The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-05-02MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance __X__ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Andrew Seal __X__ Reid Olson __O__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X__ Lisa Holland __X__ Bill Cassinelli (arrived 7:35pm) __X__ Jessica Perrault - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda - Adopted Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] - Approved A. Approve Minutes of April 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they 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 Grace Child Care (H-2019-0044) by Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara, Located at 4374 N. Heritage Ave. – Approved with Modifications 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare (up to 12 children) on 0.13 of an acre of land in the R-8 zoning district B. Public Hearing for Wagner Farms (H-2019-0035) by PD Larson & Co., Located 3240 W. Chinden Blvd. – Recommend Approval to City Council. Hearing Date May 28, 2019 1. Request: An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 2.46 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Commercial; and 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.46 acres of land from the RUT (Rural to Urban Transit) zoning district to a C-C (Community Business) zoning district for future addition of a convenience store and fuel sales facility to the existing farmers market C. Public Hearing for Bainbridge Southeast (H-2019-0042) by Brighton Investments, LLC, Located on the West side of N. Ten Mile Rd., Approximately 1/2 mile South of W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 – Recommend Approval to City Council. Hearing Date May 28, 2019 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 21 Building Lots and 7 Common lots on 5.25 acres of land in the R-8 Zoning District D. Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) by Devco Development, LLC, Located 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E. Jasmine Ln. – Continued to July 18, 2019 1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4.10 acres of land which is currently in Boise's area of City Impact in to Meridian's area of City Impact with a Mixed Use-Regional future land use designation; and 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for multi-family development and 12 common lots E. Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment (H-2018-0059) by DevCo Development LLC – Application Withdrawn 1. Request: A Text Amendment to Change the Naming Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, R- B, R-C, R-D, R-D and R-E, and Modify Other Related Sections in Chapters 1 - 3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed Naming Convention F. Public Hearing for Residential Self-Service Storage Facility (H-2019-0034) by Engineering Solutions LLP, located 3755 W. Perguia St. – Recommend Approval to City Council. Hearing Date June 4, 2019 1. Request: Text Amendment to create a new residential self- storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. G. Public Hearing for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019- 0049) by City of Meridian Planning Division – Continued to May 16, 2019 1. Request: A text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division Meeting Adjourned at 12:07 AM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 2, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 2, 2019, was called to order at 6:08 p.m. by Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland ___X___ Reid Olsen __X____ Andrew Seal _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X____ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Perreault: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your patience as we are preparing for the meeting. Chris, let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt -- adopt the agenda? Olsen: So moved. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda for the public Planning and Zoning hearing of May 2, 2019. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of April 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 4 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 2 of 118 Perreault: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have the one -- one item, approval of minutes of the April 18th, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: At this time I will explain the public hearing process for this evening . We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendation. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come f orward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the public testimony. There is a sign up -- it's actually an iPad there in the back as you entered. If you wish to testify , please, do sign up. Johnson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Yes. Johnson: If I may, one or two projects are not on the iPad, so if public testimony is opened they will just indicate by raise of hand. Just wanted to put that on the record. Perreault: Thank you. I appreciate that. If any individual is here and they are speaking for a larger group, we will ask for a show of hands of individuals that will allow them to speak on their behalf and those folks will give up their -- their time and they will yield it to the individual who is speaking for the larger group. If there is anyone in that position they will be allowed up to ten minutes to speak. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have an opportunity to come back and respond to public testimony if they so choose. Then we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to discuss and be able to, hopefully, make a recommendation to City Council. So, just -- just to be clear, we had one application that was withdrawn this evening. That was the public hearing that had been continued from November 15th, 2018, for the Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment, H-2018-0059. That has been withdrawn by the applicant and we will not be taking public testimony for that. We also had a request from the applicant for the public hearing for Delano Subdivision, H-2019-0027, to continue the hearing to another -- to another day. We will -- we will open up that -- that application in the order in which we have it on the agenda, which is the fourth item, but do be aware that there is a possibility the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 5 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 3 of 118 Commission will decide not to take public testimony this evening. So, we appreciate everyone who is here for that application. We will do our very best. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Grace Child Care (H-2019-0044) by Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara, Located at 4374 N. Heritage Ave. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare (up to 12 children) on 0.13 of an acre of land in the R-8 zoning district Perreault: Okay. At this time we will open the public hearing for Grace Childcare, H- 2019-0044. Chris, is the applicant present? You said -- is the applicant present for this hearing this evening? Johnson: Yes. Perreault: Wonderful. Thank you. Let's begin with the staff report. Leonard: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first project before you this evening is a conditional use permit for a group daycare to care for up to 12 children. The site consists of .13 acres of land. It's zoned R-8 and it's located at 4374 North Heritage View Avenue. To the north, south and west are single family residential subdivisions, zoned R-8, and to the east is a future single family residential subdivision, which is currently zoned R-8, but recently has been approved to be rezoned to R-15. Request for conditional use permit to operate a daycare to care for up to 12 children as required by the UDC for the R-8 zoning district. The applicant wishes to move their existing daycare operation from Boise to Meridian. They currently operate a -- up to six children child care in Boise. Proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The ages of children will range from one day to 11 years old . The daycare will employ two people and the applicant plans to provide transportation to and from for the majority of children, which will alleviate some of the need for extra parking and will decrease the number of trips for drop off and pick up of children in the neighborhood. There are two parking spaces available in the driveway, as well as on-street parking. The applicant shall communicate any designated parking areas and loading areas for customers , though, if there are any that decide not to use the services that they are proposing to provide. There was written testimony received by Garrett Fastabend. He is concerned with the added traffic and congestion related to the application. He also has stated in his testimony that there is an existing daycare nearby that causes extra parking and congestion issues related to the customers, as well as employees of that daycare facility. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff report and with that I will stand for any questions. Perreault: Thank you, Stephanie. Are there any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name and address for the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 6 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 4 of 118 record. Please come forward and speak into the microphone nice and loud. Please state your name and address for the record and share with us about your application this evening. Ntawuyamara: I am Godefroid Ntawuyamara. My address is 4374 North Heritage View. Perreault: Okay. What would you like to tell us about your application? Ntawuyamara: Yes. In fact, as I moved from Boise to Meridian, because I purchased my own house, therefore, I wish to continue delivering my services to the community. As the people I am serving, they are the low -- they are coming from low income and especially that they are single parents with children. Therefore, ideally, we should change the business I'm doing and I wanted to keep on serving them, because in their life they have got problems of who to leave the children with, since the parents here are the single parent without any other relatives. Therefore, as they knew me as a teacher by profession and a para-professional teacher from Jefferson Middle School in Boise, therefore, they wanted me to keep on serving them, which I wish to keep on doing, the reason why I applied in order to keep on serving the community and other people can be interested to give me the children for daycare. Thank you. Perreault: Okay. Do the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question for you. On the employees that are working with you to help care for the kids, do they park in the driveway spots or are they -- because I know we are talking -- one of the concerns that's been voiced was just about traffic and congestion, so trying to understand where maybe your employees might park during the day. Ntawuyamara: They park inside the garage of the house. Holland: Great. Thank you. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: Do I understand correctly that you're going to provide transportation services for the children back and forth or are people dropping their children off at your place? Ntawuyamara: Yes, I do. Some of the parents don't know how to drive, then, I pick the children from their houses and drop them -- Olsen: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 7 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 5 of 118 Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: For the transportation do you have a -- like a van or is this a personal car that you will use for transporting the children? Ntawuyamara: I have got two cars of seven -- seven seats. Perreault: So, you're looking to increase your capacity from six children to 12 children ? Ntawuyamara: Yes. Perreault: If you have a full 12 children where will they go during their break times ? Are you -- do you have an education curriculum that you're teaching them? Ntawuyamara: Yes, I do. Perreault: And where will they go during the break time since there is not -- you just have a fairly small backyard. Ntawuyamara: Yes. Got some 50 feet for my house we have got a children playground. Perreault: Okay. So, you will take them to a playground that's in the subdivision ? Ntawuyamara: Yes. Perreault: Okay. Okay. Any additional questions for the applicant? McCarvel: Chairman Perreault? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: So, you said the employees will park in the garage and, then, you have two vans and so are they on the driveway, then, or where are those vehicles? Ntawuyamara: I said that the garage is at the house for the employees will be parking inside the garage, so that the outside should be serving the parents of the children. McCarvel: Okay. So, where are the two vans that you said you have to transport the kids? Ntawuyamara: It means those cause -- it's mine and my wife's. Therefore we are part of the employees. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 8 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 6 of 118 Ntawuyamara: Yes. Perreault: Okay. So, there is two cars for all the employees -- Ntawuyamara: Yes. Perreault: -- and those will be the ones that will be used to transport the children? Ntawuyamara: Yes. Perreault: Okay. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: So, the two employees are you and your wife, not you and your wife and two other people? Ntawuyamara: Yes. No. Only two -- two of us. Perreault: Any additional questions? Thank you. Is there anyone here to testify? Johnson: Yes. Just three sign-ins. First I just have a last name. Fastabend. Perreault: Please come forward. Speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Rose: Thank you. I'm Ariel Rose. We are at 1397 East Star Drive. My husband is Garrett Fastabend, the one who had written the e-mail into you guys. So, our biggest concern is not even a block away from where they are wanting to do a daycare we already have a commercial daycare in our subdivision and they have a check-in and a sign-out where you actually have to punch in a key code and stuff like that. It keeps it much much safer. So, we are not a huge fan of like the in-home daycares, because we have seen a lot of times where it's, you know, people coming and going all hours of the night. When I lived in an apartment there was a lot of times where at an in-home daycare there was like scary people showing up to try to take the kids out, like a step-dad or someone who shouldn't be picking up the kids. So, I guess our biggest concern is that we don't want a lot of odd happenings in the neighborhood and there already is a commercial daycare right there. So, we feel like if they are going to continue on with the daycare, it makes sense, especially with that many kids in it, to go ahead and get a commercial building. It's safer, it's more economical, there is better parking, we don't have to worry about it then. So, I guess that's our only concerns. Perreault: Okay. Thank you so much. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 9 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 7 of 118 Rose: Of course. Thanks. Johnson: Next it's Siegfried Sendek. Sendek: Hi. Perreault: Good evening. Sendek: Good evening. My name is Seigfried Sendek. I live at 4499 North Heritage Woods Way, Meridian, Idaho. It kind of saddens me to be here against this, but I think I have some very good points for you guys to please consider. Perreault: Okay. Sendek: Put my reading glasses on. Sorry. Distinguished board members, you are the ones that do the real work in the city. My goal is to be extremely cordial, as well as brutally honest with severe safety concerns. Two months ago I received a verbal slapping in the face from Madam Mayor who totally ignored what -- my requests regarding R-15, high density housing, in the Razzberry Crossing where this property is located at was approved. I deserved the slapping, because I was totally unprepared. Razzberry Crossing is one of the worst managed HOA subdivisions in the one square mile township of the City of Meridian. It took multiple surrounding neighborhood subdivision -- sub -- subdivisions to work with code enforcement to get the Razzberry Crossing residents of 4389 North Heritage Woods Way finally cleaned up. Code enforcement called us back and said that for legal reasons they could not go into detail and that it may take over a month to get it finally cleaned up. One of our neighbors had to endure horrendous living conditions right next door to it for over a year before something was finally done. It was just -- and that was just last year. If you drive by the property today you would, again, see at least seven cars belonging to that house still parked there and, yes, half of them in my subdivision. Why -- I'm sorry. One of the vehicles frequently parked there is a high riding size type monster truck. Why? It makes it extremely difficult to maneuver past that property. Two months ago while I was not prepared, Madam Mayor approved at that meeting an addition of high -- high density R-15 housing on 1.4 acres of Razzberry Subdivision for 19 single resident buildings with two duplexes meaning no garages -- carports. I made a false assumption that the City Council would have been aware of the problems in the subdivision, which all due -- with all due respect to the HOA president, he made a statement two months ago at that meeting that I had provided unrealistic photoshop edited routing traffic pictures, even though they were just standard phone camera pictures. One board member was curious enough and asked why he wanted the high density increase. He replied for the extra money dues. Perreault: Sir, I am so sorry, we have several people to testify this evening. Would you wrap up your comments. And, please, do feel free to e-mail that into City Council prior to their hearing to the clerk's office. Sendek: So, if I might summarize? