We can go back and talk about it, too. I think we could strike the condition about the monotonous wall plains, because I think what they are saying makes sense, that it's going to be single family with a stone wall. I don't have a concern with needing to change the wall plains on those. Signal timing. I don't have a huge concern with it, as long as ITD, you know, works with the applicant when there is a need to have that signal -- signal light there, but if we had two access points -- I would almost like to see the second access point, the one that they are requesting a variance for, come in when Hawkins Companies comes forward with their development, because I think that would make more sense timing wis e. That was my only thought there. Sorry, that's a lot there. Fitzgerald: The one further south. Holland: Yeah. Seal: If that's something that -- I completely agree with that. If that's something that could be, you know, brought in -- brought into the plan or they would be amenable to doing phase two first, then, the timing of this would make a lot more sense, especially for asking for that variance, especially if there is going to be further development in the southern portion of this. So, again, you know, trying to make sure that, you know, this development is going to be successful, but at the same time trying to make sure that we are keeping everybody as safe as we can with the power that we are afforded as -- you know, that -- that makes sense to me as well. Just trying to bring that second phase in first and it provides for the park as well, so -- Fitzgerald: While you're going down the list, do you have a problem or concerns or thoughts on number four? Holland: I think my thought on number four would just be that they would work with the fire department to come up with what's amenable for what the fire department needs. So, if the fire department comes back and says we really like the red painted cur bs, that they would just work with fire department. I think they can figure that out. Perreault: Mr. Chair, I agree with Commissioner Holland. Fitzgerald: Do we want to reopen the public hearing so we can hear from applicant on swapping. Perreault: Sorry, say that again. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 66 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 64 of 79 Fitzgerald: Do we want to reopen a public hearing so we can talk to the applicant about re -- or phasing? Swapping phases. Somebody want to make that motion? Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we reopen the public hearing for Stapleton Subdivision, H-2018-0129, to hear from the applicant as a clarification about phasing. Fitzgerald: Got a motion. Do I have a second? Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Got a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Welcome back. Nelson: Members of the Commission, thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to weigh in, but at this time, no, we are not interested in readjusting the phasing, because that access remains critical to the development. So, delaying it doesn't change the need for it . We need to proceed with the applications we have presented and it isn't just a variance we have asked for, we actually have requested a modification, because we think that provides the easier standards for the City Council. They don't have to meet the variance standards that Sonya read. To waive that requirement it's plainly stated as the city attorney noted. So, we think that -- that ITD has already looked at that safety record there and that's exactly why the code allows a modification with an I TD recommendation. So, we still are going to ask Council to approve that modification. We do want that access point, we need it, and so that's the phasing that works best with that access. It doesn't work to have Hawkins develop it, because it's on our property and because if we had to wait for that we couldn't actually build out the development as planned, because we don't know what their timing is. But I mean I appreciate you trying to work with it, so don't let my no be unappreciative, but it just isn't going to work for what we have got planned. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair, just one more follow-up question. Do you have any indication on what the timing would look like between phase one and two on development , how the timing of those phases would play out? Nelson: My understanding -- and you guys can nod or shake your head -- is that it's about once per year. Right? Each -- come in -- okay. But one per season. So quickly. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 67 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 65 of 79 Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Can you share more about the -- the multi-family? Is that going to be owned by an individual owner investor? Are those going to be plotted with lots that are going to be sold separately? Is it going to be a separate or subset of the overall HOA managed differently? Is the same HOA going to manage all of it? Can you talk to us about that? Nelson: Commissioners, I will take a stab at it and you guys jump up if I don't say something you want. Okay. It -- it is on a single lot, so it won't be replatted. It is platted as a single lot now with this development. Single owner is what I'm being told. And so you will have some integrity of ownership and subject to the CC&Rs. And, you know, appreciate the comments and discussion about whether it makes sense to put a roadway there. Of course we certainly agree with the comments that it doesn't and would remind you guys that there is an opportunity -- this Graycliff Estates is not yet built and that's developed by all one party. So , the local road access can be put between those two developments, the R-40 and the Graycliff Estates that's platted to the south, they already have an opportunity to put their own local road in. The city didn't require it. It doesn't mean they can't do it. So, that -- it's yet another reason why it doesn't make sense to burden this development with it. It doesn't even add anything practically to cut off that little corner. So, it doesn't meet the needs. But, anyway, we appreciate your recommendation on that and your comments on that to the Council as well. Fitzgerald: And you have to come back for a CUP on that multi-family here anyway; correct? Nelson: Commissioners, that's correct. We will be back for a CUP on that apartment area. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Perreault: We really appreciate your patience with us getting it figured out. Nelson: Thank you. Oh, not at all. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Bill. So, Bill has comments. Parsons: I just want to remind you of your responsibility tonight. So , keep in mind -- I appreciate you opening up the public testimony and asking the applicant what their preference is, but you, as a body, can recommend them changing their phasing plan. You as a body can recommend that the park happen with the first phase. So, I don't want you to lose sight of that. That's something -- if they don't agree with it they can certainly take up that change with the City Council as we go through the hearing process. Also just for looking at the Graycliff Estates development agreement that was remote -- was redone back in '18, although there wasn't a concept plan tied to that plat, there was a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 68 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 66 of 79 condition or provision in the development agreement that requires the multi-family to have an access to Harris Street, which is a good thing, because it is going to be 200 plus units at some point. But there was also a condition in there to have connectivity with the adjacent uses in the area. So, although it's not one hundred percent set in stone for this project, it was noted and it is tied in that development agreement . So, even though it comes through this one or goes through Graycliff, we have got to get some connectivity, as Sonya mentioned. So, just keep that in mind as you deliberate . So, again, you have the ability to require phasing to be changed. You have the require -- the ability to require certain amenities at a certain phase and don't lose sight of -- even though the variance does come down to Council's discretion, ITD has always been supportive of the city's decision. So, if -- we were at a pre-app the other day and they said whatever the city wants they would support that position. So, I don't want anyone to lose sight just because one agency says yes doesn't mean the city has to say yes. The other thing is with the light at Harris. I know there has been quite a bit of discussion about that, but from good planning practices and knowing what that -- the traffic on that roadway, if that access is approved to Meridian Road, I believe the -- the -- it's my professional opinion that that light should go in with the first phase of this development, because that's going to minimize conflicts. You're going to be able to control the intersection and have traffic going out of that right-in, right-out. ACHD has deferred to ITD on when those -- that traffic signal is warranted. But, again, if that's something that you would like to see , that's a recommendation you can make to City Council that the applicant put in that signal with either the first phase or second phase. So, just something to -- Fitzgerald: Does Graycliff have any buy-in on that, too? Parsons: All of those -- there is a lot a lots -- there is over 500 homes approved in that area. Lots. And all of them are going to have to update traffic studies and provide that information to ACHD and ITD as -- as -- as those homes come online. So, it's a timing issue. It's whoever goes first. Who moves first and when the homes get built. So, it does mean -- Fitzgerald: Graycliff has already been approved; correct? Parsons: Has been -- Fitzgerald: So, they -- they aren't required to bring a -- Parsons: They get all the same conditions. Fitzgerald: No. I understand what they were -- Parsons: Road trust. Fitzgerald: Road trust. Parsons: So, that -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 69 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 67 of 79 Fitzgerald: I get that. So, I guess it's a matter of time -- it's a matter of latecomers or how do you want to do it? Parsons: Yeah. If you pay into that pot and when it's warranted, then, it gets installed, as you know. I will leave that up to you. That's all I wanted to comment on. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Parsons: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Chair? So, to be clear, the -- if we recommend that the light be put in in phase one or two, does that increase the cost to the applicant significantly? Because, then, the road trust is not necessary and basically they are contributing 25 percent -- Parsons: Yeah. Perreault: -- is my understanding. Parsons: Yeah. Commissioners. Yeah. It does. It's -- it's a significant cost to put in a signal and a lot of right of way to get looked as well, so it's something to take into consideration. But, again, you're trying to weigh the public interest and public safety and our fire -- our police department -- it says they don't like that access point, but they are willing to concede with a right-in, right-out and so if that helps alleviate some of that concern, that's within your purview. I can also tell you when Graycliff Estates came through the second time, Commission and Council -- and Mayor and the Council did talk about the improvements to Harris needing to happen sooner rather than later and this applicant's proposing to do that at phase two. So, just something to take in consideration, just to give you some of that history and context, too. Perreault: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Sonya, I'm going to ask one random question. There is no decel or accel lane that has been proposed along there, is there? I didn't read that. There is? Parsons: Commissioners, yeah, that will be part of the mitigation requirements from IT D as they analyze the traffic study. Fitzgerald: So, decel and accel both? You have both? Okay. Thank you. That helps me a little bit on the safety side. So, would we like to close the public hearing again? Or do something else? Holland: Do we want to finish deliberating while it's open in case we have any other questions that pop up? Fitzgerald: That is absolutely up to the Commission. That is definitely warranted. Whatever you would like. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 70 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 68 of 79 Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I still would like to see phase two probably develop before phase one and I know that's not the applicant's desire -- for the reason of safety, that I think having people funnel through Harris and having Harris be an improved intersection, especially with the number of homes being developed in that area. W hether they partner with Graycliff or whether they partner with others to make that happen, I think that would be something I -- I would be interested in seeing. I'm not opposed to them having the second access point . I would prefer it to be a right-in, right-out type of situation, but they needed to build that second access point in addition to have the roadway kind of funnel through both ways, even if their phase one, as it's listed on here, doesn't develop right away. Does that make sense what I'm saying? If the roadway could go through -- if they built the road for phase one and phase two together, so they would have that access point still, but develop phase two first? That doesn't make sense what I'm saying? Fitzgerald: I'm trying to catch there, but I'm not -- I'm not following you. Holland: If they are really interested in having that access point come in and they would be willing to develop phase two first, but they could still build the roadway with the access in, so they would have two access points. That still not make sense? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, are you saying construct the road that connects the -- the entrance on -- on the highway and on Harris all the way through prior to any construction of any of the lots? I'm not sure that works from an infrastructure standpoint. Holland: I was just offering it as a suggestion, if they really wanted that second access point and that was part of their -- they were worried about the timing of it. Perreault: Okay. And question -- another question for you. When you're talking about improving Harris first, I get what you're saying about all the rest of the -- of the traffic coming through there and that being a safer way to do it. Are you also suggesting that that signal go in in phase one? Holland: I'm open to my Commissioners' thoughts on that. Perreault: Because I don't -- I'm not seeing how it will really improve safety unless that signal is there, but -- so, help me understand that, if you see how it would improve safety. Seal: I think that it's -- I think that putting in a neighborhood right next to a busy highway, you're going to have people coming in and out of it, warrants a stoplight. I say that, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 71 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 69 of 79 knowing that we want the least amount of stoplights possible there. That said, it makes the safety concerns that I had basically start to go away at that point or go away and it makes the access that's provided for directly from the state highway basically more amenable to the subdivision itself, you know, right-in, right -- right-in, right-out, left-in, as was recommended, because the stoplight is there to provide access that is going to provide safe access, plus speedier access, which that's what everybody wants. I mean, you know, a lot of people, unfortunately, are going to be willing to forgo safety to whip out in traffic, you know, make a left-hand turn out of there and I think having the -- the stoplight in at Harris is something that's going to help you get rid of that altogether . It -- to me it just makes everything safer. Now, I mean as far as counting for the numbers and whether or not it's necessary according to the numbers, I can't necessarily speak to that, I don't know -- I don't know what the code is for that, but as I look at something, you know, from a common sense safety standpoint, again, if you're going to put all these houses right next to the highway and they need to come in and out of the highway, a stoplight makes sense. Fitzgerald: So, we are tacking the entire light onto this development, this -- I mean that's what we are asking for. It's not just a road trust, we are asking for that to be built as this neighborhood comes in. So, they are footing the bill and, then, having to go after everybody else for money. I'm just making sure we all understanding that. Because that's latecomers. That means they are putting it in and having to deal with trying to figure out how they get money out of the road trust to pay for it. So, I mean this is -- I mean it's a decent amount of rooftops, but I'm just making sure we are all on the same page. I mean I -- so, thinking through this, were there -- in phase one they are going to put the entire improvements on Meridian. So, we are flipping that now and we are not going to have an improved road, we are flipping it to Harris and so they are going to improve there, but you're going to have a nonimproved neighborhood frontage onto Meridian. So, you're going to trade a little bit some things -- just so we are on the same page. Because that -- what they are saying is there -- with phase one they are going to do the improvements for phase three and phase one in that phase . So, you're going to have an improved frontage along there, where the -- if we flip it, it will improve Harris, but you're going to have an interesting view on the other side. So, just -- I mean I'm just throwing it out there for comments, thoughts. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I am concerned about the signal. I -- I don't -- I'm struggling with -- with creating undue cost to the applicant and I think it would be beneficial for the surrounding neighborhoods to have to have a -- a monetary commitment to that light, but I also am concerned about the safety. So, I don't have a specific answer for it and so we -- we really have to decide what's the most important factor. Is it making sure that this development can do what they want to do right now or the -- or the safety of the surrounding area. But as far as the phasing goes, I -- I don't have any concern with the phasing plan as they have proposed it myself and maybe it's because it's getting late and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 72 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 70 of 79 I'm not tracking with everything that you're sharing, but -- but I'm not seeing any concern with how they have -- I understand from a real estate standpoint why they would want to phase it the way that they phased it in terms of which properties get sold first and which -- and -- and when your -- when your cost is accrued in relationship to the -- to the common areas and stuff like that. So, I get why they are trying to do what they are doing and the order they are doing it in. I think -- I just think the biggest concern safety wise is that light or not the light versus whether the access -- and Bill's saying that he thinks the light should go in phase one, because any -- that's going to create a stop for any traffic that's coming south that will -- and, then, with that left-in, if that creates a stop, then, somebody can make that left turn in the southern -- in southern entrance. So, for me the light is the biggest factor and I would really like to see that light go in earlier than later, but I don't have a -- an answer for how to not create an undue burden on the applicant. Allen: Madam Chair? Excuse me. If I may shed some light on the cost of the signal. Perreault: Please do. Allen: ACHD's report cites specific condition of approval number one -- I will just read it to you. It says: If and when ITD requires the applicant to install a signal, the applicant will need to obtain plan approval and -- and a permit for ITD for installation of the signal and enter into a signal agreement with A CHD. Although the applicant may be fronting the cost of the signal, the signal agreement will allocate the proportional share of the signal installation, with the applicant ultimately contributing 25 percent of the cost, with another percent coming from the approved subdivisions to the west, Brundage and Graycliff, and the final 50 percent coming from development located on the east side of State Highway 69. The signal agreement will include a reimbursement mechanism to allow the applicant to be reimbursed for a portion of the signal cost as they are collected from the future developments. And, then, the applicant shall provide a road trust deposited to ACHD in the amount of 62,500 dollars prior to signature of the first final plat that takes access to Harris Street. Fitzgerald: But you're still talking about latecomers. I mean they are -- they are fronting the bill. That's the -- I mean the end -- and I have no idea when the property across the street will -- I mean -- so, you're still talking about a couple hundred thousand dollars that they are putting up in there to improve that -- I mean I -- and it's -- I'm willing to talk about how we do that and when that needs to happen, but it's all latecomers. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Perreault: My expectation would be that it would be a significant amount of time after they are done with all four of these phases before they would get reimbursed for that cost. Fitzgerald: Probably. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 73 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 71 of 79 Perreault: Has there been an application put in for the property to the east? Allen: No, ma'am. Perreault: Okay. Fitzgerald: And my understanding -- I think that property is owned by Simplot, if I'm not mistaken. So, that may not happen in our lifetime. I'm joking. But we can't -- I mean -- Perreault: I mean I would hate for that to be the thing that would hang this up, because I think all in all it's a good -- it's -- it's need -- it's -- it's needed. I think that they have thought through a lot of -- a lot of -- you know, they thought it through and it's funny for staff to be requesting a higher density. I know it's because of the zoning, but we don't -- we are not usually coming across that, are we, where -- where we are talking about a lower density in an area where we go -- we would go higher, but I think the way this is designed in that particular area, it being midway between two arterials, is a good location. If we are going to put residential on a state highway that -- that that would be the place that we would do it. So, hopefully, those thoughts are clear, but I -- I mean I don't want that light to be the hang up, but at the same time it's -- Seal: And, Mr. Chair, I mean the light's definitely a hang up and fronting the money for that, you know, and the comments we are making about flipping -- which phase to go in first and everything, I mean, essentially, what -- you know, I like everything about this subdivision. Again, I have -- I know people that could definitely benefit from this. I mean from -- you know, from being able to have access to housing -- you know, quality housing like this. That said, if -- you know, to go back to -- you know, it could be somebody's daughter, it could be somebody's son, it could be somebody's grandparent living in there. If one of those people dies because they are dodging out in traffic that's not safe, that's on us. So, for me, the light needs to go in and -- and the variance, you know, can -- because the light can go in conjunction with the variance. I mean , basically, you know, we have said it, if the light's there that creates a stop, people can, then, safely come in and out of that, simply because the light's there. The -- Fitzgerald: So, are you -- just real quick. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Are you thinking you keep the same phasing and, then, require the light? Seal: I don't know that you can keep the -- the same phasing, because -- I mean phase one doesn't have access to the road to the north. Fitzgerald: But you're causing a stop is what -- my understanding was what you said. I'm just trying to understand what your logic is, so I can get there. Seal: Right. So, I mean if -- if -- if you keep the phasing -- if you only -- if you go phase one first, they don't have access to the road that would have the light on it. Fitzgerald: Got it. Got it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 74 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 72 of 79 Seal: So, that's, you know, why I think requesting that they do phase two first and the light is going to make -- you know, from a safety standpoint that makes this work in my mind, you know, and, again, this is -- this is something that's very real. I mean we all drive these roads around here and -- I mean I can tell you from experience there has been a lot of times when people are diving in and out of traffic either on -- I mean look at the way that Eagle Road has shaped up now when they have safety berms all the way down it just to prevent people from doing that very thing. You know, Chinden Road has a lot of different access points right now where people are diving in and out. I mean anything that we can do to help mitigate that from a safety standpoint I think is a good thing . Does it put undue, you know, burden of cost on them? I don't know. You know, I don't know what the cost of safety is and the fact of the matter is that they will reclaim the money at a date to be determined, but that's nothing that we have control over. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: You know, my -- my suggestion was -- to change the phasing was not something that I'm set on by any means. I understand why they laid it out -- the phasing that they did, too. My only concern was the same -- same thing we have been talking about as a safety and just letting people be able to access it easily. Sometimes that road, coming from people from Kuna, backs up all the way to Lake Hazel on busy mornings and so even if -- I mean unless there is preventive barriers from making them -- not letting them turn left there, people will still probably turn left and, then, merging those lanes. So, that's my concern and that's why I think a stoplight would be warranted for that neighborhood to try and help ease some of those safety concerns. My suggestion of carrying the road through was just trying to figure out how we could connect the different phases to access points. You know, if they decided they wanted to do phase one first and could continue the road to connect to Harris, that might be another option as well. I wouldn't see a concern with that either. Perreault: Mr. Chair. So, it says in the staff report -- and the applicant had -- I had asked the applicant about why the change had been made from the original comment that they would be willing to put the light in to -- to the modification they are requesting and so I would assume that with their original application that they had counted the cost that -- that it would take to put that light in, because that was originally in their proposal when they sent their original letter in and I would imagine that they are requesting the modification, because it is much more cost effective for them not to have to do it until a later date and I get that. But -- but I'm sure they probably figured out the financial piece before they submitted their application and so that being said I wonder if they haven't already -- hadn't already originally planned on having that be a cost involved in it. We would rather not, which is completely understandable, do it in the earlier phases. So, if we are talking about the financial burden it may create for them, they did submit an application agreeing to that at the front end. So, just -- just throwing that out there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 75 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 73 of 79 Fitzgerald: Someone formulate something into a thought process, because I can't make any -- Holland: We are all over the place. Seal: I can tell you this won't be my first motion. Oh, my gosh. Holland: Okay. Well, let's go back and go over the easy stuff really quick, so we can make sure we have got that down of what we want to put in the motion. So, the first request that they had was a vehicular connection to the west. Staff seemed amenable to removing that condition and just making that emergency access point. So, we could make that -- Fitzgerald: I think Sonya said vehicular connection not local street. Holland: Okay. Fitzgerald: And my only comment on that as we are going through is I still think that's taken care of lower in the -- in the property down south, but we can deal with that later. Holland: Okay. So, do we need to deliberate further on that? They would still be required to have a vehicular connection to the west, but we would remove the condition that they had to go through that apartment complex? Is that what we are saying? Fitzgerald: I don't think we can. I think that's up to Council. Holland: Yeah. Sonya, could you rephrase what you said earlier. Allen: The staff's condition as written just requires a vehicle of connection between -- let me pull up their -- their map real quick. We keep going back to this one. A vehicular connection -- and it doesn't have to be in the -- in the multi-family section, I mean it could be over here, it could be in alignment with their existing one. The reason why the one in -- in relying on this for access down here is it doesn't accomplish the purpose of the vehicular connection here. This property -- the only access it has is to the collector street. When this development went in -- Northwest Pipeline does not like anymore crossings than necessary over their big gas pipeline. Staff did not require them to provide vehicular connectivity between these two because of that reason. There is an emergency access between the two, you know, for fire access, but that's the reason that there is a vehicular connection requirement here is -- Fitzgerald: So, per your comment, the challenge I have there is now we are -- we are making the burden shift to a different developer. That's a problem. I mean -- well, you're -- you said you didn't require access across the pipeline, because they don't like access, but you're now requiring it of the new developers? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 76 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 74 of 79 Allen: No. This -- Graycliff Estates, when that came in, there is a provision in their development agreement that requires vehicular interconnectivity with adjacent properties. That is a Comprehensive Plan guideline and UDC standard. Fitzgerald: It's the connection to the surrounding properties, which you have to the south; correct? That's -- the way you read it was there was t wo connecting -- to the other properties surrounding it. That was -- at least that's what Bill said I think. So, the one to the south doesn't count? Allen: We did not require a connection over the gas pipeline, because Northwest Pipeline did not want any more accesses than already proposed with this development . So, no, there would not be a vehicular connection to the west, except for the emergency access. That's why it's important to have one from -- to the east. It is -- it is the Council's call, but, you know, staff has to make recommendations based on our Comprehensive Plan and our code. Fitzgerald: I -- absolutely. Absolutely. I don't know how to answer that one for you. Holland: So, to recap, we would need to leave that in there? Fitzgerald: I think it's Council's call. Holland: Okay. So, we wouldn't put that in our motion at this point. Okay. Item two that their request was about the monotonous wall plains. I have no problem removing condition 1-E, unless the Commissioners have concerns with that. Seal: No problem. Perreault: I have no concerns. Fitzgerald: She's good. Perreault: Is my mic -- oh, it is on? Fitzgerald: It's on. You're good. Holland: Page 15. Signal timing. That's what we keep going back to, so I'm going to skip that one for a second. And number fo ur their request was no parking signage. My -- my note would just be that they would work with the fire department to find something that would be amenable on page 39 out of nine. Fitzgerald: I'm amendable to that as well. Seal: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 77 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 75 of 79 Holland: So -- okay. We figured out one, two and three. Or one, two and four. Now we just need to figure out what we want to do with number three . Signal timing and if we instruct them to do certain phases first or what needs to be done first. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I would like to leave the staff report as stated where it recommends that -- the -- did you -- were you going to say something? Oh, I'm sorry. I -- I'm hearing things. I wanted to -- I would recommend that we leave it just as it's written , which -- which suggests that the -- the signal go in in phase two. I think that's already written in there that way on page -- page 15. Seal: Mr. Chairman. Would we want to -- if we are going to leave it as is, would we want to make the recommendation that phase two go in first? Because, again, if we -- if they don't get the variance granted, then, phase one doesn't work. I mean I'm looking at it from that standpoint as well. If you have phase one, the variance isn't granted, they don't have the access to the street that has the -- you know, the light provided, then, there is no access to phase one. Fitzgerald: And my guess is that if they don't get the access, the variance, they don't have a project. Seal: Exactly. Right. So -- so -- so, I mean to me if they don't have the variance, which basically kind of hinges on the light to me, they are going to have to do phase two first. Fitzgerald: Well, I think the variance is not necessarily just the light, it's the connection down below, too. Seal: Correct. Perreault: The south access. Fitzgerald: It's the south access. Seal: Right. But in my mind it all ties together, again, for the safety component. You put the light in, it makes the variance more amenable, because, then, you're creating a stop. Perreault: Mr. Chair? It's my understanding from the applicant that if the variance is not proposed that -- that that would -- Fitzgerald: It's a done deal. Perreault: -- it's pretty much -- they are pretty much not going to proceed, because then -- and I don't want to speak for them, but, then, they -- well, just the one access -- access Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 78 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 76 of 79 onto Harris isn't going to work and, then, the light will be a moot point if the variances isn't granted. Seal: Right. And -- Perreault: Because they need -- Seal: I think we are all saying the same thing -- Perreault: Well -- because this is a mixed use, so that -- that -- this is the residential piece of what's going to be a future larger development and so if that varian ce isn't granted to give -- to give access to the southerly portion, then, I don't -- they are going to have to all -- they are going to have to modify what they are doing. Seal: Right. And that's -- that's basically what we are saying, is that -- I think that if the variance is going to be granted that the stoplight has to go in. That's -- that's as clean a point as I can make on that. Holland: Mr. Chair? Perreault: I understand what you're saying. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to circle in and out, again, for a second here. They -- they had mentioned that there is 52 units in the first phase. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: It's not as significant amount as some subdivisions that we have seen with needing access. And, again, if they don't get the variance request, they are not going to be able to move forward on the project. Phase two -- I'm not sure -- I don't remember how many units come in phase two, but with phase two was the requirement of the stoplight. So, I might be okay seeing phase one go forward without the stoplight , because it's only 52 units. I would hope that ITD would work with making sure that that connection point is safe, whether that means preventing left turns and making that a right -in, right- out only, which makes it inconvenient, but still safe. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: I would hope that ITD would -- would work with the applicant on what safety measures were required there. Fitzgerald: With the decel and acceleration lanes you have a little bit of a buffer there , so I think that would -- I mean it -- it provides that area of safety, so that people aren't darting into traffic, they have a merge lane, if you will. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 79 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 77 of 79 Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I can't speak to the directions the cars are moving consistently on, but my guess is that there is probably not a lot of traffic coming from the south that's going to turn left into that development. So, I mean probably not. It's not likely. Most of the traffic coming from the south is heading into Meridian, so -- Fitzgerald: I heard that Commissioner Holland is bring 6,000 jobs to Kuna. Perreault: And they are all going to move here. Fitzgerald: Exactly. So, I'm not sure of -- well, maybe. Perreault: Congratulations. Fitzgerald: And so, no, I -- I think you're correct. Perreault: So, I'm not as concerned about that left-in element. Holland: So, all that to be said, thanks for the discussion. I think we have covered all of our bases of things that could be considered for this. If I can recap what we have talked about. Number two, we would help them waive number four. We would ask them to work with the Fire Department. Number one, we would leave it as it says in the staff -- staff report. Number three we would leave it as it says in the staff report. Fitzgerald: That would be -- that would be okay with me. Holland: Any other discussion or -- someone want to attempt to make a motion or is that me? Fitzgerald: It's all you. Perreault: You're doing great. Seal: You're doing a great job. Yes. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant -- oh, wait. We need to -- Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would move we close the public hearing for item H-2018-0129, Stapleton Subdivision. Perreault: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 80 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 78 of 79 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0129 for Stapleton Subdivision as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2019, with the following modifications: That on page 27 -- or 37 of the staff report, condition 1-E, that condition will be struck, since the applicant is putting single family -- or single level units on that side and that the -- Item No. 9 on page 39 about the no parking signage, that the applicant would just work with the Fire Department to come up with an amenable solution for what would be -- what made them feel comfortable there. Perreault: Second that motion. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval to City Council for file H-2018-0129. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you for sticking with us. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Last motion. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we close the public hearing for -- Fitzgerald: Could I adjourn instead? Holland: -- February 21st -- Fitzgerald: Could I adjourn instead? Holland: Yes. Adjourn. Adjourn. I move we adjourn. Perreault: Second that motion. Fitzgerald: All those in favor of adjournment say aye. Motion to adjourn is approved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2019 – Page 81 of 101 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2019 Page 79 of 79 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:56 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) AP ROVED %,U "1 .4- J SIC RREAULT - CH IRMAN ATT ST: C U� C. JAY C S - CITY CLERK 091 1 l'7 DATE APPROVED ,TEDq� cn SEAL rye TREA`'•���� Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February2l, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Number: H-2018-0135 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Pine Four-Plex By Amanda Bidwell, neUdesign Architecture, Located at 645 W. Pine Avenue &� Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for P ine F our-P lex C UP (H-2018-0135) by Amanda B idwell, neUdesign Architecture, L ocated at 645 W. Pine Avenue AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 2/8/2019 E xhibit Findings/Orders 2/8/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 3 of 202 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0135 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of Four (4) Dwelling Units on 0.29 of an Acre of Land in the R-15 Zoning District, Located at 645 W. Pine Ave., by Amanda Bidwell, neUdesign Architecture. Case No(s). H-2018-0135 – Pine Four-Plex For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 7, 2019 (Findings on February 21, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 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 February 21, 2019 – Page 4 of 202 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0135 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 February 7, 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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 7, 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 February 7, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 5 of 202 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 21 5 �daY of leb-ua , 2019. COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED N� e - COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER REID OLSEN VOTED ,a IJ�i� �� ___�RM"Y"60a�k, -Chairman —w Attest: 1 U� Coles,y erk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Developmen epartment, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney, 9-i' "���,� QO � . O� ��\\ By: Dated: J = city of Ci erk's ce E IDIAN -- s� IDAHO SEAL x� CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0135 Pine. Fou v --PI eY: Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 1 HEARING DATE: 2/7/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0135 Pine Four-Plex LOCATION: 645 W. Pine Ave. (Located in the SE ¼ of Section 12, T.3N., R.1W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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, by Amanda Bidwell, neUdesign Architecture. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 7 of 202 Page 2 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Amanda Bidwell, neUdesign Architecture – 725 E. 2nd St., Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Leon Kerns, AFM Enterprises, Inc. – 7801 Lemhi St., Boise, ID 83709 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 1/26/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 1/22/2019 Nextdoor posting 1/22/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on property 1/23/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 8 of 202 Page 3 purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The proposed development demonstrates compliance with the following policies of the Plan:  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The proposed development will contribute to the diversity of housing types and rental options available in this area which consist of single-family and multi-family dwellings.  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The proposed medium density multi-family development will contribute to the variety of residential categories in this area.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) A new parking lot is proposed in this development which will be required to comply with the parking lot landscape standards in UDC 11-3B-8C.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development is within walking distance of the City’s downtown area.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) The proposed development is required to comply with the open space standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments. Based on the size of the units (i.e. 1,060 square feet), a minimum of 1,000 square feet (or 0.02 of an acre) is required to be provided.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Urban services are currently provided to this property.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) Only one (1) access is proposed to this site via W. Pine Ave., an arterial street; local street access is not available. A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the property to the west for access to the proposed driveway upon redevelopment to reduce access points on the arterial street.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02, pg. 55) Although not high density, the proposed apartments will be located in close proximity (less than a half mile) to Old Town and Pine Avenue is a fairly major access thoroughfare.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 9 of 202 Page 4 This area contains a mix of single-family and multi-family residential uses and the surrounding area is designated for future medium density and high density residential uses. Therefore, staff is of the opinion the uses are compatible. B. Existing Structure(s)/Site Improvements: There is an existing mobile home and accessory structure on this site that will be removed with development of the site. A driveway exists via W. Pine Ave. There are existing trees and landscaping on the site. C. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted with the conditional use permit application that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with one (1) 2-story multi-family 4-plex structure, driveway access via Pine Ave. and parking (see Section VII.A). Each of the dwelling units are proposed to have 2 bedrooms. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed multi-family development is listed as an allowed use in the R-15 zoning district with conditional use approval and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family development (see below analysis). The proposed residential use and density is consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas per the Comprehensive Plan. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, Multi-Family Development, as follows:  Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of 10 feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by the UDC. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed plan complies with this standard.  All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The Applicant should comply with this requirement.  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Private patios/balconies are proposed for each unit that range in size from 112-114 square feet that comply with this requirement.  At a minimum, 250 square feet (s.f.) of outdoor common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. Common open space shall not be less than 400 square feet in area and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of 20 feet. The proposed units range in size from 1,044-1,059 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 1,000 s.f. (or 0.02 of an acre) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided within the development. Outdoor common area is proposed at the south end of the building in accord with UDC standards consisting of a BBQ area with table and seating and an open grassy area.  For multi-family developments with less than 20 units, two (2) site amenities are required to be provided from two (2) separate categories (i.e. quality of life, open space, or recreation) that meet the particular needs of the residents. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 10 of 202 Page 5 The Applicant proposes a piece of public art (to be selected) and a barbeque area with tables and seating for tenants as amenities in accord with this standard.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27E. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundations as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plants. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should comply with this standard; evergreen shrubs should be provided at the spacing required.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A-7): Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed below for the R-15 district. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and deems it in compliance with the required standards. Notes: 1. Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk. 2. A reduction to the width of the buffer may be requested as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C1c of this title. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 11 of 202 Page 6 G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): One full access is proposed via W. Pine Ave., an arterial street. Access via a local street is not available; therefore, a cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be granted to the adjoining property to the west for access to the driveway proposed with this development at the shared property line. The proposed access complies with UDC 11-3A-3 and the Comprehensive Plan (3.06.02D referenced above) which restricts access to arterial streets. H. Transit: The nearest bus stop located at 700 W. 2nd St. is within 0.4 of a mile from the site. I. Parking (UDC Table 11-3C-6): Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for 2-bedroom multi-family dwellings as follows: 2 spaces per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage. Based on (4) 2-bedroom units, a minimum of 8 spaces are required with 4 of those in a covered carport or garage. A total of 9 spaces are proposed, including an ADA space, with 4 of those being in a covered carport in accord with the minimum UDC standards. On-street parking is also available along this section of W. Pine Ave. for guest parking if all of spaces on the site are occupied. Bicycle parking is required to be provided based on 1 space for every 25 vehicle spaces provided on the site. Based on a total of 9 vehicle spaces, a bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of 1 bicycle is required. A bicycle rack is depicted on the site plan as required; a detail of the bicycle rack should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8, 11-3B-12C): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. K. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): An attached sidewalk exists along W. Pine Ave., an arterial street, on this site. Although detached sidewalks are required along arterial streets per UDC 11-3A-17, Staff does not recommend the sidewalk is reconstructed as a detached sidewalk. L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along W. Pine Ave., an arterial street, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district; landscaping is required within the buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide buffer is depicted on the site plan with landscaping in accord with UDC standards. Note: The buffer appears to actually scale at 24’, please verify it meets the minimum width standard. Parking lot landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The perimeter along the west and south boundaries should measure a minimum of 5-feet in width inside curbs and contain vegetative groundcover in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C.1. Other than that, the proposed landscaping within the parking area complies with UDC standards. There are existing trees on this site that will be removed during development of the sit e that may require mitigation. Contact the City Arborist, Elroy Huff (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any trees on the site to schedule an inspection to determine mitigation requirements as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 12 of 202 Page 7 Because the subject property is in a residential district, no buffer to adjacent uses is required. M. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): There are no waterways that cross this site. N. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7): All new fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall closed vision fence is proposed to be constructed around the perimeter of the development. A detail of the fence should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. O. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. City water and sewer services are currently provided to this site. P. Pressure Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. Q. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments; design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage facilities counted toward qualified open space are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. R. Lighting (UDC 11-3A-11) All outdoor lighting provided on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Lighting should be provided for safety in stairwells. S. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were submitted for the proposed 4-plex structure (see Section VII.C). Building materials are proposed to consist of board and batten and horizontal lap siding with stone veneer accents and stained wood trim and fascia; architectural asphalt shingles are proposed for the roof. Final building colors will be selected from an earth-tone palette with a green tint. All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. A detail of the trash enclosure and carport structures should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that is consistent with the multi-family structure. T. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)/Design Review (DR): An application for a CZC and DR is required to be submitted for review and approval of the site design and structure to ensure consistency with UDC standards, design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, and provisions in this report prior to submittal of building permit applications for the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 13 of 202 Page 8 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed development complies with the applicable minimum UDC standards and will provide a housing type (i.e. multi-family apartment units) that will be compatible with existing uses and will contribute to the variety of housing types in this area. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request for conditional use permit. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 7, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Amanda Bidwell, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Amanda Bidwell, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement with staff report) v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Adequate parking for the site; parking along W. Pine Ave. may go away in the future per ACHD’s report; ii. Proposed use is appropriate in close proximity to Old Town. d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 14 of 202 Page 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 15 of 202 Page 10 B. Landscape Plan (date: 1/24/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 16 of 202 Page 11 C. Building Elevations & Floor Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 17 of 202 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 18 of 202 Page 13 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Conditional Use Permit 1.1 Site Specific Conditions 1.1.1 The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi- Family Development. 1.1.2 The site/landscape plan included in Section VII is approved with the following modifications: a. The north side of the building (i.e. street facing) shall have landscaping along its foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plants as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E. b. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street per UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. c. Depict a detail of the bicycle rack that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. d. Depict a detail of the 6-foot tall closed vision fence proposed to be constructed around the perimeter of the development. e. Depict a detail of the trash enclosure and carport structures that is consistent in design with the multi-family structure. f. Include mitigation information on the landscape plan for existing healthy trees on the site that will be removed with development of the site as determined by the City Arborist in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Contact the City Arborist, Elroy Huff (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any trees on the site to schedule an inspection to determine mitigation requirements. g. The perimeter buffer along the west and south boundaries should measure a minimum of 5- feet in width inside curbs and contain vegetative groundcover in accord with UDC 11-3B- 8C.1. h. Revise the notes on the landscape plan to refer to City of Meridian code requirements rather than City of Boise’s. Such modifications should be shown on revised plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.1.3 Provide an address sign within the street buffer along Pine Avenue for the development and addressing on the building for each unit for easy identification by emergency services. 1.1.4 Submit a floor plan correctly depicting minimum 80 square foot private patios/balconies for each unit in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. 1.1.5 Lighting shall be provided in the stairwell for safety. 1.1.6 The Applicant shall provide a minimum of two (2) site amenities for this development consisting of public art and a barbeque area with tables and seating for tenants (or other qualified amenities) in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27D. A detail of the public art shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 19 of 202 Page 14 1.1.7 The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3- 27F. A recorded copy of this agreement shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.1.8 A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be granted to the adjoining property to the west (parcel #S1212428049) for access to the driveway proposed with this development along the shared property line in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. A recorded copy of the easement shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.1.9 The conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the city. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. 1.1.10 An application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review is required to be submitted prior to submittal of a building permit application for review and approval of the proposed site design and structure to ensure consistency with Unified Development Code standards, design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, Comprehensive Plan, and provisions in this report B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Given the nature of this development a street light plan is not required. Streetlight 4840A fronts the property. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 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 be dedicated using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. 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. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.2 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. 2.3 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. 2.4 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 20 of 202 Page 15 UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.5 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.8 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. 2.9 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. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.11 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.12 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.13 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. 2.14 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. 2.15 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings for any public infrastructure 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. 2.16 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 887-2211. C. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160339/Page1.aspx D. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 21 of 202 Page 16 http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159844/Page1.aspx E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159881/Page1.aspx F. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159772/Page1.aspx G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160487/Page1.aspx 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 the dimensional & development regulations of the R-15 district (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 is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently provided to the subject property and will serve the proposed development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 22 of 202 Page 17 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 not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 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 February 21, 2019 – Page 23 of 202 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February2l, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 B Project File Number: H-2018-0087 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hill's Century Farm Wireless Communication Facility CUP Meeting Notes: By Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless c/o Powder River Development Services, LLC. Located off the Southeast corner of E. Amity Road and S. Eagle Rd. 9 APPROVED 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 Hill's Century F arm Wireless C ommunication F acility C UP (H-2018-0087) by Horizon Tower/Ver izon Wireless c/o P owder River D evelopment Services, L L C. L ocated off the Southeast corner of E . Amity Road and S. Eagle Road AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 2/11/2019 E xhibit A E xhibit 2/11/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 24 of 202 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0087 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility in an R-8 Zoning District at Hill’s Century Farm, Located off the Southeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., by Powder River Development Services, LLC on Behalf of Horizon Tower and Verizon. Case No(s). H-2018-0087 Hill’s Century Farm Wireless Communication Facility For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 7, 2019 (Findings on February 21, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 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 February 21, 2019 – Page 25 of 202 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0087 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 February 7, 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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 7, 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 February 7, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 26 of 202 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of 2019. COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT, CHAIRMAN VOTED e COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED___ COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER REID OLSEN VOTED sica P eault, Chairman �PSED Ate, . QO P Attest: �° 2 City of V C.�VI E IDIAN IDAHO , 0.aiy4C'dty Vf I Clerk SEAL `�2r off. Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: Z 4 .1 � City lerk' c CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0087 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 1 HEARING DATE: 2/7/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0135 Hill’s Century Farm Wireless Communication Facility LOCATION: Generally located off the southeast corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in the NW ¼ of Section 33, T.3N., R.1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility in an R-8 zoning district, by Powder River Development Services, LLC. II. PROJECT SUMMARY STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 39.71 Future Land Use Designation MU-N Existing Land Use Agricultural (farm land) and a single-family residence Proposed Land Use(s) Wireless communication facility (100’ tall monopine cell tower) Current Zoning R-8 Proposed Zoning NA Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 7/24/2018; 0 attendees History (previous approvals) CPAM-15-001; AZ-15-004 (DA #2015-061375); RZ-15- 007; PBA-15-012; H-2016-0092 (1st addendum to DA #2016-119080); H-2018-0127 (2nd addendum to DA - Findings have been approved but the DA has not yet been signed) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 28 of 202 Page 2 III. PROJECT AREA MAPS Future Land Use Map Aerial Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless c/o Powder River Development Services, LLC 408 S. Eagle Rd., Ste. 200, Eagle, ID 83616 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 29 of 202 Page 3 B. Owners: Martin Hill, Hill & Hill Properties LP – 3625 E. Amity Rd., Meridian, ID 83642 Brighton Corporation – 12601 W. Explorer Dr., Ste. 200, Boise, ID 83713 C. Representative: Zack Williams, Powder River Development Services, LLC on behalf of Horizon Tower and Verizon – 408 S. Eagle Rd., Ste. 200, Eagle, ID 83616 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 1/18/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 1/15/2019 Nextdoor posting 1/15/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on property 1/22/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the subject property as Mixed Use – Neighborhood (MU-N). The purpose of the MU-N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services. Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide a good or service that people typically do not travel far for (approximately 1 mile) and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is particularly critical in MU-N areas. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The proposed development demonstrates compliance with the following policies of the Plan:  “Provide facilities and services that keep up with growth.” (3.01.01) The proposed wireless facility will provide for the communication needs of residents/travelers in the southeast portion of the City.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The Applicant proposes to utilize an existing access via S. Eagle Rd. to the Idaho Power substation to the north to access this site; no new accesses via the arterial street (Eagle Rd.) are proposed. An access easement is necessary from Idaho Power for the proposed access.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) The closest residential property to the project site that is not separated by an arterial street is approximately 900’ south of the project site in Hill’s Century Farm Subdivision. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 30 of 202 Page 4 B. Existing Structure(s)/Site Improvements: The majority of this 39.7 acre parcel is being farmed; there is a single-family residence and accessory structure located at the southeast corner of the parcel approximately 1,200 feet away. C. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted with this application that depicts how the northwest corner of the subject parcel is proposed to develop with a 20’ x 70’ (1,400 square foot) fenced lease area for a 100-foot tall monopine cell tower and associated equipment for Verizon Wireless (see Section VII.B). The tower will be co-locatable for a total of up to four (4) carriers and will support panel antennas; ground mounted equipment will be located within the fenced enclosure. The project site is part of a larger 39.7 acre parcel of which the existing uses will remain the same. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed wireless communication facility is listed as an allowed use in the R-8 zoning district with conditional use approval and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43: Wireless Communication Facility (see below analysis). The proposed use is not specifically listed as a desired use in the MU-N designation in the Comprehensive Plan although it will provide communication service for the surrounding area. The proposed facility will add to Verizon’s existing network and provide improved services to customers and improved calling/data capacity improving overall system performance. Maintenance visits only occur about once a month, therefore traffic to this site will be minimal. The Applicant submitted a vicinity map showing locations of existing towers (5) within 2.3 miles of the site with the nearest being one (1) mile away (see Section VII.D). Propagation maps were also submitted showing the current coverage area and the coverage area after the proposed tower is constructed (see Section VII.E) E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-43): (Staff’s comments in italics) Process (11-4-3-43C): 1. All proposed communication towers shall be designed (structurally and electrically) to accommodate the applicant's antennas as well as collocation for at least one additional user. The proposed tower will accommodate up to a total of 4 carriers using a stealth design. 2. A proposal for a new commercial communication tower shall not be approved unless the decision making body finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved structure and/or tower. The Applicant’s Network Engineer submitted a letter stating the existing towers in the area do not meet all requirements (i.e. height and/or location) to function reasonably to address their coverage gap in the area. 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate the proposed tower or antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or structure. One or more of the following documentation shall be provided as proof that the new tower is necessary: a. Unwillingness of other tower or facility owners to entertain shared use. b. The proposed collocation of an existing tower or facility would be in violation of any state or federal law. c. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing towers, as documented by a qualified and licensed structural engineer. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 31 of 202 Page 5 d. The planned equipment would cause interference, materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment on the tower as documented by a qualified and licensed engineer. e. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer. The Applicant’s Network Engineer submitted a letter stating the existing towers in the area do not meet the height and/or location requirements to function reasonably. Stealth tower facilities are required to meet the following standards (11-4-3-43C.5): 1. Stealth towers in residential districts with allowed nonresidential uses shall require conditional use permit approval. In all other districts, stealth towers shall be deemed a principally permitted use and shall require a certificate of zoning compliance prior to installation. The Applicant is requesting conditional use approval with this application. 2. Facilities shall meet the setbacks of the zoning district, except for facilities on a property abutting a residential use or a public right of way shall be set back a distance equal to the height of the tower. The facility is set back more than 100’ from the adjacent right-of-way of S. Eagle Rd. Although there aren’t existing residences within 100’ of the proposed tower, the concept development plan approved for the adjacent area is for residential uses; therefore, Staff recommends the subject site area is expanded to the west, east and south a minimum of 100 feet from the location of the tower to accommodate the required setback. If the land use of the adjacent area changes to a non-residential use in the future, the site area could be reduced per the setbacks of the zoning district. 3. Any facilities not meeting these standards shall require approval of a conditional use permit, in addition to any other necessary permits. As proposed, the project site area does not allow for a 100 foot setback from future residential uses; if a lesser setback is deemed to be appropriate by the Commission, it should be part of the subject conditional use approval. Required Documentation: 1. For all wireless communication facilities, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his, her or its successors to allow the shared use of the tower, as required by this section, if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. A Letter of Intent was submitted with this application as required and is included in Section VII.F. 2. Propagation charts showing existing and proposed transmission coverage at the subject site and within an area large enough to provide an understanding of why the facility needs to be in the chosen location. Propagation maps were submitted and included in Section VII.E demonstrating current transmission coverage and the transmission coverage anticipated with the proposed facility. 3. A statement regarding compliance with regulations administered and enforced by the federal communications commission (FCC) and/or the federal aviation administration (FAA). A statement was submitted with this application as required and is included in Section VII.G. Design Standards (11-4-3-43E): All new communication towers shall meet the following minimum design standards: 1. All towers shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings and land uses in the zoning district, or otherwise integrated to blend in with existing characteristics of the site. There are no existing buildings/structures adjacent to this site Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 32 of 202 Page 6 except for the Idaho Power substation to the north; residential uses are planned to the south and east of this site per the conceptual development plan approved for this site although a self-service storage facility may request approval to develop to the east. The proposed monopine (i.e. pine tree) design should blend in with future uses in this area. 2. The facility shall be painted a neutral, non-reflective color that will blend with the surrounding landscape. Recommended shades are gray, beige, sand, taupe, or light brown. All metal shall be corrosive resistant or treated to prevent corrosion. The proposed pine tree design should blend in with future surrounding landscape. 3. All new communication tower facilities shall be of stealth or monopole design, unless the decision making body determines that an alternative design would be appropriate because of location or necessity. The proposed wireless facility is a stealth/monopole design resembling a tall pine tree. 4. No part of any antenna, disk, array or other such item attached to a communications tower shall be permitted to overhang any part of the right of way or property line. When the property is subdivided in the future to create a lot for the proposed wireless facility, compliance with this standard is required. 5. The facility shall not be allowed within any required street landscape buffer. The facility is proposed outside of any required street buffers. 6. All new communication tower facility structures require administrative design review approval, in addition to any other necessary permits. Structures contained within an underground vault are exempt from this standard. The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Design Review application concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the facility prior to application for a building permit. 7. Any equipment at ground level shall be screened by a sight obscuring fence or structure. The facility is proposed to be screened by a sight obscuring fence; ground level equipment will be contained within the fenced area. 8. All tower facilities shall include a landscape buffer. The buffer shall consist of a landscape strip of at least five feet (5') wide outside the perimeter of the compound. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the plant material shall be of an evergreen variety. In locations where the visual impact of the tower is minimal, the applicant may request a reduction to these standards through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. The Applicant submitted a request for Director approval of alternative compliance to these landscape standards based on the existence of a 35-foot wide landscape buffer immediately to the north of the proposed site on the Idaho Power substation site. The Applicant doesn’t feel a landscape buffer is necessary for the east and west sides of this site as a storage facility is planned surrounding the project site; and a buffer on the south side of the project site is not feasible due to the necessity for the area to be open for easement access for maintenance visits. Because residential uses have been conceptually approved to develop on the adjacent property to the west, east and south of the project site, not a storage facility, the Director is not supportive of the request for alternative compliance. Additionally, because a 100 foot setback is required to residential uses, this should accommodate the area necessary to provide the landscape buffer outside of the area needed for an access easement on the south. Therefore, the Director denies the request for alternative compliance and requires the Applicant provide a landscape buffer around the facility in accord with this standard. If at some point in the future, the adjacent land use changes to a non-residential use, a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 33 of 202 Page 7 subsequent request for alternative compliance may be appropriate but it’s not appropriate at this time. 9. All climbing pegs within the bottom twenty feet (20') of the tower shall be removed except when the tower is being serviced. The Applicant’s narrative states that due to the stealth design of the tower resembling a pine tree, it will not have climbing pegs exposed within the bottom 20’ of the tower. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC Table 11-2A-6): Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed below for the R-8 district. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and deems it in compliance with the required standards. G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via the existing driveway for the Idaho Power substation. An easement shall be obtained from Idaho Power for use of this driveway; a copy of the recorded easement should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. H. Parking (UDC Table 11-3C-6): The proposed use does not require parking; when service vehicles enter the site they can park within the enclosed area. I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8, 11-3B-12C): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan across this site; therefore, no pathways are required. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 34 of 202 Page 8 J. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): This site is not adjacent to a street; therefore, a sidewalk is not required. K. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): There are no waterways that cross this site. L. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7): All new fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall chainlink fence with slats is proposed to be constructed around the perimeter of the development to screen the mechanical equipment. Chain-link fencing with slats is not allowed as a screening material per UDC 11-3B-5M; the fencing material should be revised to reflect an acceptable closed vision material (i.e. vinyl or wood). M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Because facilities are not proposed on this site that require sewer service, connection to City sewer is not required for this development; connection to City water service is required for irrigation purposes. If the requirement for a perimeter landscape buffer is determined in the future to not be required for this development through the alternative compliance process, connection to the City water system should not be required. N. Pressure Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. The Applicant may be able to tie into Idaho Power’s irrigation system with their consent. If the requirement for a perimeter landscape buffer is determined in the future to not be required for this development through the alternative compliance process, a pressurized irrigation system shall not be required. O. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments; design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. P. Lighting (UDC 11-3A-11) All outdoor lighting provided on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Q. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were submitted for the proposed monopine tower as shown in Section VII.C. R. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)/Design Review (DR): An application for a CZC and DR is required to be submitted for review and approval of the site design and structure to ensure consistency with UDC standards, design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and provisions in this report prior to submittal of building permit applications for the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 35 of 202 Page 9 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed use complies with the applicable UDC standards; therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request for Conditional Use Permit. Because the Applicant is not proposing an alternative means of compliance for the requirements in UDC 11-4- 3-43E.8, the Director has denied the Alternative Compliance application. B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 7, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Zack Williams, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: Sally Reynolds; Denise LaFever iii. Commenting: David Palumbo iv. Written testimony: Caleb & Mary Bennett; Laddie & Andrea Tlucek; Susan Karnes, Southern Rim Coalition; Dean Kidd; Robin Willeman; Helen & Kent Tjemsland v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. The proximity of other towers in the area that could possibly allow collocation of the proposed equipment; ii. Concern pertaining to loss of property values in the area if a cell tower is approved; iii. Preference for the cell tower to be located in a non-residential area; iv. Health concerns relating to wireless facilities in close proximity to existing and future residential neighbors; c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. The public will be aware of the cell tower if they choose to buy a home in the future residential area adjacent to the site; ii. The need for a cell tower in this location for wireless coverage in the area. iii. Agreement that a 100’ separation should be provided between the tower and future residential lots. d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 36 of 202 Page 10 B. VII. EXHIBITS A. Approved Conceptual Development Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 37 of 202 Page 11 B. Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 38 of 202 Page 12 C. Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 39 of 202 Page 13 D. Existing Cell Tower Locations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 40 of 202 Page 14 E. Propagation Study Maps Site Site Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 41 of 202 Page 15 F. Letter of Intent Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 42 of 202 Page 16 G. FAA/FCC Compliance Letter Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 43 of 202 Page 17 H. Letter from Network Engineer Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 44 of 202 Page 18 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Conditional Use Permit 1.1 Site Specific Conditions 1.1.1 The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43: Wireless Communication Facility. 1.1.2 The site plan included in Section VII.B is approved with the following modifications: a. Depict sight obscuring fencing around the facility as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-43E.7. Chainlink fencing with slats does not qualify as a screening material per UDC 11-3B-5M. b. The boundary of the site shall be expanded to the west, east and south to allow for a minimum 100 foot setback from the tower to future planned residential uses in accord with UDC 11-4-3-43C.5b, unless otherwise approved by the Commission through the subject (or subsequent) conditional use permit. If the land use of the adjacent area changes to a non- residential use, the site boundary could be revised per the setbacks of the zoning district. c. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip outside the perimeter of the compound with a minimum of 50% of the plant material of an evergreen variety in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 43E.8. If the residential land use of the adjacent property changes in the future to a non- residential use and the visual impact of the tower is minimal, Alternative Compliance may be requested to reduce these standards as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5. Such modifications should be shown on revised plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.1.3 No part of any antenna, disk, array or other such item attached to a communications tower shall be permitted to overhang any part of the right of way or property line as set forth in UDC 11-4-3- 43E.4. Any future subdivision of land shall allow for compliance with this standard. 1.1.4 All climbing pegs within the bottom twenty feet (20') of the tower shall be removed except when the tower is being serviced as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-43.E.9. 1.1.5 An easement shall be obtained from Idaho Power for use of this driveway; a copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.1.6 An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development for irrigation purposes as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. If the requirement for a perimeter landscape buffer is determined in the future to not be required for this development through the alternative compliance process, a pressurized irrigation system shall not be required. 1.1.7 This development is required to connect to the City water system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Because facilities are not proposed on this site that require sewer service, connection to City sewer is not required for this development; connection to City water service is required for irrigation purposes. If the requirement for a perimeter landscape buffer is determined in the future to not be required for this development through the alternative compliance process, connection to the City water system shall not be required. 1.1.8 An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments; design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 45 of 202 Page 19 1.1.9 The Applicant/use shall comply with regulations administered and enforced by the federal communications commission (FCC) and/or the federal aviation administration (FAA). A statement of compliance with these regulations was submitted with this application and is included in Section VII.G. 1.1.10 The Applicant shall allow shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use as required by UDC 11-4-3-43D.1 as agreed upon in the Letter of Intent included in Section VII.F. 1.1.11 The conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the city. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. 1.1.12 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted prior to submittal of a building permit application for review and approval of the proposed site design and structure to ensure consistency with Unified Development Code standards, design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, and provisions in this report. The 2nd Addendum to the Development Agreement approved with H-2018-0127 allowing development of a wireless communication facility on this site shall be recorded prior to submittal of these applications. B. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/154419/Page1.aspx C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=154429 D. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=154690 E. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/153921/Page1.aspx 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 if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII, the subject property will be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the R-8 district and those listed in the specific use standards (see Analysis Section V for more information). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 46 of 202 Page 20 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 the Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant develops the site consistent with the conditions of approval included in Section VIII. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. Further, the stealth design of the facility that resembles a pine tree should blend with existing and future landscaping in 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 this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The site will be unmanned, therefore the Commission finds no additional facilities other than telco, fiber and power are required. The access driveway will accommodate fire trucks in the event of an emergency. 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 should not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 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. B. Alternative Compliance Required Findings: In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application, the Director shall determine the following: (Ord. 10-1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010) 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 47 of 202 Page 21 The Director finds compliance with the requirements listed in UDC 11-4-3-43E.8 is feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds no alternative means of meeting the requirements is proposed other than the facility possibly being located within a storage facility, which at this time is not an approved use on the adjacent property. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds there is no alternative means for compliance other than not providing no buffer at all. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 48 of 202 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February2l, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 C Project File Number: H-2019-0139 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Excalibur Metal Design Meeting Notes: By Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 1322 E Watertower St. �n�nn�A�A 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 E xcalibur M etal D esign (H-2019-0139) by Hatch Design Architecture, L ocated at 1322 E . Watertower S t. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 2/11/2019 E xhibit A E xhibit 2/11/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 49 of 202 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0139 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 10,980 square-foot light industry facility, located at 1322 E. Watertower St. in the C-G Zoning District, by Hatch Design Architecture. Case No(s). H-2018-0139 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 7, 2019 (Findings on February 21, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 7, 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 February 21, 2019 – Page 50 of 202 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0139 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 February 7, 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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 7, 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 February 7, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 51 of 202 action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of V, 2019. COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED _e COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER REID OLSEN VOTED ()PA All Je ca I e-66aKlt, Chairman pRRTED AC/G.�s , Attest: �`"r ►'[ � r��� °r a w Foy m jDjAN� C.Jaoles .k 2�F SEqL y C Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. (;?- By: Dated: City Cle • Office 2— z/ -/ 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0139 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 1 HEARING DATE: 2/7/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0139 Excalibur Metal Design LOCATION: 1322 E. Watertower St. (NE ¼ of Section 18, Township 3N., Range 1E.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A conditional use permit is requested for an approximately 10,980 square foot, two-story, light industrial facility on 0.83 acres of land in the C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. The proposed light industrial facility will be used for employee offices, production and warehouse space and a showroom for a metal design company (Excalibur Metal Design). II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 0.83 Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Light industrial (metal design facility) Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning C-G Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: November 6, 2018; 1 attendee History (previous approvals) AZ 00-005; MDA 10-007 (DA Inst. No. 100040596); RZ-02- 004 (rezoned C-G from R-8) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 53 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) 1 access proposed via E. Watertower St. (collector) 1 access proposed via S. Adkins Way (local) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Attached sidewalk existing along E. Watertower St. and S. Adkins St. Proposed Road Improvements Distance to other key services Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0 ft.  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See Application Info.  WRRF Declining Balance 13.52 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water  Distance to Water Services 0 ft.  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application info.  Water Quality None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Applicant to coordinate with Engineering regarding fire flow requirements beyond 1500 gpm Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 54 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 3 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Jeff Hatch, Hatch Design Architecture 6126 W. State St. Ste. 107 Boise, Idaho 83703 B. Owner: Jeremy Adams 75 W. Taylor Ave. Ste. 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 55 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 4 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/18/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 1/15/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/25/2019 Nextdoor posting 1/15/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a conditional use permit to operate a light industrial use (metal design facility), in the C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. A conditional use permit is required for a light industrial use, subject to specific use standards listed below. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Commercial. The purpose of areas designated as Commercial is to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses – the proposed light industrial facility will house a fabrication process intended to provide a unique service and product to customers. The facility is proposed to include a showroom and production areas where customers will be able to view the fabrication process and custom order wholesale or retail products. The proposed building will house a service bay intended to contain the majority of fabrication processes to mitigate sound and any industrial characteristics of the intended use. Since the proposed use is not exclusively industrial in character, incorporates various aspects that contribute to a retail and service atmosphere, and has been designed with surrounding properties and uses in mind, staff feels the proposed CUP would be consistent with the intent of commercially zoned properties. The applicant is also requesting alternative compliance (ALT) to UDC 11-3B to install trees in grates within pavers in lieu of the vegetative groundcover that is required in the 20-foot landscape buffer along E. Watertower St. The alternative compliance request only requires approval by the Director, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5; analysis regarding the request can be found in Section I below. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):  “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B)  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscape techniques.” (2.01.04B)  “Provide landscaping, pedestrian friendly areas, and appropriate signage at gateways, and new development sites throughout town as appropriate, with upscale attractive construction.” (2.01.03J)  “Require industrial areas to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses (e.g., landscape, fences, etc.) and community design criteria.” (3.06.01A) B. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-25, Industry, Light and Heavy. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 56 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 5 A. All mechanical equipment emissions; shipping and/or delivery; or other outdoor activity areas shall be located a minimum of three hundred feet (300') from any abutting residential districts, or the use is subject to a conditional use permit. The proposed use does not abut a residential district so this requirement is not applicable. B. The application shall identify how the proposed use will address the impacts of noise and other emissions on adjoining residential districts. More specifically, the following adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound attenuation and/or hours of operation: 1. Noise, odor, or vibrations, or direct or reflected glare detectable by the human senses without the aid of instruments. The service bay for the proposed light industrial use (metal fabrication) will be housed in the northwest part of the building, located furthest away from the patio area and closest to adjacent industrial and commercial uses. 2. Radioactivity and electric or electromagnetic disturbances that unduly interfere with the normal operation of equipment, instruments, or appliances on abutting properties. This standard is not applicable to the proposed use. 3. Any other emission or radiation that endangers human health, results in damages to vegetation or property or which exceeds health and safety standards. This standard is not applicable to the proposed use. 4. In the event that the director determines that the applicant cannot adequately address such impacts, the use shall be subject to conditional use approval. C. Additional standards for industry, heavy: The use shall be located a minimum of one thousand feet (1,000') from a hospital. The proposed building is not located near a hospital so this requirement is not applicable. D. The application materials shall include written statement that the proposed facility meets any applicable federal, state, or local standards regarding such use including, but not limited to, those of the U.S. environmental protection agency, the U.S. department of agriculture, Central district health department, the Ada County air quality board and Idaho department of water resources. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). The applicant has not submitted these required materials with the subject application but shall submit information regarding the specific use standards in the narrative for the CZC and DES application. C. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Table 11-2B-3 (Dimensional Standards in the Commercial Districts) D. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): One (1) access is proposed via E. Watertower St. (collector) and one (1) access is proposed via S. Adkins Way (local). Per UDC 11-3A-3 staff typically recommends that properties provide a cross-access/egress easement to abutting properties to limit the number of access points to collector roadways (Watertower) and to allow for inner-connectivity should redevelopment occur in the future. However, this site is proposed to include an accessory outdoor storage use which will abut an industrial property to the north. In this case, staff does not believe cross-access is practical and would cause the currently proposed project to change in character and design; specifically impacting the location of the storage yard and parking for the site. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 57 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 6 E. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Per UDC Table 11-3C-6B.1, a minimum of 22 off-street parking spaces are required to be provided; a total of 21 spaces are proposed. One (1) additional parking space complying with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5 shall be provided. F. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Seven-foot sidewalks exist along E. Watertower St. and S. Adkins Way. The applicant is proposing an outdoor paved patio that will continue to the existing sidewalk along both streets; a walkway leads from the patio to the front entrance of the facility. G. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A ten-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Adkins Rd. and a twenty-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Watertower St. 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. The applicant is proposing a fifteen-foot buffer along S. Adkins Rd. in excess of UDC standards and is submitting an alternative compliance request for the buffer along E. Watertower St. as detailed in item I below. 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 complies with these requirements. There are no existing trees on the site being removed that require mitigation. H. Alternative Compliance (ALT) (UDC 11-5B-5): The applicant has applied for Alternative Compliance as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5 to landscaping requirements (UDC 11-3B) regarding the required 20-foot landscape buffer along E. Watertower St. (collector). UDC 11-3B-7C-3a requires that all required landscape buffers along streets be planted with trees and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. The applicant proposes to install three (3) deciduous trees within grates bounded by pavers spanning approximately 85 linear feet. The tree grates border a patio area that is intended to serve as a pedestrian and employee gathering space (see Exhibit VII.B). Staff feels the applicant is proposing an alternative that incorporates an architectural site design that will promote a walkable and pedestrian oriented site and as such, meets one of the prerequisites for alternative compliance and provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements of UDC 11-3B (see Findings in Section IX). The alternative also fulfills the intent of Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.03J, “Provide landscaping, pedestrian friendly areas, and appropriate signage at gateways, and new development sites throughout town as appropriate, with upscale attractive construction.” Staff is generally supportive of the alternative compliance request, however is recommending the applicant provide further information regarding the walkable and pedestrian oriented details to demonstrate the fulfillment of alternative compliance. Staff is recommending the applicant embellish on the following with the CZC and DES application: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 58 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 7 a. The proposed site and landscape plan depicts a patio area but does not include information about potential seating options, pedestrian scale elements, or the type of pavers used. Staff recommends the applicant provide a detail of the patio, including an area for customers and/or employees to utilize the space with the CZC and DES application submittal. b. The applicant’s narrative and site and landscape plan depict the area in which the trees with grates will be located but does not provide information about the style or appearance of grate proposed, or the appearance of pavers and whether those pavers continue into the proposed patio area. Staff recommends the applicant provide more information and a detail of the buffer area with a rendering of pavers and tree grates with the CZC and DES application submittal. I. Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use (UDC 11-3A-14) Outdoor storage of material, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of the proposed building and site landscaping to minimize the visual impacts of the use. Outdoor storage shall be fully contained and screened from view of adjacent properties and/or public streets by a solid fence and/or wall with a minimum height of six feet (6’). The applicant is proposing to use the northern part of the site as secured accessory outdoor storage, but has not specified what type of fencing will be used for the secured gate or for screening to adjacent properties. The existing fencing at the northern boundary appears to be chainlink and does not qualify as a screening material. There does not appear to be fencing along the west boundary of the site, which will need to be screened if used as an accessory outdoor storage area. A detail of required proposed solid fencing along the north and west boundary of the site shall be submitted with the CZC and DES application. J. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7, 11-3A-14) Fencing proposed along the perimeter of the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC 11-3A-14. In accord with UDC 11-3A-14, proposed fencing and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure. A detail of proposed fencing shall be submitted with the CZC and DES application. K. Certificate of Zoning Compliance and 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. The proposed plans submitted with these applications should comply with UDC standards and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual for commercial districts. L. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed building included in Exhibit VII.C. Building materials consist of metal siding, sheet metal, a perforated metal accent screen, and a steel entry and awning. The Architectural Standards Manual (ASM) for commercial districts requires that building design incorporate complementary material combinations, including: the use of at least two (2) distinct field materials, colors, or material-color combinations on the building façade; incorporation of an accent material on the first story; and distinguishing field materials from accent materials. The submitted conceptual elevations depict one field material (metal) in varying applications. Staff recommends the applicant revise the building elevations to comply with the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the ASM. The elevations submitted with the application (Exhibit VII.C) are not approved with the subject application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 59 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 8 M. Trash Enclosure A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan in the northern part of the parking lot and is proposed to be located within the secured parking portion of the site. A detail of the sides of the enclosure should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The applicant shall coordinate with Republic Services on the design and location of the trash enclosure and shall develop an access plan for the enclosure. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed project complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is conditioned to comply with the applicable development standards in the UDC. Based on the aforementioned analysis, staff recommends approval of the subject CUP application. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 7, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jeff Hatch, Hatch Design Architecture, Applicant’s Representative; Matt Schneider; Jeremy Adams, Owner; Sally Reynolds ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Jeff Hatch, Hatch Design Architecture, Applicant’s Representative; Matt Schneider; Jeremy Adams, Owner; Sally Reynolds 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. Secured parking access, materials and refuse stored outside ii. Noise to abutting properties, hours of operation iii. Design of building and materials used for exterior elevations iv. Educational outreach for class visits or instruction d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Commission replaced condition VIII.1.g with a condition requiring applicant to coordinate a Design Standard Exception for building elevation materials with staff. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 60 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (date: December 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 61 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 10 B. Landscape Plan (date: December 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 62 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 11 C. Building Elevations (date: December 2018) - NOT APPROVED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 63 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 12 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION a. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-00-005, 100040596; MDA-10-007; RZ-02-004). b. The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-25, Industry, Light and Heavy. c. The applicant shall comply with the Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use standards in UDC 11-3A-14. d. The site plan, included in Exhibit VII.A, dated December 2018 shall be revised as follows: i. One (1) parking space shall be added to the site plan to comply with standards in UDC Table 11-3C-6B.1 e. The landscape plan included in Exhibit VII.B, dated December 2018, shall be revised as follows: i. The applicant shall provide details of the proposed tree grates and patio area with submittal of CZC and DES application. ii. A detail of the sides of the trash enclosure shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. iii. A detail of any fencing and secure gate proposed shall be submitted with the CZC and DES application. iv. One (1) parking space shall be added to the site plan to comply with standards in UDC Table 11-3C-6B.1. f. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the site plan and landscape plan included in Exhibit VII and the conditions of approval in this report. g. The applicant shall revise the building elevations to incorporate at least two (2) field materials from the basic categories specified in the ASM for commercial districts (wood, masonry, concrete, metal, stucco and glazing). Coordinate with staff on a Design Standard Exemption for building elevation materials. The request shall be made in writing and submitted with the CZC and DES application. The request shall specify the standard(s) proposed to be exempt; the reason the exemption is requested; and how the alternative means for compliance meet the intent and goals of the requested standard exemption, or how the alterative proposed to maintain a similar level of effort by exceeding other site and building standards. h. 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. i. The applicant shall submit information regarding the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-25 in the narrative for the CZC and DES application. j. 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) for commercial districts. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 64 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 13 k. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. l. The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the light industrial use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. m. 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. n. The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. o. All signage for the property is subject to the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D. 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 1,500 gpm of domestic water supply is available at 20 psi at the water main. Applicant to coordinate with Public Works Engineering if a higher flow is required. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.2.2 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.3 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. 2.2.4 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.5 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.6 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. 2.2.7 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. 3. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160521/Page1.aspx 4. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160483/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 65 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 14 IX. FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request on the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district and the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-25, Industry, Light and Heavy. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial for this site. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that the general construction, operation and maintenance of the light industrial facility institution should be compatible with the surrounding commercial uses in the vicinity. Staff feels that the applicant should provide revised elevations complying with the commercial standards in the Architectural Standards Manual to ensure the design of the building is cohesive with other uses in the general vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the character thereof. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If approved, conditions of approval are included in Exhibit VIII of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation were provided to this property with development of the subdivision; services will be extended to the proposed building by the developer. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 66 of 202 EXHIBIT A Page 15 g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Alternative Compliance Findings: In order to grant approval for alternative compliance, the Director shall determine the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR The Director finds that strict adherence or application of the requirements is feasible; however, the applicant desires to install a plaza and grated trees to provide a pedestrian oriented atmosphere. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the alternative compliance provides an equal means for meeting the City’s structure and site design standards and the landscape standards for the following reasons: 1) The grated trees will allow for an attractive and pedestrian oriented alternative to the typically required vegetative buffer. Customers, employees and pedestrians will be able to enter the site through various access points where they can utilize the outdoor patio area before or after entering the facility. 2) The applicant has proposed to include a patio area for customers and employees, which will provide useable outdoor space in lieu of a vegetative landscape buffer. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the use/character of the surrounding properties. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 67 of 202 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February2l, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 D Project File Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of February 7, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Approve M inutes of F ebruary 7, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 2/12/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 68 of 202 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 7, 2019 Page 61 of 61 Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing -- Planning and Zoning Commission hearing for February 7th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:54 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED Biu � ,i .. ATTEST: C. JAY C LES - CITY CLERK 1'�/ i DATE APPROVED O�PjED AUGUST �Q v 'o = Oly„f ' IDAHO �% SEAL �/ Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 7, 2019 Zoning Map Aerial Floor Plan and Site Circulation Plan Zoning Map Aerial Site Plan Shared Parking Plan Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Concept Bubble Plan for Overall MU-R Designated Area (between W. Harris St. & W. Amity Rd.) Previous Conceptual Development Plan Submitted with FLUM Amendment & Annexation Application Master Street Map Depicting Collector Street (blue/orange dashed lines) Preliminary Plat/Phasing Plan & Landscape Plan Qualified Open Space Exhibit (revised per staff report) Site Amenities 4.95 acres (13.9%) On-Street Parking Exhibit Parking is only allowed on one side of this street Conceptual Elevations for Single-Family Detached & Attached Homes Conceptual Elevations for Multi-Family (4-Plexes) Changes to Agenda: None Item #4A: Harvest Church Preschool (H-2019-0007) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.83 acres of land, zoned 0-T, located at 831 N. Main Street. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: E. Pine Ave and commercial/retail space, zoned 0-T South: Retail and restaurant, zoned 0-T East: N. Main Street and retail and commercial space, zoned 0-T West: Residential properties, zoned 0-T History: This site received CZC approval for a group daycare in 2018. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town Summary of Request: In 2018, the site received CZC approval for a group daycare, which allows for up to 12 children; the applicant is requesting a CUP to operate a daycare center for up to 60 children in the existing church building. The daycare center is proposed to operate with 3 staggered class times; the first class starts at 8:30 AM, second at 11:00 AM, and the third at 3:30, classes are set to finish at 6 PM. The staggered class start times should help to alleviate site congestion and allow for more parking opportunities, however, staff does recommend the applicant provide further information regarding enrollment for each of the staggered class times to further assess parking and site circulation needs. There are 46 existing parking spaces on site, which exceeds UDC standards. However, the UDC does allow the Commission to require more restrictive standards in analyzing a conditional use — if the Commission determines the dirt lot to the south should be used as extra parking for the use, the applicant shall improve the lot in accord with UDC standards. Additionally, cross -access shall be provided to adjacent properties. If approved, the applicant shall amend the existing CZC to establish the new daycare center use. If the Commission requires improvements for parking, the applicant will also need to submit a DES application concurrently with the CZC. Written Testimony: No written testimony received Staff Recommendation: Approval with the conditions in the report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend File Number H-2019-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21, 2019, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0007, as presented during the hearing on February 21, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0007 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #41B: Real Life Church (H-2019-0004) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.68 acres of land, zoned I -L, located at 1098 N. Hickory Ave. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Auction facility, zoned I -L South: Undeveloped land and office space, zoned I -L East: Offices, zoned I -L West: N. Hickory Ave and undeveloped land, zoned I -L History: Annexed in 1982 as part of Upland Industries; PP & FP for Treasure Valley Business Center in 1984; Gemtone Center CUP/PUD in 1991; CZC-07-034 for construction of Pleasant Valley Office Building Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial Summary of Request: A CUP is requested to use an existing 7,500 SF building as a church and daycare center as required in the I -L zoning district. This property is subject to a PD/CUP that allows for a mix of uses including industrial, commercial and residential. The applicant is requesting to operate a church with two Sunday services between 8 AM and 1 PM. Attendance at their current location is approximately 100 adults and 50 children, they plan to accommodate more parishioners at the proposed location. The daycare is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 54 students M -F, between the hours of 9:30 AM -3:30 PM. There are 31 parking spaces available on site, which exceeds UDC standards for the I -L zoning district. Due to the number of projected parishioners and daycare students, the director has approved an alternative compliance request to allow for parking standard alternatives. One of the proposed alternatives includes shared parking agreements with two properties to the north of the subject site, the applicant is currently in discussions to complete an agreement with a developed site to the south. The applicant has also worked with ACHD to allow for on -street parking along Hickory Ave. during weekend hours. Although the shared parking agreements provide the opportunity to accommodate parking needs for church related traffic on Sundays, staff is concerned that church and daycare members may park in unimproved areas out of convenience which could create code enforcement issues and a nuisance to surrounding properties. Since the church's hours of use occurs on Sunday mornings, extra parking required for that use may not interfere with the parking needs of surrounding properties. If parking needs for the daycare can be staggered the impact on surrounding properties might be mitigated as well. However, a permanent solution to parking would be preferred since the shared parking agreements can be cancelled by either party at any time and are only applicable during weekend hours and on-site parking would be more readily available. Initially, staff was under the impression that the same entity would own the subject property as well as the property to the south, and so recommended the lot to the south be improved for additional parking. The applicant intends to purchase just the subject property from the owner whom currently owns both the property to the south and the subject property, so improving the south lot may not be an option for permanent parking. Written Testimony: Jim Boyd — Concerned with the amount of on-site parking provided for the proposed church use Staff Recommendation: Approval with the conditions in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move approve File Number H-2019-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21, 2019, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move deny File Number H-2019-0004, as presented during the hearing on February 21, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons fordenial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0004 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: Stapleton Subdivision (H-2018-0129) Application(s): ➢ Annexation ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Variance (does not require Commission action) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 35.67 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the SWC of W. Harris St. & S. Meridian Rd./SH-69. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR, zoned R-4 & R-8 West: Future MFR, zoned R-40 South: Future mixed-use development, zoned RUT in Ada County East: SH -69 and future mixed-use development History: This property was part of a larger area, which included the property to the south, that was part of an application that amended the FLUM to change the land use designation from MDR to MU -R for the overall property. An annexation application was also approved; however, the DA was never signed so the property was never annexed and the approval has since expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -R (The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single -use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses.) Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation & zoning of 38.15 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; a preliminary plat consisting of 213 building lots and 22 common lots on 35.67 acres of land; and a Variance to UDC 11 -3H -4B for access via SH -69. The site is proposed to develop with a mix of residential uses consisting of 212 SFR units (96 attached & 116 detached) & 28 MFR units [(7) 4-plexes] for a total of 240 residential units at a gross density of 6.73 units/acre. A concept bubble plan was submitted that depicts how this site is proposed to develop and how the adjacent property owner to the south plans to develop the adjacent property with a mix of office, multi -family residential, commercial uses. The overall mix of uses planned for this area is consistent with that desired in the MU -R designation; and although Staff would prefer to see a higher density in this area because of its proximity to a major transportation corridor (SH -69), the density which falls at the low end of the 6-40 units desired in MU -R areas is within the desired range at 6.73 units/acre. There is a north/south collector street designation on the Master Street Map across this site that was intended to provide access between Harris St. & Amity Rd. This designation was placed on this property in 2008 when the FLUM amendment to MU -R was approved because of the intensity of uses planned with the associated development & the need to disperse traffic to the existing & future signals at Harris/SH-69 & Amity/SH-69; the street was intended to serve as a backage road for the commercial development along SH -69 as required by the UDC. However, the property was never annexed & the property wasn't developed as intended. The proposed plat depicts a short segment of the collector street at the north boundary from Harris St. to the first intersection and at the south boundary from SH -69 to the north to the first intersection & to the south boundary for future extension. Staff & ACHD agree that the construction of 2 discontinuous collector streets meets the intent of the MSM and doesn't preclude construction of the southern segment in the future and makes sense in the absence of the previous development plan. One access is proposed at the north boundary via W. Harris St., a collector street; and (1) full -access is proposed via SH -69 although ITD is only in support of a right-in/right-out/left-in access. A collector stub street is proposed at the south boundary for future extension. Staff is requiring access to be provided to the west to the future multi -family development where none is currently proposed in accord with the Comp Plan which encourages interconnectivity between developments & the UDC which requires local street access to be provided to any use that currently takes direct access from a collector street (i.e. Harris). The UDC prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH -69). Public street connections to the state highway are only allowed at the section line road and at the half mile mark between section line roads. However, requests for variances can be made to City Council for the placement andlor number of access points to state highways as requested by the applicant with this development. However, findings have to be made in order for Council to approve a variance as follows: 1) the variance can't grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; 2) the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and 3) the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The plat is proposed to develop in 5 phases with the first phase dependent on access via SH -69; the 2nd phase will have access via Harris St. followed by the 31d phase at the corner of Harris/SH-69 and the 4th phase directly west of phase 1; the 5th phase will be the MFR development which will require approval of a CUP. The applicant proposes the following improvements with each phase: Phase 1: The SH -69/S. Meridian Rd. roadway improvements, 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway and street buffer landscaping along the full length of the project boundary along SH -69/S. Meridian Rd. Phase 2: The W. Harris St. roadway improvements including curb, gutter and detached sidewalk and street buffer landscaping along the full length of the project boundary along W. Harris St.; and installation of the traffic signal at the W. Harris St./SH-69 intersection. Prior to issuance of any C of O's in each of these phases, the associated improvements as proposed by the Applicant are required to be completed, If Council doesn't approve the variance for access via SH -69, the Harris St. improvements, including the signal, are required to be completed with Phase 1; the TIS will need to be updated to reflect the new trip distribution and volumes; the preliminary plat will need to be revised and reconfigured to remove the access; and a new phasing plan will need to be submitted. A minimum of 10% (3.57 acres) of qualified open space & (2) site amenities are required for this development; the applicant proposes open space & amenities in excess of the minimum required. A total of 13.9% (4.95 acres) qualified open space is proposed consisting of 1/2 the street buffer along SH -69, the buffer along collector streets, a few parkways, common areas containing pathways, a small dog park and a''/2 acre central common area. Site amenities consist of a segment of the City's multi -use pathway system within the Northwest Pipeline corridor at the SWC of the site; a multi -use pathway within the street buffer along SH -69; a park with children's play structures consisting of a 24'x 36' play structure, swings, climbing dome, rock climbing boulders, basketball court, big wheel track, and seating area with 4' tall wrought iron fencing with a gated entry surrounding the park for children's safety; and a dog park for small dogs with seating areas. A 6' tall concrete fence on top of a 4 -foot tall berm 10' above the centerline of the adjacent road is proposed in accord with UDC standards for residential developments adjacent to state highways. The Carlson Lateral runs along the west boundary of this site & has been piped; the easement for the lateral is outside of adjacent building lots. The Northwest Gas Pipeline runs across the SWC of this site and lies within a 75' wide easement contained in a common lot. All development within this easement is required to comply with the Williams Pipeline Developer's Handbook. Because of the narrow lots (i.e. 32'+) for detached homes and associated driveways, there is not adequate room for on -street parking in front of those lots for guest parking and in some areas parking is quite a ways away. Where attached homes are proposed, there is room for approximately one space per every 2 lots for on -street parking. On -street parking is also available adjacent to common lots. The Applicant has submitted an exhibit included in Section VILE that demonstrates available on -street parking for the development which amounts to 109+/- spaces available for guest parking (note: parking on the 27' wide street section adjacent to Lot 12, Block 2 can only be accommodated on one side per Fire Department standards). Conceptual building elevations & photos were submitted for the proposed single-family attached and detached units and the multi- family structures as shown. The single-family attached and multi -family structures are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Structures adjacent to W. Harris St. & SH -69 are proposed to all be a single -story in height except for those on Lots 60 and 62, Block 1 which will be 2 -stories in height. To avoid monotonous wall planes, the rear of structures visible from Harris St. and SH -69 are required to have varied setbacks. Written Testimony: Kimberly Porter, Evan & Analyn Frasure, Sandy & Randy Nelson, Will Dilmore — All in favor of the housing options & affordability provided with this development Staff Recommendation: Approval of the AZ & PP; denial of the VAR — Staff recommends a change to DA provision #1f in Section VIII to require a local street connection (instead of just a driveway) to the west property boundary to the future multi -family development as required by UDC 11 -3A -3A.3, Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2018-0129, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21, 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- 0129, as presented during the hearing on February 21, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0129 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 February2l, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Number: Item Title: Public Hearing for Harvest Church Preschool (H-2019- 0007) By Church of the Harvest, Located 831 W. Main St 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare on 0.83 acres of land in the O -T zoning district Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Harvest Church Preschool (H-2019-0007) by Church of the Harvest, L ocated 831 W. M ain S t. 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 2/15/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 130 of 202 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 2/21/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-A Project Name: Harvest Church Preschool Project No.: H-2019-0007 Active: I" Signature Name Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral h To Wish I Wis Y Testi584 Sign In Date/Time a chateau Meridian, id 2/21/2019 6:00:33 Lily mulyar X X dr 83646 PM Bogdan 584 E chateau Meridian, id 2/21/2019 6:00:42 X Mulyar dr 83646 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 HEARING DATE: 2/21/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0007 Harvest Church Preschool LOCATION: 831 N. Main St., in the NW ¼ of Section 7, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A conditional use permit for a daycare center for up to 60 children ranging in age from 3-5 years old in an existing church building on 0.83 acres of land in the O-T zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2D-2. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 0.83 Future Land Use Designation Old Town Existing Land Use Church and group daycare (up to 12 children) Proposed Land Use(s) Church and daycare center (12+ children) Current Zoning O-T Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: December 18, 2018; no attendees History (previous approvals) CZC-10-028, DES-10-021; A-2018-0333 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 131 of 202 Page 2 Description Details Page Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access via N. Main St. Ave (Arterial) and E. Pine Ave. (Arterial) Traffic Level of Service Fire Service  Accessibility Concerns with parking and ensuring that drive aisles are not blocked during church services.  Other Resources Police Service No Comment West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs)  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0’  Sewer Shed Five Mile  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application  WRRF Declining Balance 13.52 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water  Distance to Water Services 0’  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application  Water Quality Concerns No concerns  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns No new water main proposed; no concerns Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 132 of 202 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Church of the Harvest 831 N. Main Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/1/2019 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 133 of 202 Page 4 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 1/29/2019 Radius notification published on 2/11/2019 Nextdoor posting 1/29/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The facility is already constructed, and received Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) approval (A- 2018-0333) for a group daycare (up to 12 children) in 2018. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to expand upon the daycare use to increase enrollment from twelve (12) students to up to sixty (60) students. A daycare center, although ancillary to the church use, requires a conditional use permit per UDC 11-2D-2 and is subject to specific use standards as listed below. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking and biking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The applicant is proposing to use space within the existing church building, no site improvements are proposed. However, the church does own an unimproved lot to the south of the subject property that does not conform to UDC parking standards (see parking analysis below) C. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to operate the daycare with three (3) staggered class times. The first class is proposed to begin at 8:30 AM, the second class at 11:00 AM, and the third at 3:30 PM; classes are projected to finish at 6:00 PM. Prior to the Commission hearing, Staff recommends the applicant provide further information regarding the number of students projected to attend each time slot to assess parking and facility needs. D. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility: A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. The applicant is proposing to care for a maximum of sixty (60) children, classifying it as a daycare center. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The applicant is proposing to use the existing drive aisle and parking lots available on site for pick-up and drop-off of children. There are 46 existing parking spaces on the site, which exceeds UDC requirements for an approximately 27,000 square-foot building in the O-T zoning district (one [1] parking space per 1,000 square feet). If the applicant intends to use the dirt lot located at 58 E. Idaho Ave. to the south of the subject site for parking or loading/unloading it shall be improved in accord with UDC standards. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 134 of 202 Page 5 4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The applicant has coordinated with the Department of Health and Welfare to complete the health and safety inspection, a fire inspection has been completed by the Meridian Fire Department and has been sent to the State of Idaho Stars program for approval. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. The subject property is adjoins residential uses to the north, as such the hours of operation for the daycare center shall be restricted to 6 AM-11 PM. The applicant is proposing hours of operation to occur between 8:30 AM-6 PM, in accord with these standards. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. This requirement does not apply to the subject application. The applicant did conduct a neighborhood meeting and notified property owners within three-hundred feet (300’) in accord with the requirements of the subject CUP request. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') nonscalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The current proposal does not include outdoor space for the daycare. If the subject application is approved and the applicant wants to add outdoor space in the future, they shall comply with this requirement. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. The current proposal does not include outdoor space for the daycare. If the subject application is approved and the applicant wants to add outdoor space in the future, they shall comply with this requirement. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. The current proposal does not include outdoor space for the daycare. If the subject application is approved and the applicant wants to add outdoor space in the future, they shall comply with this requirement. C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation accessory uses: 1. In no way shall the family daycare emit lighting, noise, fumes, smoke, dust, odors, vibrations, or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards set forth in subsection 11-3D- 8B of this title. This requirement does not apply as the subject application is does not involve a home occupation. 2. Off street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off street parking for the dwelling. (Ord. 18-1773, 4-24-2018) This requirement does not apply as the subject application does not involve a home occupation or dwelling unit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 135 of 202 Page 6 E. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): There are three (3) points of access currently used by the existing church and proposed for continued use for the daycare center (see Exhibit VII.B). One (1) access point via N. Main Street is proposed to circulate traffic through the alleyway to access parking to the south. One (1) access point is proposed via E. Pine Ave. to access a one-way parking lot to the west of the subject property. One (1) access point is proposed via E. Idaho Ave. to access a two-way parking lot to the north. The applicant has proposed to control traffic and ensure safe crossing for children through the use of bollards at the corner of buildings, striping and caution flags. Staff recommends the applicant provide further detail regarding installment and location of such precautions with the CZC and DES application. F. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Per UDC Table 11-3C-6B.3, a minimum of twenty-seven (27) off-street parking spaces are required to be provided; a total of forty-six (46) spaces exist and are proposed to be used. The number of existing parking spaces exceeds UDC standards. Staff feels the number of existing parking spaces should be adequate as the class times are staggered throughout the day and should allow for shifts of vehicles to pick-up and drop-off children. However, if the applicant intends to use the dirt lot located at 58 E. Idaho Ave. to the south of the subject site for parking, it shall be improved in accord with UDC 11-3C-5 and UDC 11-3B-8. The UDC does not require that additional parking be provided based on the zoning district for the subject property, however, UDC 11-5B-6D-7 does allow the Commission to require more restrictive standards in analyzing a conditional use. If the Commission determines that the parking lot located at 58 E. Idaho Ave. should be used as parking to increase availability for the daycare, the applicant shall improve and landscape the area in accord with UDC standards, additionally, cross-access to adjacent properties (parcel numbers R5672000460 and R5672000450)shall be provided in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. G. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks exist along E. Pine Ave., E. Idaho Ave. and N. Main Street. A pedestrian walkway and striping was previously installed to guide pedestrians from the two (2) parking lots to the entrance of the existing church and proposed entrance for the daycare. H. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES) If approved, the applicant will be required to amend the current CZC approval to establish the use of a daycare center on the site 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. If the Commission requires improvements be made to the parking lot to the south, the applicant will also be required to submit an application for DES concurrent with the CZC application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. I. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): This site is already serviced by City sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation; these services were provided to this property with development of the site. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed project complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is conditioned to comply with the applicable development standards in the UDC. Based on the aforementioned analysis, staff recommends approval of the subject CUP application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 136 of 202 Page 7 VII. EXHIBITS A. Floor Plans Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 137 of 202 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 138 of 202 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 139 of 202 Page 10 B. Parking and Circulation Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 140 of 202 Page 11 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Site Specific Conditions 1.1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (CZC-10-028, DES-10- 021; A-2018-0333). 1.1.2 The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. 1.1.3 The floor plan, included in Exhibit VII.A, is approved as presented. The applicant is not proposing any exterior modification or additions to the building and none are approved. However, if the Commission requires additional parking be installed on the unimproved portion of the lot to the south (parcel no. R5672000430), the applicant shall submit a site plan depicting additional parking spaces. Installation shall be in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3B-8 and UDC 11-3C-5. 1.1.4 If the Commission requires the lot be improved for parking, the applicant shall provide cross-access to adjacent lots in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. 1.1.5 The applicant is required to amend the existing Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) application to the Planning Division for approval of the proposed use to increase the number of students and final site layout with the improved parking area (if required) prior to submittal of a building permit application. 1.1.6 The applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Building Division (208-887-2211) regarding any building permit requirements. 1.1.7 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.1.8 The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the daycare use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 1.1.9 The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 1.1.10 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.1.11 All signage for the property is subject to the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT No comments on the subject application as services are existing. 3. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160625/Page1.aspx 4. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161519/Page1.aspx 5. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ITD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 141 of 202 Page 12 http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161625/Page1.aspx 6. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160817/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request on the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the O-T zoning district and the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Old Town for this site. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that the general operation and maintenance of the daycare facility should be compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the character thereof. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if adequate on-site parking is provided and utilized by patrons of the church and clients of the daycare. If approved, conditions of approval are included in Exhibit VIII of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation were provided to this property with development of the site. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 142 of 202 Page 13 If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 143 of 202 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February2l, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Number: H-2019-0004 Item Title: Public Hearing for Real Life Church (H-2019-0004) By Real Life Church, Located 1098 Hickory Ave. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a church and ancillary daycare center on 0.68 acres of land in the -L zoning district. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Real L ife C hurch (H-2019-0004) by Real L ife Church, L ocated 1098 N. Hickory Ave. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 2/19/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 144 of 202 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 2/21/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Real Life Church Project No.: H-2019-0004 Active: I" Signature I Wish To Sign In Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral Name Testify Date/Time Justin 2/21/2019 X X Jordan 5:53:57 PM 7103 N Spurwing Meridian, Idaho 2/21/2019 James Boyd y X X Rim PI 83646 6:04:01 PM Sam 2/21/2019 2701 E. Pine ave Meridian, idaho X X johnson 6:13:02 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 HEARING DATE: 2/21/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0004 Real Life Church LOCATION: 1098 N. Hickory Ave., in the NE ¼ of Section 8, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A conditional use permit for an approximately 7,500 square-foot church and ancillary daycare center on 0.68 acres of land in the I-L zoning district as required by UDC Table 11- 2C-2. The facility is already constructed, the applicant is proposing to use the facility as a church on Sundays and an ancillary daycare center for up to 54 children, six hours a day Monday-Friday. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 0.68 Future Land Use Designation Industrial Existing Land Use Multi-tenant office space Proposed Land Use(s) Church and ancillary daycare Current Zoning I-L Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: December 22, 2018; no attendees History (previous approvals) Annexed in 1982 (Upland Industries); PP & FP for Treasure Valley Business Center in 1984; Gemtone Center CUP/PUD in 1991; CZC-07-034 for construction of Pleasant Valley Office Building Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 145 of 202 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no)  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access via N. Hickory Ave (Collector) Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station  Fire Response Time  Resource Reliability  Risk Identification  Accessibility Concern regarding parking, potential for drive aisles to be blocked if parking is at capacity.  Special/resource needs  Water Supply  Other Resources Police Service No Comment West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs)  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0’  Sewer Shed Five Mile  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application  WRRF Declining Balance 13.52 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water  Distance to Water Services 0’  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application  Water Quality Concerns No concerns  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns No new water main proposed; no concerns  Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 146 of 202 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Justin Jordan, Real Life Church 35 E. Fairview Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. Owner: Pleasant Valley Limited Partnership PO Box 5405 Boise, Idaho 83705 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 147 of 202 Page 4 C. Representative: Jeremy Putnam, neUdesign Architecture 725 E. 2nd Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/1/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 1/29/2019 Radius notification published on 2/8/2019 Nextdoor posting 1/29/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a conditional use permit to operate a church and ancillary daycare center in the I-L zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2C-2. A conditional use permit is required for a church or place of worship use, subject to specific use standards listed below. A daycare center is permitted as an ancillary use to a church use and is subject to specific use standards as listed below, daycare centers are also allowed as an accessory use in the I-L zoning district. This property is located within a subdivision that was annexed and zoned into the City as part of the Upland Industries project in 1982, a preliminary plat and final plat were approved in 1984. In 1991 the Gemtone Center conditional use permit (CUP) or planned development - general (PD-G) was approved; the agreement allows for a mix of uses and services, including residential, industrial and commercial. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking and biking distance of residential dwellings ” (2.01.01C) The applicant’s proposed daycare use will be within walking distance to future multi- and single-family residential approved with the Pine 43 project. B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The applicant is proposing to use both suites within an existing multi-tenant office building. C. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to operate the church use (Real Life Ministries) with two (2) services on Sunday mornings from 8 AM-1 PM. The daycare is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 54 students and will operate Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM-3:30 PM. The applicant presently holds services at their current location with an attendance of 100 adults and 50 children, they plan to accommodate more parishioners with 200 seats planned at the proposed location. D. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in: UDC 11-4-3-6, Church or Place of Religious Worship: Schools, child daycare services, meeting facilities for clubs and organizations, and other similar uses not operated primarily for the purpose of religious instruction, worship, government of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 148 of 202 Page 5 church, or the fellowship of its congregation may be permitted to the extent the activity is otherwise permitted in the district. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) AND, UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility: A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. The applicant is proposing to care for a maximum of 54 children, classifying it as a daycare center. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The applicant is proposing to use the existing drive aisle and parking lot for student drop-off and pick-up. There are 31 existing parking spaces on the site, which exceeds UDC requirements for the I-L zoning district (one [1] parking space per 2,000 square feet). However, staff believes that the applicant should provide additional parking on site to accommodate the number of vehicles associated with the projected enrollment. Further analysis in Section G below. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. 4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Fire Department and the State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare on this requirement. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. This requirement does not apply to the subject application. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. This requirement does not apply to the subject application. Although, the applicant did conduct a neighborhood meeting and notified property owners within three-hundred feet (300’) in accord with the requirements for the CUP request. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') nonscalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The current proposal does not include outdoor space for the daycare. If the subject application is approved and the applicant wants to add outdoor space in the future, they shall comply with this requirement. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. The current proposal does not include outdoor space for the daycare. If the subject application is approved and the applicant wants to add outdoor space in the future, they shall Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 149 of 202 Page 6 comply with this requirement. The proposed daycare will be located in a commercial and industrial area where there are no City parks, schools, or available public open space for children to recreate in. The only available area for children to play in is located at the east part of the site. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. The current proposal does not include outdoor space for the daycare. If the subject application is approved and the applicant wants to add outdoor space in the future, they shall comply with this requirement. C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation accessory uses: 1. In no way shall the family daycare emit lighting, noise, fumes, smoke, dust, odors, vibrations, or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards set forth in subsection 11-3D- 8B of this title. This requirement does not apply as the subject application is in an industrial district. 2. Off street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off street parking for the dwelling. (Ord. 18-1773, 4-24-2018) This requirement does not apply as the subject application is in an industrial district. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Table 11-2C-3 (Dimensional Standards in Industrial Districts) F. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Per UDC Table 11-3C-6B.2, a minimum of four (4) off-street parking spaces are required to be provided; a total of 31 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC requirements. The applicant has received approval from ACHD to allow for on-street parking along N. Hickory Ave during the weekends to accommodate Sunday morning services. Additionally, the applicant has applied for alternative compliance (analysis below) to utilize shared parking with three (3) properties in the vicinity of the subject property. Two (2) of the parking areas are located to the north at 1346 N. Hickory Ave. and 1450 N. Hickory Ave.; the third shared option is located to the south at 1020 N. Hickory Ave. (see Exhibit VII.B). All three (3) options are accompanied by agreements entered into by the property management representative and the applicant. The allotted time for shared parking is to accommodate church service parking on Sundays from 9 AM-12:30 PM. The shared parking arrangements and on-street parking along N. Hickory Ave. are not intended to be used for the ancillary daycare center throughout the week. Although the number of existing parking spaces exceeds UDC standards and the applicant has shared use agreements and on-street parking available on Sundays, staff recommends the applicant locate additional parking in closer proximity to the subject property. Staff believes that a permanent parking solution for the anticipated volume of parishioners and students be constructed as the shared use agreements can be cancelled at any time. The owner of the subject property also owns the undeveloped parcel to the south which is partially developed with a shared driveway (1070 N. Hickory Ave., parcel #R3073780700). Staff has concerns that patrons of the church could park in the unimproved area creating code enforcement issues for the church. Staff recommends that the applicant improve the parking lot in accord with UDC Table UDC 11-3C-5 and landscape the new parking area in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C. If this parking area is improved as recommended by staff, staff is amenable with the shared parking plan with the adjacent business owners. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 150 of 202 Page 7 G. Alternative Compliance (ALT) (UDC 11-5B-5): The applicant has applied for Alternative Compliance as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5 to parking requirements (UDC 11-3C-6) regarding the number of parking spaces needed based on the anticipated attendance of the church and daycare. The subject site currently has a total of 31 spaces, which is in excess of the UDC requirements for I-L zoned properties (four [4] required). However, since the site is anticipated to accommodate two-hundred (200) parishioners on Sundays and approximately 50 students during the day throughout the week, additional parking spaces should be required. The applicant’s narrative projects that 80 adults and 40 kids, plus teachers and volunteers will attend the first Sunday service; 120 adults and 60 kids, plus teachers and volunteers are projected to attend the second Sunday service. The applicant anticipates that 60 vehicles will need parking for Sunday morning services. Shared parking agreements have been coordinated with two (2) properties to the north and one (1) property to the south (see Exhibit VII.B). Additionally, ACHD has approved on-street parking along N. Hickory Ave. on weekends. Each of the shared parking lot is an approximately 200-foot walk, which may cause some parishioners to be tempted to utilize the dirt lot that is currently located to the south of the subject site. The parking agreements are subject to the terms reached between the applicant and the property owners, are to be used during Sundays from 9 AM-12:30 PM, and can be terminated at any time. Although staff believes the alternative off-site parking and on-street parking are helpful options and could be utilized by those willing and able to walk, staff recommends improvements are made to the lot to the south to accommodate additional on-site parking as noted above. Staff has reviewed the Parking Standard Alternatives in UDC 11-3C-7 in determining the applicability of the alternative compliance request for the subject application. The shared use proposed complies with the requirements of UDC 11-3C-7A: there are convenient pedestrian connections between the shared parking arrangements with sidewalks available along N. Hickory Ave.; the properties are within 1,000’ of one another; the principal operating hours of operation and use are not in conflict with one another; and the applicant shall be required to provide directional signage to indicate the availability of parking. The applicant has complied with the requirements of UDC 11-3C-7B and has submitted each of the shared use parking arrangements. H. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): One (1) access is proposed via N. Hickory Ave. (collector). Staff is recommending the applicant expand the parking lot to the south, if this recommendation is approved, the applicant shall provide a cross-access/egress easement to the property to the south (1050 N. Hickory Ave). I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot sidewalks exist along N. Hickory Ave. There is not currently a pedestrian walkway leading from N. Hickory Ave. to the entrance of the building. If the applicant is permitted to utilize shared parking to the north and south of the subject site, staff recommends a pathway is constructed. A minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance; internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Parking lot and perimeter landscaping was completed with the previous certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) for the construction of the Pleasant Valley Office Building (CZC-07-034). If parking is expanded to the south, as recommended by staff, parking lot landscaping shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C and in accord with Comprehensive Plan action item Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 151 of 202 Page 8 #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.” K. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing proposed on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC 11-3A-14. A detail of any proposed fencing shall be submitted with the CZC and DES application. If the applicant chooses to incorporate an outdoor play area for students, fencing shall be required in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9. L. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES) If approved, the applicant will be required to amend the current CZC approval to establish the use of a daycare center on the site 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. If the Commission requires improvements be made to the parking lot to the south, the applicant will also be required to submit an application for DES concurrent with the CZC application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): This site is already serviced by City sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation; these services were provided to this property with development of the site. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed project complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is conditioned to comply with the applicable development standards in the UDC. Based on the aforementioned analysis, staff recommends approval of the subject CUP application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 152 of 202 Page 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (date: 1/10/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 153 of 202 Page 10 B. Shared Parking Agreement Locations Subject Property Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 154 of 202 Page 11 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Site Specific Conditions 1.1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (Gemtone CUP/PD-G; CZC-07-034). 1.1.2 The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6, Church or Place of Religious Worship and UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. 