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 10 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 8 of 118 Perreault: Yes, please do. Sendek: Okay. There are six subdivisions that are exiting Star. This house is right between Star and Red Cross -- Red Rock right next to Locust Grove. The traffic is horrendous there. You have Alexandra , you have Heritage Common, you have Copper Basin, you have Burney Glen, you have my subdivision of Havasu Creek. And as well as Razzberry Crossing itself and if two cars -- if cars are parked on the street on Star, only one car can pass through. So, we have to courteously -- use extreme courtesy to which car will pass through. Also the playground the people were talking about is in my subdivision that they are using. I don't know what my subdivision HOA will do, but that's the status. It is totally unsafe with the amount of traffic, plus with the added consistency that will be driving through dropping off and picking up the kids there. Please don't make it any worse. Perreault: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Chair, next you have Lee and Dustin Daniels. Daniels: Hello. I'm Dustin Daniels. My address is 1405 East Red Rock. So, I'm also the president of the HOA for Havasu. Like he said that the playground is in our subdivision. We -- our dues pay for its maintenance, all that kind of stuff. Razzberry -- or Razzberry. Razzberry. They don't contribute anything to it. And currently we don't have any sort of joint agreement with them or anything like that. It's never really been enforced , because it's never been an issue, but this could create an issue. Another concern that we have that -- I'm just echoing the previous two -- is the traffic. The road is extremely narrow and it doesn't -- like he said, you can only have one car pass through at a time. It doesn't matter if it's a full size car or a compact and I know the individuals wanting to open the daycare have -- provide transportation, but is there any sort of guarantee that they will provide the transportation. Just because the service is there doesn't mean that their customers are going to utilize it. And, then, another concern I have -- I believe he said their operation hours were from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. That can create a lot of noise pollution for the surrounding houses. You know, we have got little kids that need to sleep and that kind of thing. So, is there anything that -- part of their plan that will decrease the noise after a certain time or anything like that? That's our concerns. Perreault: Thank you very much. Daniels: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Chair, that is the last sign-in. Perreault: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this application? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to, please, come back up to the microphone. Can you, please, address some of the concerns that were presented here this evening regarding the traffic? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 11 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 9 of 118 Ntawuyamara: Thank you so much. In fact, I and my wife have got the cars -- we have got two cars and most of the time -- or every time when we have to park it means we park inside the garage, because we planned that some other people may wish to use -- they may use the parking lot as they are visiting us and we are thinking that maybe the postal services, public services cars, they can come and park along the road . Therefore, we never park along the road, because we are planning that other people may use. Therefore about the parking, there is no problem at all according to us for the few months -- two months we have been there. First thing. The second thing, most of the -- our clients so far they are in Boise and no one has been driving to our home. Therefore , we are the only people driving. The third point is that during the night, apart from me, we don't have any clients whom -- whom we serve with during the night. But for me , if I -- I visit a family or I drove out and, then, I come back a bit late, there is no one else who drive in that area coming to our house during the night. Talking about noise of the car, this and that, things -- such things never happen. In future I don't think that as a business person in the business area I cannot allow people to visit me in the night. I cannot organize some events, which may involve a lot of cars along the road, which may hinder other people. I cannot allow that, because I am business minded and know what I'm doing. If I'm serving some people out of the area, I need to serve people within that area. Looking at their safety, their accountability and their interest to -- or being in that area the reason why I think it's clear what I'm doing and how I'm doing it and how I'm planning to do it. I am considering all the -- all sides. People I'm serving and the people I live with. Thank you. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: So, at this point you are -- you are watching children in the house? Ntawuyamara: So far I haven't -- I'm not watching, because I'm still working for the certification. Therefore, the people I had in -- in Boise some of them come to me leaving me a child -- two child -- two children for their problems, but I'm not running a business. Yes. Perreault: So, your plan is to pick up all 12 children? Ntawuyamara: I have -- I don't have 12 children so far. That's my plan. Perreault: Okay. Ntawuyamara: If I may -- I may have the certification for 12, therefore, I will advertise for that big number. However, people I had in Boise, there are two families only, all of them are six and two of them they go to school, so in the morning I had four only. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 12 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 10 of 118 Perreault: Okay. Ntawuyamara: Yes. Perreault: So, when you or -- when you or your wife are picking the children up in Boise, probably in the morning during heavy traffic, who is at the house with the other children or are they all coming at the same time? Ntawuyamara: My wife stays at home. I drop the children. I pick them up and I leave them at school. Perreault: So, is there any chance there would be only one person there with several children? Ntawuyamara: As you're going to have this discussion for 12, we would get somebody else. Therefore, there will always be two people at home. I will be a driver. More like a driver only. Perreault: So, there could be a third person that's there -- Ntawuyamara: Yes. Yes. That is the plan. Yes. Perreault: Okay. And so could you, please, talk to us about the -- the park and the playground and it being in a different subdivision. I'm not sure it's a great idea to try to use the other subdivision's park for a business purpose. Ntawuyamara: To prevent sometimes we thought -- because my backyard is big enough, we can use everything from the backyard. However, to prevent -- in case we say that we want to have an outside -- I mean out of the -- out of the house activity, that's what we thought of talking about a nearby place where we can get to work without using the car or without using the children to walk far away. However, there is some public parks where we can go. Perreault: And you don't have -- or you don't have a plan to put any kind of play equipment in the backyard? Ntawuyamara: We have got, because the backyard is big enough. Perreault: You do have some? Ntawuyamara: Yes. Perreault: Okay. Any additional questions for the applicant? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just remind you of the project that was originally approved by City Council, the Razzberry Crossing Villas Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 13 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 11 of 118 project. Yes, that was an R-15 project that came through this body not too long ago as well and as you remember, as I recall, the HOA president for Razzberry Crossing came and testified that they wanted that R-15 portion to contribute towards the HOA in open space requirements -- Perreault: Okay. Parsons: -- within there to help maintain some of those open space and contribute monetarily to maintaining that common open space and this particular property is close to a large open space that was approved with that project . Also as part of that approval the applicant went on record to say that they would be working with the HOA to add an amenity to one of those open spaces in part. So, those things are in the works and they are hoping to get that worked out here by September or so, but I just wanted to remind the Commission that there is open space in this development. I remember Commissioner Cassinelli very clearly stating how much open space was approved with the Razzberry Crossing Subdivision with their PUD and we confirmed that it was over ten percent. So, there is adequate open space for this gentleman to possibly take some children and use and recreate in that subdivision. I just wanted to give you some clarification. Yeah. Perreault: Thank you, Bill. Okay. If there is no other questions, thank you very much. Oh. Commissioner Olsen? Olsen: How big is the facility? How big is the home? Ntawuyamara: It's got four bedrooms and -- Olsen: And, then, the lot size? Ntawuyamara: The lot size, that is 0.13 acres. Holland: Madam Chair? The staff report says it's a 2061 square foot house. Olsen: Oh. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2019-0044? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H- 2019-0044. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 14 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 12 of 118 Perreault: Who would like to start off our discussion? Seal: Madam Chair, I will start. Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I'm looking at this in two ways. I mean understanding that there is a daycare that's in close proximity, but there is probably a cost discrepancy between what this individual is offering and the -- and the daycare that's already there. It's nice to have a lower cost alternative that would be there for some people to take advantage of if they needed that. That said, 12 kids in the house to me seems like probably too many. But that's, you know, my opinion. If the law allows for 12 kids, then, that's what it allows for and they are -- Perreault: Actually, sorry, just to clarify. We can -- we can recommend as a part of the conditional use permit a lesser amount. So, that's within the Commission's purview. Seal: So, knowing that I mean the gentleman had operated at six children, so I mean personally six children would probably be the way to start with something like this, just to see how it goes, instead of increasing it to 12 right out of the gate. The other concern is -- I mean we have got one person that's going to be gone in a car, another car that's there, then, a third person that might be there with another car and we have a lot of -- the feedback that's come back so far has been about the increased traffic and how that's already an issue there. So, that would be the other concern that I have on this. Personally I think that it would be something that would probably be acceptable to try, but just with less children. Leonard: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, can I speak up real quick? Commissioner Seal, so we -- actually there are three different types of daycares and we define them in different ways. Under six or six and under is considered a daycare family and that only requires an accessory use permit. So, if you were to cap this -- the subject application at a certain number of kids, I would recommend doing anywhere between seven to 12, somewhere in there would be appropriate, just based on the definition of a group daycare. Seal: Understood. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Thank you, Stephanie, because the first thing I was going to read is that in the staff report it says the UDC code allows for up to six children in a family daycare with an accessory use permit and up to 12 children are allowed in a group day daycare with a conditional use permit in R-8. I don't have a ton of concerns about the traffic that's going to be generated by this, because it sounds like there is really only a few families that they are working with and they go out and pick up the kids and bring them in. I -- I know how Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 15 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 13 of 118 expensive daycare facilities are in the valley and how hard it is to find -- especially if you have got some lower income families, how -- how expensive it can be to find child care for the day while you're off at work. There is certainly some challenges with this one being in a more dense neighborhood, not having a lot of street parking available. From what it sounds like it doesn't sound like there is going to be a lot of cars coming and going from the site. I'm still mixed, because it -- 12 kids sounds like a lot to me, because it is a lot of kids to manage, but I think I might be open to it if it was maybe , you know, eight to ten kids. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: That's kind of the number I had in my head as well and, you know, if it goes well, then, if he applied for more at a later date -- but I do think it's probably a niche that's obviously needed and it sounds like they have been doing a good job of it in the past and as far as providing transportation, I think that's even a bigger plus. So, I -- I would be supportive of giving it a try and, like I said, eight to ten kids is more the number I had in mind as this was being presented. Perreault: Any thoughts to share, Commissioner Olsen? Olsen: I would just echo the idea of the lower number. I would be in the seven to eight range myself. Perreault: Okay. I agree with my fellow Commissioners. My -- my only other hesitation is that if at some point -- once we approve this we approve it and if at some point the parents are able to bring the children to the facility and he is no longer picking them up, then, we do create a traffic issue and we won't have a way to do anything about that and I'm not sure -- I don't know if the staff can share with us about how that would work with code enforcement or -- we can't require the applicant to -- you know, as -- as a part of the conditional use permit we can't require them to -- to not allow the parents to drop the children off, so I don't know exactly how we go about, you know, recommending that that be addressed, but that is something that I have a concern about, because, you know, at this -- at this point, yes, he is going to pick the children up, but if at any point in time that changes there is not anything that can be done about it. Leonard: Madam Chair, per the specific use standards for daycare centers is they provide a safe unloading drop off and pick up areas for kids, so if that were to change part of this approval would include, you know, require -- the requirement to comply with that standard, so our code enforcement team would go out and investigate if there were an issue and, then, would basically repair the issue if it was going to be remanded, so -- Perreault: So, the applicant would need to state their specific drop off and pick up hours. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 16 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 14 of 118 Leonard: That would -- yes, that would help or just even areas in which they designate specifically where people are dropped off and picked up. Perreault: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just to clarify, could we put a condition in there that if we approve this that they have to stagger their drop off and pick up times? I know that's hard to enforce, but -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's exactly what I was going to say. That's going to be very difficult. But, you know, our conditional use permit -- it gives you some latitude to restrict the number of kids , restrict hours of operation and that's probably where you have the most flexibility in this particular permit. The other thing is is if you -- you have the option of denying this application and making a recommendation how they can gain your approval or you can deny it and say let them try -- go through the accessory use process and pay the 160 dollar fee and -- and do the daycare family and see if six works and they come back at a later date and reapply again. I'm not advocating for that, but, again, under the CUP there is certain purviews you can follow and one of those is restricting hours of operation. If you feel like the parents should drop the kids off in the driveway, that's something that you can certainly include as a condition. It's -- again, it would be tough to enforce, especially when this particular property fronts on a local street that doesn't really get a lot of traffic. It's a dead end street at this point in time, but it will be extended in the future, but it is a local street. There is on-street parking allowed. As long -- in my mind as long as they are shutting the car off and not leaving the car running to let the kids out, I'm pretty comfortable with the parents coming in and out of there and safely dropping the kids off and pulling in the driveway on an interim basis and, then, leave for the day. So, it may be helpful. I don't know if the applicant does have any hours of operation that he's willing to commit to and we can tie that down in the staff report and, then, also limit him to the number of children, anywhere between seven and 12 was -- is an appropriate number for this particular application. Perreault: Thank you. Ideally, in my opinion, what I think I'm hearing from my fellow Commissioners is we cap it at eight or so and that we asked the applicant as part of the CUP to set the drop off and pick up times in case it becomes a situation where they do need to -- to allow for that and also I agree with the staff 's recommendation regarding having that drop off happen in the driveway and I think 11:00 o'clock is a bit late, so maybe we can have the applicant adjust the hours for the last child he picked up. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 17 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 15 of 118 Olsen: The concern I would have about restricting the hours is my suspicion is their clientele probably works at a late shift or a night shift and it's kind of counterproductive to -- to provide that service if we do that. Perreault: I suppose that's possible. We do need to keep in mind this is a residential area, so -- any other thoughts? Seal: Madam Chair, I -- Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I also wanted to share or concur with what was said about the longer hours. I mean, essentially, if you have somebody that's working longer hours, you know, a second job, things like that, because they are trying to accommodate, you know, folks like that, then, it makes it more difficult if you limit their hours to something other than a late night hour. I mean right now it's basically the maximum of what the hours can run , 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. I think that's the maximum they can be run. So, if we cap it I just suggest we be careful about that. Perreault: Anyone ready to make a motion? Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I move that we -- after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I moved to approve file number H-2019-0044 as presented in the staff report to the hearing -- for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modification: That the number of children be limited to eight. McCarvel: Second. Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner, did you want to add something regarding the operation -- hours of operation to your motion? Olsen: No. Leonard: No? McCarvel: Do we want to add the parking -- the drop-off in the driveway? Olsen: Madam Chair, I would suggest that we add some provision that requires them to -- requires that drop-off and pick-up be done in the driveway. Perreault: Okay. So, there has already been a motion and a second, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 18 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 16 of 118 Olsen: I can amend the motion. Perreault: You would like to withdraw the motion? McCarvel: I will retract my second. Perreault: Okay. Can we get a restated motion? Olsen: Okay. Do I have to say the whole thing -- Perreault: Please do. Olsen: -- or just add -- Perreault: Please do. Sorry. Olsen: All right. Perreault: Please do. Olsen: After consideration of all -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2019-0044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modifications: Number one. That the limit -- that they be limited to eight children and that the drop off be restricted to driveway -- that all drop off of children and pick up of children be restricted to the driveway. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve the conditional use permit for File No. 2019-0044, with the proposed modifications. All those in favor say aye. None opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Wagner Farms (H-2019-0035) by PD Larson & Co., Located 3240 W. Chinden Blvd. 1. Request: An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 2.46 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Commercial; and 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.46 acres of land from the RUT (Rural to Urban Transit) zoning district to a C-C Community Business) zoning district for future addition of a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 19 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 17 of 118 convenience store and fuel sales facility to the existing farmers market Perreault: Next we will open the public hearing for Wagner Farms, H-2019-0035. We will hear the staff report. Leonard: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next project before you this evening is for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and annexation of 2.46 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada county and located at 3240 West Chinden Boulevard. To the north is a single family residential subdivision in Ada county. To the south is West Chinden Boulevard or State Highway 20-26 and future commercial, Costco, zoned C-G. To the east is North Ten Mile Road, which is an arterial roadway and single family residential subdivision zoned R-8. And to the west is a feature single family residential subdivision, zoned R-15. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this parcel of land is low density residential. You will see on the right- hand side the proposed land use and the existing land use. They are proposing to change this parcel to commercial. They are requesting to change that parcel from low density to commercial to allow for the existing produce market to expand and to add a convenience store with a fuel station. Contingent upon that -- upon approval of that request the applicant also requests to annex the same parcel with a C-C zoning designation. Wagner Farms has been in operation since 1982 in this location and have been considering moving to another site to expand its operations. They were inundated with requests from surrounding residents and customers to keep the business open and had since decided to pursue expanding in their current location. A petition with over 450 signatures in support of Wagner Farm remaining in this proposed location was submitted with this application. The applicant is proposing one full access point via West Chinden Boulevard and has coordinated with IT D to align that entrance with Ten Mile Road to the south. Right there. A 35 foot landscape buffer is required along Chinden. The applicant is also proposing to construct a portion of the city's ten foot multi-use pathway adjacent to Chinden. There is also a 25 foot landscape buffer that's required to the residential use to the north. The applicant is also planning to install a six to eight foot masonry wall adjacent to that property to mitigate any activity that might result from the proposed use. Staff is recommending that a micro pathway to the residential subdivision to the east and Spur -- and Sprurwing golf course to the west be added to increase pedestrian connectivity. Proposed hours of operation for the market, convenience store, and fuel station are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The fuel pumps will not be operable after that point. And the submitted concept plan generally complies with city code. However , a thorough review of the site and landscape plan will be required with the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications, which will be done at a later date. Conceptual building elevations were submitted to the facility and will maintain a country barn feel, which will help to maintain the historic character of the area. There is no written testimony for this application. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and feels that the proposed project supports goals within the Comprehensive Plan, is widely supported by the surrounding community and will preserve the historic ambience and historic character of the area. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 20 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 18 of 118 Perreault: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question. Where the roadway lines up with Ten Mile, is that going to align with where that intersection stoplight is going to go into in the future and does that also connect with the Three Lakes Drive? Is that the same drive access? Leonard: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I believe -- it does line up with Ten Mile and that light. I'm not sure about the Three Lakes Road though. Holland: That's okay. We can ask the applicant, too. Leonard: Okay. Holland: Thank you, Stephanie. Perreault: Would the applicant, please, come forward. McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm here this evening representing the applicant on the applications that are before you . As Stephanie indicated, we requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We have also requested annexation and rezone on this particular piece of property. The -- the property is 2.2 acres. Does it pop up? Will it stay up? Yep. There it goes. Got it. So, the property in question lies right here, right at the Ten Mile intersection. It's 2.2 acres in size. There is two existing single family dwellings on the property and there is an existing barn. Since approximately 1982 the property's been owned by Rod and Deb Wagner and they have had a produce barn and raised their own organic vegetables and have sold produce, fruit and vegetables out of this facility. Over time, as this area developed and in my discussions with them when they first started out the subdivision to the west didn't exist . Spurwing didn't exist. Obviously, there was no signalized intersection or subdivisions around them. They were kind of isolated out on Highway 20-26. Over time their business has blossomed and it expanded and they have a significant following of people who live in this vicinity and who traverse Chinden and stop in here to get produce and -- and fruits and homemade jams and other items that they offer at this facility. As everything started to develop, obviously, the Costco development to the south is the most significant development. The whole kind of character of this corridor has changed and they decided that, you know, maybe it's time that we relocate somewhere else and based on the input from