1.1.3 The site plan, included in Exhibit VII.A, dated January 10, 2019 shall be revised as follows: a. Additional parking shall be constructed to the south of the subject property. Installation shall be in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3B-8 and UDC 11-3C-5. b. The applicant shall provide a cross-access/egress easement to the property to the south (1050 N. Hickory Ave). 1.1.4. The landscape plan included in Exhibit VII.B, dated December 2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Additional parking shall be constructed to the south of the subject property. Installation shall be in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3B-8 and UDC 11-3C-5. b. A detail of any fencing and/or outdoor playground equipment proposed shall be submitted with the CZC and DES application. 1.1.5 Development of this site shall substantially comply with the site plan and landscape plan included in Exhibit VII and the conditions of approval in this report. 1.1.6 The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) application to the Planning Division for approval of the proposed use and final site layout prior to submittal of a building permit application. 1.1.7 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.1.8 The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the church and ancillary daycare uses as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B- 6F. 1.1.9 The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 1.1.10 The applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Building Division (208-887-2211) regarding any building permit requirements. 1.1.11 Alternative compliance is approved for the shared parking agreements. 1.1.12 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.1.13 All signage for the property is subject to the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 155 of 202 Page 12 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT No comments on the subject application as services are existing. 3. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160624/Page1.aspx 4. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161518/Page1.aspx 5. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160818/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request on the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district and the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Church or Place of Religious Worship and 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Industrial for this site; additionally, the Planned Development, General agreement specifically allows for industrial, commercial, and residential uses within this subdivision. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that the general construction, operation and maintenance of the church and daycare facility should be compatible with the surrounding commercial and industrial uses in the vicinity. Staff feels that the applicant should provide adequate parking to prevent causing parking issues with other properties in the area. Staff finds that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the character thereof. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if adequate on-site parking is provided and utilized by patrons of the church and clients of the daycare. If approved, conditions of approval are included in Exhibit VIII of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 156 of 202 Page 13 e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation were provided to this property with development of the subdivision; services will be extended to the proposed building by the developer. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Alternative Compliance Findings: In order to grant approval for alternative compliance, the Director shall determine the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR The Director finds that strict adherence or application of the requirements is feasible; however, the applicant desires to utilize shared parking with properties in the vicinity of the subject property and has secured written authorization to do so. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the alternative compliance could provide an equal means for meeting the parking requirements if the applicant were to provide additional parking to the south in addition to the shared use agreements and on-street parking available on Sundays. If the applicant continues to work with ACHD, secures parking from adjacent property owners and improve the lot to the south, the applicant will be meeting the intent of UDC requirements. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative will not be detrimental to the public welfare but could impair the use/character of the surrounding properties by eliminating on-street parking or causing patrons of the subject property to park in unimproved dirt lots or properties in closer proximity. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 157 of 202 Parking Lot Agreement Real Life Ministries 1098 N Hickory Ave Meridian, ID 83642 Diamond Line Delivery 1450 N Hickory Ave Meridian ID 83642 This agreement is made and entered on the Z3' day of between Diamond Line Delivery, hereinafter referred to as the "P perty Management" and Real Life Ministries, hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant". TERMS Property Management hereby grants access to the parking lot located at the premises described above. The Tenant will be granted access to the parking lot from 9:00am-12:30pm MST on Sundays only and is only allowed 18 parking spots on the southwest end of the property. These hours are not in conflict with Property Management hours and the parking lot is within 1,000' of Tenant's building. Directional signs will be made available to inform people of parking lot availability. If any construction is needed to meet city code the Tenant will be responsible for any costs. Any maintenance needed will be done by Property Management Company. Property management is not responsible for lot maintenance on Sundays or preparing walking paths from parking lot to Tenant location. If Property Management no longer wants to provide parking, a(n) additional parking agreement(s) will be made and confirmed by the Director and this agreement will be voided. Either party may terminate the contract with written notice at any time. Calvin Fillmore, Prop6rty Management JustirtlJordan, Teront Da Date Parking Lot Agreement Real Life Ministries 1098 N Hickory Ave Meridian, ID 83642 Meridian Public Auction 1346 N Hickory Ave Meridian ID 83642 This agreement is made and entered on the ��day of ;'�thmperty between Meridian Public Auction, hereinafter referred to as Management" and Real Life Ministries, hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant". TERMS Property Management hereby grants access to the parking lot located at the Premises described above. The Tenant will be granted access to the parking lot from 9:00am-12:30pm MST on Sundays only and is only allowed 30 parking spots. These hours are not in conflict with Property Management hours and the parking lot is within 1,000' of Tenant's building. Directional signs will be made available to inform people of parking lot availability. If any construction is needed to meet city code the tenant will be responsible for any costs. Any maintenance needed will be done by Property Management Company. If Property Management no longer wants to provide parking, a(n) additional parking agreement(s) will be made and confirmed by the Director and this agreement will be voided. Property Management Company agrees to indemnify any legal remedies or accidents that may occur. The contract may be terminated by either party with written notice at any time. Roger Worley, Property Management e2//,w Date Justin Jordan, Tfnant V Date Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February2l, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Project File Number: H-2018-0129 Item Title: Public Hearing continued from January 17, 2019 for Stapleton Subdivision By Stapleton, LLC. Located at the SW corner of S. Meridian Rd/SH69 and W. Harris St. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 38.15 acres of land with an R- 5 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 Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from J anuary 17, 2019 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 St. 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 2/19/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 158 of 202 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 2/21/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Stapleton Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0129 Active: I" Signature I Wish To Sign In Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral Name Testify Date/Time Meridian, ID 2/21/2019 Ronnie Winks 2172 E Sharptail St X X 83646 9:33:58 AM Meridian, ID. 2/21/2019 Debbie Jeske 1886 N. Chandra ave X X 83646 1:02:25 PM 2/21/2019 Dennis green 2185 E. Sharptail St. Meridian X X 5:53:29 PM Brandon Boise, ID 2/21/2019 BWhallon@hcollc.com X X Whallon 83706 6:02:21 PM Meridian, Id 2/21/2019 Carol Daley 2192 E Kamay Dr X 83646 6:03:43 PM Andrew Meridian, ID, 2/21/2019 2166 E Ringneck St X X Newland 83646 6:04:40 PM Meridian Id 2/21/2019 Randy Nelson 1873 N. Marnita ave X X 83646 6:06:07 PM 1979 N Locust Grove Meridian, ID 2/21/2019 Will Dilmore X X Rd 83713 6:10:32 PM Meridian, id, 2/21/2019 Britney Elliott 2277 e kamay dr X X 83646 6:11:20 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel Page 1 HEARING DATE: February 21, 2019 Continued from: 1/17/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0129 Stapleton Subdivision LOCATION: 4435 S. Meridian Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 38.15 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; Preliminary plat consisting of (212) single-family residential building lots, (1) multi-family building lot and (22) common lots on 35.67 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district; and Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B for access to State Highway 69/S. Meridian Rd. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 35.67 Future Land Use Designation MU-R (Mixed Use – Regional) Existing Land Use Existing home & accessory structures (vacant) Proposed Land Use(s) Residential (SFR & MFR) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 213 building/22 common Phasing plan (# of phases) Yes; 5 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 240 units total (96 attached/116 detached SFR, 28 MFR) Density (gross & net) 6.73 gross Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 5.43 acres (15.2%) Amenities Basketball court, dog park for small dogs, 24’ x 36’ children’s play structure, swings, rock climbing boulders and a climbing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 159 of 202 Page 2 dome structure, big wheel track, benches, pedestrian pathways, segment of multi-use pathway system. Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) An irrigation ditch runs along the northeast corner of the site, the Carlson Lateral runs along the west boundary of the site, and the Northwest gas pipeline runs along the southwest corner of the site. The topography of this site slopes considerably down on the northeast portion of the site. Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: July 18, 2018; 6 attendees January 16, 2019; 3 attendees History (previous approvals)  CPA-08-001 (amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM to change the land use designation from MDR to MU-R - approved);  AZ-08-005 (a Development Agreement was required as a provision of annexation – the DA was never signed, therefore the annexation approval is null and void);  VAR-08-008 (approved 3 access points to SH 69/S. Meridian Rd. – this approval has since expired because the property was never annexed);  MDA-11-010 (modification to the DA to extend the time period allow for the agreement to be signed – the DA was never signed and expired) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 160 of 202 Page 3 B. Community Metrics Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 161 of 202 Page 4 Description Details Pa ge Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes (draft) – see Section VII.  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes, for modification to Master Street Map for collector street Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 2.9 miles from Fire Station #1  Fire Response Time 5 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 63% from Fire Station #1 – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identificatio n 1 (residential)  Accessibility signage for addressing needs to be provided for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lots 10 & 61, Block 1; Lots 23 & 29, Block 2; and Lot 28, Block 3  Special/reso urce needs None  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 3.5 miles  Police Response Time 3-4 minutes  Calls for Service 104 within a mile of the site between 1/1/18-12/31/18  Accessibility Harris St. and SH-69; future stub to south  Specialty/res ource needs No additional staffing, equipment needs or other resources needed to serve this development  Crimes  Crashes 12 crashes within a mile of the site – 66% injury related between 1/1/18 and 12/31/18 West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Mary McPherson Elementary – 1 mile; Victory Middle School – 1.6 miles; Meridian High School – 4.4 miles  Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary 650; Victory Middle School 1,000; Meridian High School 2,400  # of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary 525; Victory Middle School 928; Meridian High School 1,913 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 162 of 202 Page 5 C. Project Area Maps  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development 178 Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 200-feet, Bore under Meridian Road  Sewer Shed NA  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application information  WRRF Declining Balance 13.57 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 5  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Con cerns Each phase must be modeled as developed to ensure adequate fire flow. If a transportation/pathway connection is built to the west (proposed Graycliff Apartments), a water main connection shall be required under said connection. Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 163 of 202 Page 6 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Stapleton, LLC – 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: GRHH Amity, LLC – 855 Broad St., Ste. 300, Boise, ID 83702 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Stapleton, LLC – 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 164 of 202 Page 7 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 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 1/4/2019 Nextdoor posting 12/26/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION & ZONING Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The Future Land Use Designation (FLUM) for this site is Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) – The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single-use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. MU-R developments are encouraged to be designed according the MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5 below: Transportation: The Master Street Map (MSM) depicts a planned north/south collector street through and along the west boundary of the site from W. Harris St. to W. Amity Rd. (see blue and orange dashed line on map below). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 165 of 202 Page 8 The collector street designation was placed on this property because of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the FLUM approved in 2008 which changed the land use designation on this property and the property to the south to MU-R. Because of the intensity of uses (i.e. commercial, office and multi-family residential – see concept plan below) planned with the associated development, there was a need to disperse traffic to the signals at Amity Rd. and Meridian Rd./SH-69 and the future signal at Harris St. and Meridian Rd./SH-69. This street was intended to serve as a backage road for the commercial development along SH-69. However, the property was never annexed and the property was not developed as intended. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 166 of 202 Page 9 The proposed plat depicts a short segment (400’+/-) of the collector street (N. Lone Pine Way) from W. Harris St. to the intersection of W. Radiant Edge Dr.; and W. Lyra St. from SH-69 and S. Solaris Ave. to the south; a continuous collector street is not proposed through the site therefore, the proposed street network is not consistent with the MSM. However, ACHD is of the opinion the proposal to construct two discontinuous collector streets meets the intent of the MSM and doesn’t preclude the construction of the southern segment in the future. The Applicant is requesting a modification to the MSM to eliminate the continuous collector street through this site to better reflect the proposed land uses. With development applications to the west of this site, a north/south collector street from Harris to Amity is required to be constructed at the half mile in accord with the MSM. Land Use: The proposed land use for this site is a mix of single-family residential attached and detached units (212 units) with a small portion of multi-family 4-plex units (28 units) at an overall gross density of 6.73 units per acre. This land is part of a larger Mixed Use designated area in this vicinity. The MU-R designation stretches along the frontage of SH-69 from W. Harris St. to W. Amity Rd. with MU-C (Mixed Use – Community) to the south across Amity; MU-NR (Mixed Use – Non-Residential) designated land exists to the east across SH-69 and south of Amity (see FLUM below). The Applicant submitted a bubble plan included in Section VII.G that demonstrates how the property owner to the south of this site anticipates that property developing with a mix of uses consisting of office/multi-family residential as a buffer and transition to the single-family residential planned on this site with commercial, office and retail uses further to the south. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 167 of 202 Page 10 Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Goals, Objectives, & Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) A mix of single-family attached and detached homes and multi-family apartment units are proposed within this development which will provided ownership and rental options for various income groups in this area.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to future office and commercial uses planned to develop on the adjacent property to the south.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L) The proposed development falls within the medium-density category. The site is located in close proximity to a future City park to the west and an existing City Park (Bear Creek) to the north and a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system to the west and along SH-69, a major access thoroughfare. For this reason, Staff is of the opinion a higher density would be more appropriate in this area; however, the proposed density is higher than the adjacent residential developments to the north and west and although at the low end, it falls within the desired density range of 6 to 40 units per acre in mixed use designated areas.  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) The MSM depicts a north/south collector roadway across this site providing access between W. Harris St. and W. Amity Rd. and to the future signal at Harris St./SH-69 and the existing signal at Amity/SH-69. The proposed plan depicts a 400+/- foot long segment of a collector street (N. Lone Pine Way) at the entry of the development from Harris St. and a 225+/- foot long segment of a collector street (S. Solaris Ave.) at the south boundary with local streets in between that do not provide a direct connection between Harris and Amity which is not consistent with the MSM. However, because the development plan for this site and the property to the south has changed from that previously proposed which warranted the provision of a collector street in this area and because ACHD has approved the proposed street layout/designations, Staff is amenable to the proposed design without the provision of a full collector street.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) An open space exhibit is included in Section VII.D that appears to comply with the minimum UDC standards although some of the areas (as noted) do not count toward qualified open space per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) One (1) access is proposed via W. Harris St., a collector street; and one (1) access is proposed via SH-69, a state highway. Access via SH-69 is prohibited per UDC 11-3H-4B; a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 168 of 202 Page 11 variance is requested for Council approval of the proposed access. Note: Without access via SH-69, a secondary emergency access is required that meets Fire Department requirements (IFC Section D104.3).  “Work with ACHD, COMPASS, and VRT on bringing public transportation to and through Meridian.” (3.03.04H) The Applicant contacted VRT to see if a bus stop is needed on this site; VRT stated their long- term plan (ValleyConnect 2.0) does not include any service along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed at the southwest corner of the site which will assist in providing connectivity with adjacent developments and the future City Park to the west. Pedestrian access connectors are provided internally to the sidewalks along Harris St. and the multi-use pathway along SH-69. One other pedestrian connection is proposed to the west on Lot 26, Block 3 which also serves as the access driveway to a new pressure irrigation pump station and an existing irrigation diversion structure.  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) The Applicant has been working with ITD on the proposed access via SH-69 and with ACHD on the proposed access via W. Harris St. and internal roadways. The UDC (11-3H-4) prohibits new approaches to state highways; a Variance is requested for the proposed access. Staff finds approving the access via SH-69 does not preserve the transportation corridor.  “Develop alternative modes of transportation through pedestrian improvements, bicycle lanes, off-street pathways, and transit-oriented development as appropriate.” (3.03.03D) VRT (ValleyConnect 2.0) does not have any bus service along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69. A 10- foot wide multi-use pathway is required as proposed along SH-69 and across the southwest corner of this site within the Northwest Pipeline easement for pedestrian/bicycle use. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 23-24): (Staff’s analysis in italics) • “Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre.” The gross density of the proposed development is 6.73 units per acre which falls at the low end of the 6 to 40 unit per acre range desired in MU-R designated areas but is within the desired range. Higher residential densities are anticipated on the R-40 zoned property to the west. • “Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.” Although the proposed development does include a multi-family component and meets the minimum density desired in mixed use areas, because this site is adjacent to a major transportation corridor (SH-69) and within a mile and a half of a mobility corridor (Lake Hazel Rd.), AND is designated on the FLUM as MU-R in which large employment and retail uses with a regional draw are anticipated, Staff is of the opinion a higher density and/or more multi-family units would be appropriate in this area to support the future commercial/office/employment uses desired in this area. • “A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application.” Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 169 of 202 Page 12 A bubble plan was submitted for the overall MU-R area (see Section VII.G); however, only the northern 36+/- acre portion of that area is included in this application, the remaining 30+/- acres is not a part of this application and therefore future development cannot be held to the plan. Without both properties developing together, staff believes that the projects may not be as well-intregrated as desired by the Comprehensive Plan. • “In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.” This development does not contain commercial/office buildings. • “The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development.” The proposed plan depicts multi-family 4-plex residential uses as a transitional use between the planned multi-family apartments to the west and the proposed single-family residential units in this development. Common area with landscaping and a multi-use pathway is proposed along the southern boundary providing a transition to planned office/multi-family uses on the adjacent property to the south. • “A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis.” The proposed development plan only includes one land use type (i.e. residential); however, three different types of residential units are proposed (i.e. single-family detached/attached and multi-family 4-plex units). The concept plan submitted for the off-site MU-R designated area to the south depicts a mix of land use types as desired (i.e. office, multi-family, commercial, retail). Because the adjacent mixed use designated area to the east does not allow new residential uses, Staff is of the opinion all residential uses on this site is appropriate in order to serve the future commercial/office/employment uses. • “Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments.” This is a relatively small portion of the overall mixed use designated area; none of these types of uses are proposed on this site. However, they may be in the future on the adjacent larger portions of the mixed use area. • “Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.” The proposed plan does not incorporate public and/or quasi-public spaces and places; the common area proposed in the residential development is owned by the Homeowner’s Association and does not satisfy this requirement. These types of public spaces should be included in the adjacent mixed use designated area when it develops. • “All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians.” The only neighborhood that would be directly accessible to the proposed development is the future multi-family development to the west. A couple of pedestrian connections are proposed but no vehicular connections are proposed. In order to comply with this guideline, a vehicular connection should be provided. • “Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code.” Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 170 of 202 Page 13 The Master Street Map depicts a north/south collector street through and along the west boundary of this site providing access to W. Harris St. and W. Amity Rd. and the traffic signals (planned and existing) at the SH-69 intersections of those streets. The proposed plan does not depict a continuous collector street as planned and therefore is not in compliance with the MSM and UDC 11-6C-3B.1, which requires arterial and collector streets as shown on the Comprehensive Plan to be dedicated to the public in all cases. However, because the development plan has changed for this area, the collector street may not be needed. • “Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein.” The proposed development is not within Old Town; therefore, this provision is not applicable. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 30): • “Development should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas.” See analysis above. • “Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre.” The proposed residential uses on this site comprise approximately 55% of the overall MU-R area at a density of 6.73 units per acre in accord with this guideline. • “Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area.” No retail commercial uses are proposed with this development; however, the remainder of the area to the south consists of approximately 45% of the overall MU-R area and is planned to develop with a mix of commercial, retail, and office uses in accord with this standard. • “There is neither a minimum nor a maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses.” No commercial uses are proposed with this development. Zoning: Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-15 zoning district and proposed development is generally consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation for this site and is appropriate for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north and west and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT Boundary of the Plat: The proposed boundary of the plat is not consistent with the existing boundary of the site. The Applicant intends to apply for a property boundary adjustment in the County prior to annexation ordinance approval by City Council if the subject application is approved. Final Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 171 of 202 Page 14 approval of the property boundary adjustment will need to be obtained prior to annexation ordinance approval. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and accessory structures on this site that is unoccupied. These structures are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed single-family dwellings (attached & detached) are listed as a principal permitted use; and the multi-family development is listed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Multi-family developments are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; compliance with these standards will be evaluated in the future through the conditional use permit process. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district (see below). The front lot dimension is missing on lots in Block 1 and should be included on a revised plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 172 of 202 Page 15 Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in 5 phases. The 1st phase is dependent upon a Variance being approved by Council for access via SH-69, the second phase will have access via W. Harris St. followed by the 3rd phase at the corner of Harris/SH-69, and 4th phase directly west of phase 1; the 5th phase will be the multi-family development. Because the UDC prohibits access via SH-69, Staff recommends the phasing plan is revised to reflect the first phase of development adjacent to Harris St. for access purposes; if Council approves the requested Variance, the phasing plan does not need to be revised. Per the Applicant’s narrative, the following improvements are proposed with each phase: Phase 1: The SH-69/S. Meridian Rd. roadway improvements, 10-foot wide multi-use pathway and street buffer landscaping along the full length of the project boundary along SH- 69/S. Meridian Rd. Phase 2: The W. Harris St. roadway improvements including curb, gutter and detached sidewalk and street buffer landscaping along the full length of the project boundary along W. Harris St.; and installation of the traffic signal at the W. Harris St./SH-69 intersection. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy in each of these phases the associated improvements as proposed by the Appliant should be complete. If Council doesn’t approve the variance for access via SH-69, the Harris St. improvements, including the traffic signal at Harris/SH-69, should be completed with the first phase of development. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)/Streets: One full access is proposed via W. Harris St., a collector street; one full access is proposed via SH-69, a state highway (although ITD has only tentatively approved a right-in/right-out/left-in access); and a stub street is proposed to the south for future extension. The access via SH-69 is prohibited per UDC 11-3H-4B; a variance is requested for this access (if the access isn’t approved, it should be removed from the plat and a secondary emergency access provided in accord with IFC requirements). Improvements are required to Harris St. per the ACHD report; and SH-69 per ITD’s letter to the City (see Section VIII). ACHD is requiring bulb-outs to be constructed to reduce traffic speed and enhance pedestrian safety at crossings where internal pathways intersect the street on Radiant Ridge Dr., W. Hydman St. and at the intersection of Springfield Ave. and Broyhill St. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Several common driveways are proposed that comply with UDC standards. Common driveways should be a maximum of 150’ in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Dept. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 173 of 202 Page 16 Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking for single-family detached/attached and multi-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 2-, 3- or 4-bedroom single-family units, a minimum of 4 spaces are required per unit with at least 2 of those in an enclosed garage, the other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. Because of the narrow lots (i.e. 32’+) for detached homes and associated driveways, there is not adequate room for on-street parking in front of those lots for guest parking and in some areas parking is quite a ways away. Where attached homes are proposed, there is room for approximately one space per every 2 lots for on-street parking. On-street parking is also available adjacent to common lots. The Applicant has submitted an exhibit included in Section VII.E that demonstrates available on-street parking for the development which amounts to 109+/- spaces available for guest parking (note: parking on the 27’ wide street section adjacent to Lot 12, Block 2 can only be accommodated on one side per Fire Department standards). For a 1-bedroom multi-family unit, a minimum of 1.5 spaces per unit with an least 1 space in a covered carport or garage; for 2- or 3-bedroom multi-family units, a minimum of 2 spaces per unit are required with at least 1 in a covered carport or garage. For greater number of bedrooms, see UDC Table 11-3C-6 for more information. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pathways (micro-pathways and multi-use pathways) are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with landscaping on either side of the pathway(s) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Several micro-pathways are proposed for pedestrian circulation within the development. A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway is proposed within the Northwest Pipeline corridor across the southwest corner of the site in accord with the Pathways Master Plan; and within the street buffer along SH-69 in accord with UDC 11-3H-4C.3. Landscaping is required to be installed along these pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. A public use easement is required for the multi-use pathways; coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren, Park’s Department (208-888-3579). Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along all collector and arterial streets; and minimum 5-foot wide attached (or detached) sidewalks are required along local streets as proposed. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A- 17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along collector streets and along certain local street sections within the development in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided within common lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Per UDC Table 11-2A-7, a 20-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to collector streets; a 35-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to SH-69, an entryway corridor; and no buffer is required along local streets. The landscape plan depicts the gravel symbol within the street buffer along SH-69 and Harris St. where vegetative groundcover is required; the symbol should be changed to grass. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% (3.57 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided within the development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. A qualified open space exhibit was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 174 of 202 Page 17 submitted as shown in Section VII.D that depicts 5.43 acres (or 15.2%) of open space; however, there are several areas counted that Staff finds do not meet the requirements for qualified open space and other space that is marginal (i.e. the landscaped area on Lot 30, Block 4 that is below the dimensions of 50’ x 100’; and the area at the northeast corner of the site where the topography of the land slopes significantly down from the building lots toward the SH-69/Harris intersection and although is accessible by all residents, will not likely provide much of a benefit to homeowners. Staff requests a revised exhibit is submitted excluding certain non-qualified areas as detailed in Section VII.D prior to the Commission hearing to determine accurate qualified open space calculations. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of (2) qualified site amenities are required to be provided for this development based on the size of the development (i.e. 35.67 acres). The Applicant proposes a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system within the Northwest Pipeline corridor at the southwest corner of the site; a multi-use pathway within the street buffer along SH-69; a centrally located half-acre park with children’s play structures consisting of a 24’ x 36’ play structure, swings, climbing dome, rock climbing boulders, basketball court, big wheel track, and seating area with 4’ tall wrought iron fencing with a gated entry surrounding the park for children’s safety; and a dog park for small dogs with seating areas. The proposed amenities comply with and exceed the minimum standards. In order for the dog park to count as a “qualified” site amenity, it needs to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.1h which require a dog washing station with drain to sanitary sewer system and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Carlson Lateral runs along the western boundary of this site and has been piped. An irrigation ditch crosses the northeast corner of this site and if open, should be piped in accord with UDC standards. Northwest Gas Pipeline: The Northwest gas pipeline runs across the southwest corner of this site witin a 75-foot wide easement contained in Lot 15, Block 3. All development within this easement should comply with the Williams Pipeline Developer’s Handbook. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. A mix of 6-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fencing and 4-foot tall black iron fence is proposed. The developer is required to construct fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas. Fences abutting all pathways and common open space lots not entirely visible from a public street are required to be an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6’ in height; or 4’ in height if closed vision fencing is used (an additional 2’ of open vision fencing may be provided at the top section of the fence). In accord with these standards, fencing adjacent to Lot 15, Block 3 should be revised; fencing should be added on Lot 23, Block 1 and at the rear of building lots adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1 on lots adjacent to Solaris Ave. and Lyra St. and Harris St.; and the beginning and end points of the 6’ concrete fence should be clearly delineated. Because this site is adjacent to SH-69, the UDC requires noise abatement to be provided for residential uses in the form of a berm or berm and wall combination a minimum of 10 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway parallel to the state highway per the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A 6-foot tall concrete fence on top of a 4-foot tall berm is proposed; a detail of the berm and wall combination should be submitted with the first phase final plat application that depicts the centerline of SH-69. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 175 of 202 Page 18 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. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. 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. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations and photos were submitted for the proposed single-family attached and detached units and the multi-family structures as shown in Section VII.F. Building materials for the single-family homes consist of a mix of siding (horizontal and vertical lap siding and board & batten) with stone veneer accents. Building materials for the multi-family structures consist of horizontal and vertical siding with board and batten accents (see Exhibit F in Section VII.) The single-family attached and multi-family structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached structures are exempt from this requirement. Structures adjacent to W. Harris St. and SH-69 are proposed to all be a single-story in height except for those on Lots 60 and 62, Block 1 which will be 2-stories in height. To avoid monotonous wall planes, the rear of structures visible from Harris St. and SH-69 should have varied setbacks. C. VARIANCE The applicant requests a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B for access via SH-69 at the ¼ mile between Harris St. and Amity Rd. UDC 11-3H-4B.2 prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH-69). Public street connections to the state highway are only allowed at the section line road and at the half mile mark between section line roads. However, requests for variances can be made to City Council for the placement and/or number of access points to state highways as set forth in UDC 11-5B-4B. The purpose of limiting access to state highways are to maintain traffic flow and provide better circulation and safety within the community and for the traveling public; to preserve right -of-way for future highway expansions; and to mitigate noise impacts associated with such roadways for new residential development along state highways. The decision making body may consider and apply modifications to these standards upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department, in which case a Variance is not required. If Council/Legal finds ITD has provided such recommendation, the Variance application could be withdrawn by the Applicant and the access request considered by Council without a Variance. The Applicant’s request is for a full access via the state highway; however, ITD has responded that they would only support a right-in/right-out/left-in until such time as a center median is constructed at which time the access would be restricted to right-in/right-out only. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 176 of 202 Page 19 In order to grant a Variance, Council must make the findings listed below; Staff is unable to make these findings in order to recommend approval of the request (see analysis in Section IX.C). 1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; 2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and 3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. If Council denies the proposed Variance, the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will need to be updated to reflect the new trip distribution and volumes; the preliminary plat would need to be revised and reconfigured to remove the access; and a new phasing plan would need to be submitted as the current plan depicts the first phase with access via SH-69. Additionally, Staff recommends the traffic signal at Harris St./SH-69 is installed with the first phase of development to protect public safety if the access via SH-69 isn’t approved. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation & Zoning and Preliminary Plat as it complies with the mininimum UDC standards with the conditions included in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX; and denial of the proposed Variance request per the Findings in Section IX. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 177 of 202 Page 20 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 178 of 202 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 179 of 202 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 180 of 202 Page 23 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 1/29/2019) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 181 of 202 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 182 of 202 Page 25 C. Landscape Plan (date: 1/29/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 183 of 202 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 184 of 202 Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 185 of 202 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 186 of 202 Page 29 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit & Site Amenities NOT APPROVED The following exhibit includes area that does not count toward “qualified” open space per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 as interpreted by Staff. Staff recommends this exhibit is revised prior to the Commission hearing per the redlined version of the plan below (red areas should be removed). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 187 of 202 Page 30 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 188 of 202 Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 189 of 202 Page 32 E. On-Street Parking Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 190 of 202 Page 33 F. Conceptual Building Elevations (Single-Family Attached/Detached and Multi-Family) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 191 of 202 Page 34 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 192 of 202 Page 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 193 of 202 Page 36 G. Conceptual Development Plan for Off-Site Portion of MU-R Designated Area Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 194 of 202 Page 37 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Prior to annexation ordinance approval, the Applicant shall obtain final approval of a property boundary adjustment in Ada County and submit a copy of the associated recorded Record of Survey that coincides with the boundary of the preliminary plat. Staff recommends the qualified open space exhibit in Section VII.G is revised prior to the Commission hearing as recommended by Staff to only include areas that “qualify” per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 as interpreted by Staff to ensure accurate calcuations. 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The building lots along the perimeter of the development that are adjacent to W. Harris St. and SH-69/S. Meridian Rd., except for Lots 60 and 62, Block 1, shall be restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer. c. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the first phase of development, the SH-69/S. Meridian Rd. roadway improvements, 10-foot wide multi-use pathway and street buffer landscaping shall be constructed along the full length of the project boundary along SH-69/S. Meridian Rd. d. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the second phase of development, the W. Harris St. roadway improvements including curb, gutter and detached sidewalk and street buffer landscaping along the full length of the project boundary along W. Harris St. shall be constructed; and the traffic signal at W. Harris St./SH-69 shall be installed. e. All single-family attached and multi-family structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved for all attached dwellings prior to submittal of building permit applications. An application for Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted and approved for all multi-family structures prior to submittal of building permit applications. To avoid monotonous wall planes, the rear of structures visible from Harris St. and SH-69 should have varied setbacks. f. Prove a vehicular connection between this site and the planned multi-family development to the west for interconnectivity. g. Site amenities shall be provided within the development per those described in Section VII.D; comparable amenities as determined by Staff may be considered as substitutions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 195 of 202 Page 38 h. All development within the Northwest gas pipeline easement shall comply with the Williams Gas Pipeline Developer’s Handbook. i. A Conditional Use Permit is required to be submitted and approved for the multi-family development prior to application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Include the front lot dimension on lots in Block 1 that is missing. b. Revise the phasing plan so that the first phase of development is adjacent to Harris St. for access purposes because access via SH-69 is prohibited per UDC 11-3H-4B.2. If Council approves a Varaince which would allow the access, the phasing plan does not need to be revised. c. Remove the access via SH-69 as access is prohibited per UDC 11-3H-4B.2, unless otherwise approved by City Council. d. Provide a secondary emergency access that meets Fire Department requirements (IFC Section D104.3) and remove the access via SH-69 unless Council approves a Variance for a public street access via SH-69. e. Depict a vehicular connection between this site and the planned multi-family development to the west. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Include a symbol for the 6’ concrete fence in the legend and the beginning and end points of the fence along SH-69. b. Include a detail of the 6-foot tall concrete fence on top of a 4-foot tall berm as proposed along SH-69 that depicts the centerline of SH-69 that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D with the first phase final plat application. c. Depict fencing adjacent to Lot 15, Block 3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b. d. Depict fencing on Lot 23, Block 1 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7A.7. e. Depict fencing at the rear of building lots adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1 on lots adjacent to Solaris Ave., Lyra St. and Harris St. f. Depict landscaping along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. g. Depict a vehicular connection between this site and the planned multi-family development to the west. h. Depict landscaping along the pathway on Lot 26, Block 3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C if this lot is counted toward the qualified open space as currently shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.D. i. Replace the gravel symbol and replace it with the lawn symbol within the street buffer along SH-69 in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.3a. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 196 of 202 Page 39 4. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway within the street buffer along SH-69 and within the Northwest Pipeline corridor prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located; coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren, Park’s Department. 5. 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. Signage for addressing needs to be provided for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lots 10 & 61, Block 1; Lots 23 & 29, Block 2; and Lot 28, Block 3 for emergency wayfinding purposes. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 8. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat in which they are located. 9. Parking is restricted to only one side of the 27-foot wide street section for W. Broyhill St.; the curb shall be painted red and signage shall be installed prohibiting parking on one side of the street to ensure emergency access can be provided. B. PUBLIC WORKS 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 Each phase must be modeled as developed to ensure adequate fire flow. 1.3 A water main connection to the west (proposed Graycliff Apartments) is needed, and can be co-located within a common driveway/pathway. Coordinate design location with the Meridian Development Analyst during construction plan review. 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 February 21, 2019 – Page 197 of 202 Page 40 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 February 21, 2019 – Page 198 of 202 Page 41 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/160245/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160225/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 199 of 202 Page 42 E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160222/Page1.aspx F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=160052&dbid=0 G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=159845&dbid=0 H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/159880/Page1.aspx I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160498/Page1.aspx J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=161671&dbid=0 K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/browse.aspx?dbid=0 L. VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT (VRT) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/160309/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex and develop the subject 35.67 acre property with R-15 zoning consistent with the MU-R designation. (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential use should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential uses in the area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 200 of 202 Page 43 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. The School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.I, that currently show student enrollment is below capacity; however, the proposed development may cause area schools to be over capacity depending on the age of school children enrolled. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accomoate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 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. C. Variance (UDC 11-5B-4E) Required Findings: In order to grant a variance, the council shall make the following findings: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 201 of 202 Page 44 1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; Staff finds that granting a Variance for access via SH-69 would grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed as the UDC (11-3H-4B) prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. 2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and Staff finds there are no characteristics of the site that create a hardship for development that granting the variance would relieve. The Applicant could construct a backage road adjacent to SH-69 but prefers the access via SH-69. 3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff finds that granting a Variance for access via SH-69 would likely be detrimental to the safety and welfare of the public, especially a left-in access which would encourage traffic movements across 2 lanes of high speed traffic and vehicles slowing down to turn left and sitting in the center lane waiting to turn left. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 21, 2019 – Page 202 of 202 4-; _0 Ln -0 M o 0 v � � � � L o � � v -0 07 O 4-1 � N � L � Vo UU aro V 0- a -J a -J ro Q� m a — ro 4 - LU C: N V) rU0 �N dJ O U N U U LUO U 00 O N M o O U m � ,o Nt�A O u Ca C� N E i N L U o� cn .N 4A c O O z C: Qj � N L O C3) , a O CL U O dl E .N L Q rn � m — v -0 Q) I u U ca