their customers, their customers are like, please, you know, we -- we would love you to stay here and -- and expand your facility, so it's not just seasonal, but is a year round facility and so Deb and Rod came to me and -- and Paul, who they kind of teamed up with and -- and said, you know, what -- what do you think and I said, well, obviously, the low density residential designation on the comp plan is just an oddball. I mean you're on a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 21 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 19 of 118 major state highway. You have access to an existing signalized intersection. Rod and Deb cooperated with ITD when Walmart went in. They had the burden of expanding this intersection, installing that signal, and so their driveway was relocated, so it could align with the new intersection and I said, you know, really, the highest and best use on the property and what makes the most sense is a commercial designation. So, we met -- met with your staff on multiple occasions. We kind of decided on the community business , the C-C zone would be the most appropriate zone for what we were contemplating and so -- getting excited here. So, what they came up with is a site plan, which you see here. ITD -- we had multiple meetings with them and they indicated that they are going to need some additional right of way, which we are allocating 30 additional feet of right of way and, then, they said in addition to that we will need 30 feet of easement and, then, we will want you to move your access further to the east, so that it would align with the outbound -- or the -- sorry, the westbound outside turn lane, so people could either come straight into the facility at the light or go westbound. So, we -- we worked with -- with some traffic engineers and came up with this solution. I did Olive Tree at Spurwing, the patio homes over here at Spurwing Golf Course. So, I went to Jock Hewitt and Rod Wagner also talked to Jock and -- and we asked him would you be willing to give us an access easement, so that we could align with the future expansion of Ten Mile intersection. They will come along with the Costco development. He has agreed. Came to my office, said draw up the paperwork, that's fine. We went to ITD, reported back to them, took this site plan. ITD said the only thing that we ask of you is that you have a traffic engineer prepare a turn lane analysis. So, we did have a traffic engineer evaluate the use and the n ecessity for any mitigation or a turn lane analysis and he indicated there is none. We don't generate enough traffic. The intersection will operate within an acceptable threshold and for the capture traffic that we will be taking up , he -- he said we don't meet that warrant for a decel lane. When we had our neighborhood meeting, we had about 20 people that attended. Primarily a lot of the people from the West W ing neighborhood. We listened to their comments. We made significant changes based on their comments. There is a gentleman that lives do north of us, his home is right here and he said, you know, I -- I don't have any opposition to the Wagner's expanding this and building a new facility, but I do want a masonry wall, you know, six or eight feet, whatever height would be allowed by the City of Meridian. I want landscaping and, you know, buffering. We also initially had the pumps located on the west side and it was overwhelming comment from the neighbors, you know, why don't you move the pumps to the east side, because, then, they will be next to the golf course and, then, that would be less noise. We don't have any residences on our western boundary, it's just open space. Oops. There we go. So, as you can see, this is a common lot in that subdivision and, then, here is their irrigation pond. So, we don't have any residences adjoining our western boundary or our eastern boundary. We have the one house to the north. So, we made those changes. Staff asked us -- they said, you know, we want a ten foot multi-use pathway along that Chinden corridor. So, we came up with about 38 and a half feet of landscaping here as our buffer and, then, the ten foot pathway and, then, that allowed us to have ample room for trees and shrubs. The circulation pattern, if someone is, obviously, coming into the C store, they would come in, park here in the front. We have -- exceed the parking requirements. For fueling the residents would come in and they would fuel here and here . And for the produce they will have access behind the building or they can come in from the front , but Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 22 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 20 of 118 we also have additional parking along the north boundary. One of the other things that -- that the Wagners and Mr. Larsen did is they went to a very excellent architect and said what we want to do is, obviously, enhance the character of the agricultural use, the produce barn that was here and has been since the early '80s and so the architect came up with this really amazing design and one of the things that we did, based on the neighborhood comments, was initially they had pumps out front, like your standard convenience store. They wanted us to integrate those into the design and as you can see what's unusual here that you normally don't see with a standard C store, but here we are talking a neighborhood market, we have integrated that canopy into the actual main structure. The cars are, obviously, parked the wrong way, but -- but you can see that it -- it has, you know, a barn look, it -- it fits well, it basically makes a statement about that agricultural heritage that the Wagners have created over time. Here is another elevation that you can see, showing that front elevation as the cars would park here. As far as the colors and schemes, you know, they are going to go with earth tones and make it, you know, pedestrian friendly and, like I indicated, they are exceeding the required parking. This shows you right now the Wagners -- this is their existing sign and it is seasonal and the barn is back behind the house. There is quite a few existing trees. The neighbors asked us to -- if we could, please, try to preserve as many trees as possible on the site. This is the site plan. The civil site plan that you see here, these are the existing trees that are around the site currently. Obviously, some of them will conflict with construction, but we did agree to, obviously, maintain and save trees on these periphery and to -- to keep the site, you know, as pristine as possible. Here you can see -- this is a -- this is kind of a blow up of that existing intersection at Ten Mile. So, right now there is a striped westbound turn lane and there is only a single turn lane. So, according to ACHD, once Chinden expands with the improvements proposed by Costco , then, this striping will be removed. This will be a dual westbound turn lane and , then, there will be an eastbound turn lane and, then, there will be a southbound through lane here. So, our entrance right here will align directly with that outside westbound turn lane. So , there will be an arrow where you can go straight or you can turn. There is a signal here, so that the customers that come in and out of the produce facility can catch a light and safel y enter Chinden Boulevard. Oops. Oh, this thing is a killer today. This shows you that intersection. You can see that striping here. So, it's already built out for that dual turn lane. You can see the current ingress and egress here. Here is where the Costco facility and the other retail pads will be located right here on this southwest corner. Here -- this shows you the access point. Now, when we put in the Spurwing patio homes, Spurwing put this fencing -- this kind of fence wall along their perimeter here on the south and, then, they ran it down the -- their west boundary and installed a fence. So, in reviewing the staff report, we were pleased with -- with the conditions of approval. We were in full agreement with the staff. The staff also noted that the Wagners received 450 signatures on a petition to support the expansion of their business to a year around facility and we left the elevations and our site plan. Left them on -- attached to boards at their produce last summer, so people could see them and comment. We did turn those in as part of the records. The Wagner Farms averages about 500 customers a day during their peak season. They -- they have melons and squashes and cucumbers and everything you can imagine that they provide there and they have kind of expanded providing homemade ice cream. Mr. Larsen, who they have teamed up with, says -- he kind of gave me a summary of his Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 23 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 21 of 118 vision and he said, you know, it is our intent to expand the facility that's already there and complement it. This is not just a C store , but it is a neighborhood market. We will be providing local fruits, vegetables, fresh eggs, honey, dairy products, old school fountain. I -- I will wrap it up. Hot coffee. We are not proposing any drive thru like -- you know, like a restaurant drive thru or anything like that. This -- this is going to be a neighborhood market. I think what we have here is an excellent idea that is going to compl iment this area and provide a service that other developments don't. Do you have any questions? Perreault: Any questions for the applicant? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Becky, to -- repeat that again about the -- there is no requirement for a westbound decel lane? McKay: Yes. So, what they look at is they look at the volume of traffic and the peak hours and so what ACH -- or ACHD didn't require a traffic study because they said we don't generate enough traffic to warrant one. McCarvel: But I think you would eventually. I mean I just think that's asking for rear ends -- McKay: What ITD has indicate -- yeah, but we are right at a signalized intersection. McCarvel: Yeah. I mean on a green light it's just -- I mean -- McKay: Unlike -- unlike other C stores where they have conflicts with traffic, because they are trying to put their approaches so close to the intersection and you have got traffic trying to enter the facility and exit the facility in a nonsignalized fashion. This is at a signalized intersection. So, as the traffic queues here, then, you have to envision that there is going to be five lanes on 20-26 -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. McKay: -- and, eventually, the plan is for seven long term, based on future growth and the volume of traffic and so what ITD evaluated was they evaluated the number of trips and the fact that this is on that intersection and so these traffic -- the trips will be queuing up here and, then, turning in and so we have made an entrance where they can come in and just slot right in very easily. As you can see we have sloped it so they can drive right in. We are not going to have a lot of stacking here. McCarvel: Yeah. I wasn't meaning there was going to be stacking, I'm just saying on a green light and 50 miles an hour, somebody trying to slow down and take a right in there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 24 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 22 of 118 McKay: They do that right now. McCarvel: Yeah. McKay: We -- you know and -- and part of the evaluation they look at is, you know, the number of accidents and problems that have been associated . To my knowledge there have not been any issues associated with this entrance , based on my meetings with ACHD and ITD. McCarvel: Yeah. I would assume the cars kind of make their own little decel lane, since there is nothing there -- you know, they kind of -- they kind of move over on their own -- but anyway. So, thank you. McKay: Thank you. Perreault: On that same vein, what is the anticipated number of -- excuse me -- of visitors to the store each day? I mean if you have all these -- all these commuters that are coming from Canyon county, they are using Chinden and they are likely going to be stopping off in there and at the end of the day getting gas, getting a drink on their way home, I would imagine at peak -- peak evening hours there is going to be a lot of people turning right into there potentially, so that they don't have to -- you know, I mean that's -- there is not a whole lot of gas stations along that corridor. There is more coming, but -- so, I'm just wondering if -- can they even give an estimate of what they think that will be ? McKay: Madam Chairman, there is a new Jackson's at Star Road and -- not Star Road. Middleton Road. Middleton Road and 20-26 that I helped them. The Costco facility is also -- they are going to have gas pumps and convenience as part of their services. This is more kind of a niche thing, because people will be stopping here for homemade baked goods, homemade ice cream. It's not going to be your standard C store. Right now you got -- you have, you know, 500 -- they estimate approximately 500 customers coming in on a peak day. So, you know, is that going to expand with their expansion of their facility? I assume the number of customers -- I mean that would be logical. But the beauty of it is there is a light to get in there and a light to get out, whereas we don't have that opportunity when we have other C stores that are located at intersections. In fact, their traffic is conflicting with the flow of traffic, because they are -- they are not -- they don't have a light to come out and go in. This is -- this is kind of a unique spot. The only other one that's like it would be the one on Fairview where there is the gas station, the carwash -- they have a signal -- what is that? Blue Lakes or something lakes. Perreault: Fairview Lakes. McKay: Fairview Lakes. Correct. So, that's the only other one I know that's similar to this and -- and it's the same way, you -- you know, you have the ability to -- to turn in there and, then, come out on a signal. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 25 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 23 of 118 Perreault: So, for clarification, the traffic engineer's assessment was presented to ITD and they were in agreement with it? McKay: The draft has been submitted to ITD and they are still reviewing it. Perreault: Oh, it hasn't been decided by ITD officially? McKay: ITD said that's all they wanted from me was an analysis if we needed a turn lane. Other than that they didn't see any problem with this, as long as I could align with that outside westbound turn lane and ACHD indicated the same. I submitted the same turn lane analysis to ACHD and to your staff. Perreault: Okay. McKay: So, we -- we would have to get a permit from ITD. So, as a condition. Perreault: Right. McKay: We will have to provide an ITD permit and I have submitted a permit to ITD. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. And could you expand for us the recommendation by staff of the micro pathways to the other residential areas? McKay: Yeah. The staff -- we had a discussion -- initially we -- we had some areas for golf cart parking, so that we could get some of the -- you know, possibly golf carts could come over here and stop and -- and get some ice cream or whatever. The golf course, after -- after we kind of had that discussion with the neighbors to the north and to the west, they installed a fence all along this west boundary. So, we don't have the ability to make that interconnection unless they are willing to put in a gate. We talked to the W est Wing neighborhood and they said, you know, we would like to have pedestrian access into your site, walk over and -- and be able to walk back, but they said we have some concerns about residents that are further to the west , like in Spurwing Greens coming through our neighborhood, because they don't have sidewalks, because they were a nonfarm development. There are -- I think one acre lots. And so their concern was their liability of people coming across that are not residen ts of their subdivision. Their open space lot and the fact that their irrigation pond is there. So , we are very willing to put a pedestrian access to the west, but I can't force private parties to allow a connection or reciprocate and that's kind of our position. Perreault: So, there is a full fence now on the eastern side of the property? McKay: Yes. Yes. That is correct. Perreault: Okay. Any additional questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 26 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 24 of 118 Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I have got a couple questions if that's all right. So, I -- I'm assuming that all the existing structures that are on the current site are going to be removed and this is replacing all that? McKay: Madam Chair, Madam Holland -- I mean Commissioner Holland, yes, all the structures that are out there now, which consists of like a barn, two existing homes, fuel tanks -- above ground fuel tanks and I think a shop will all be removed. So , we will clear the site, but try to maintain trees. Holland: Okay. And one more question. Stephanie, could you go back to the map that you first showed us that showed what the plan looks like around it? That map. Yeah. So, it looks like -- that's not a road. That's what I was thinking originally when I first asked that question. It doesn't look like that's a road that connects on the east side of the site, it looks like it's just maybe a property line. My earlier question was is there joint access for that traffic intersection that would intersect with the Three Lakes neighborhood road on the R-4 to the east? But I think we have answered that, because you said there is a fence there, so I answered my own question. McKay: That -- that initially when I did this project was going to be an emergency vehicle access and, then, they ended up coming up here and connecting for their secondary emergency access and so that's just kind of a dogleg that's platted and the golf course goes over it and, then, sewer and water is stubbed to this property right here. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will ask this question. Being a person that has replaced two windshields and seen one accident caused by golf balls hitting Chin den Boulevard right there at that intersection, will there be nets that will be installed just as a safety measure, so -- because golf balls are going to come flying in there. I'm sure it's already an issue. McKay: I guess that's a question for Mr. Wagner, because he's lived there since the golf -- ever since the golf course was built. I know all the homes that -- that we are constructing here on the golf course, you know, they are there because they want to be on the golf course. Stray balls are part of being near a golf course. As far as netting, we do not anticipate constructing netting, but they did install fencing along there. Seal: Okay. And, again, the reason I ask is because even after the fencing was put in I have had to replace a windshield right there at Ten Mile and Chinden, so -- got hit yet again. So, it's -- to me that's just a safety concern. I don't know if that's something we can address. Holland: Like you're unlucky. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 27 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 25 of 118 Seal: I tell you what, it's been -- been hit twice and seen an accident as a result, so -- McCarvel: They are right by the green. Seal: Right. Quick question on -- is there any plans to use solar power or wind power, any -- anything along those lines for this facility? McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, we have not discussed that. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: That's all the questions for the applicant. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Perreault: We will now take public testimony. Chris, do we have anyone signed up? Johnson: Madam Chair, no one has signed in. Perreault: Is there anyone here who would like to testify? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I didn't anticipate necessarily doing this, but I wanted to clarify an issue. My name is Mike Wardle. I work for Brighton Corporation. 2727 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. Brand new address for us. When we got the Costco project approved last year it includes two additional lands on Chinden. Right now at that intersection and the concern about, you know, deceleration and so forth, you only have one through westbound lane. At the time this project actually is constructed there will be two westbound lanes, plus at least one, if not two southbound left turn lanes. So, it will add some capacity without the concern that all of the traffic going through that one lane would be impacted. It's a technical issue, probably in the future when they consider widening the additional lanes on the north side for which they are providing their right of way. There will certainly be some aspect of that consideration at that point . But I just wanted you to be aware that by the time they open there will be an additional westbound lane. Perreault: Thank you very much. That's helpful. If there is no one else to -- to testify and the applicant -- oh. Please come forward. LaFever: My name is Denise LaFever. I live at 6706 North Salvia Way. That is in Spurwing and it's to the west and one of the concerns I do have -- I do have concern about that right lane turn, because with the addition of the crowding of Costco and the fact that you have got the housing and everything else going on, but not having -- by going back through and having longer hours, more options there, you're going to have a lot more use there, plus there is just a lot of crowding going on with commercial. This is a point in time that we are, one, going through a comprehensive plan change and we are looking at annexing this property. This is the time to ask this developer to go one step Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 28 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 26 of 118 further and going back and they are going from a low density -- agricultural form of a low density all the way up to the highest possible zoning you can have and it's not unreasonable to go back and ask them to go back through and put a turning lane in there. Furthermore, the traffic report, from listening to this, it's my understanding that the traffic report is not even complete. So, we are listening to an application right now that that permit and the traffic isn't decided on. So, I'm not opposed to the Wagners wanting to do what they want to do, but we have got 30 plus gas stations that's going in at Costco, a Jacksons that is already in a commercial area on Ten Mile and McMillan and we are going back through and allowing a use to go all the way from low density in the FLUM with a commercial -- with a comprehensive change to high density and not asking them to do the right thing. I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property and the right to be able to access my property, too. Perreault: Thank you very much. Anyone else here to testify? Okay. Becky, do you have anything else to add? McKay: Yes, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I did ask Mr. Wagner about the golf balls. He said he has never had a golf ball come into his property or break a window. He said they always chip to the south. He said -- he said they just -- they don't -- they don't come his way. Secondly, as far as the turn lane, where transportation is concerned, we have to rely on the traffic experts and those are Ada County Highway District and Idaho Department of Transportation. We have a turn lane analysis that was completed and it was determined that a turn lane is not warranted. We are not going from a single family use to a commercial use. There is already a commercial use on the property that has been there since the early '80s. They have 500 customers a day. That's a thousand -- that's a thousand trips, so -- coming and going. I cannot put in a turn lane willy nilly unless it's warranted and the mitigation is necessary and as a governing body, the requirements for mitigation have to equal your impact on the transportation system. Otherwise, you're overstepping your boundaries. They will be paying significant impact fees for this facility, which Mr. Wagner never paid, because he predated implementation of those impact fees. But this facility will pay significant impact fees to compensate for their impact on that network. But based on this analysis, which in my conversations with ITD is exactly what they requested of me, they are going to approve this. That's what they have told me. I have submitted the permit, paid the fees, submitted this. As a body you can put a condition on that we have to meet whatever requirements Idaho Department of Transportation sets forth and that covers it. This is a great use. It's a continuation of a use. It's making an existing use even better to serve the neighborhood, keep people out in the area, so they are not making longer trips to get certain services and that's I think our intent as long range planners to try to capture traffic. This is not a destination point , it's going to be capturing traffic that was driving by any way and that's kind of how t hey have operated all these years. Thank you. We have a good project and I would ask that you support it. Thanks. Perreault: Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Olsen: So moved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 29 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 27 of 118 Seal: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for application H- 2019-0035. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I love this. I think it is just a really neat use for that area. A perfect blend of the surroundings to -- to the north with residential and their needs and a unique kind of use for that -- or unique market for that area and blending in with the commercial that's coming in on the opposite side. I would love it if ITD did. I agree. I mean most of the traffic we -- I mean the roads aren't ours. I would think just a small decel lane would be nice, but it's -- it is up to ITD. But I personally think this use is great on that corner. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I agree with a lot of the comments Commissioner McCarvel just said. I think it's a nice looking product. They could have just continued operating the way that they have and had the barn and kept the same number of traffic , but they are deciding to invest to make the property look a lot nicer, adding a nice beautiful facility. I like that they have paid attention to Meridian's heritage and trying to, you know, contribute back to that and expand their business. So, overall I'm in favor of the design of the project, the way that the site plan lays out. I would say that it doesn't seem like to me that they are moving from the lowest density to the highest density, because it's been existing already as this kind of a use. So, they are just making it the zone that it really should be as commercial. I -- I feel okay about not having the decel lane if the two lanes are really going to be there when that project opens up. So, I don't have too many concerns there, because I think if ITD and ACHD have concerns they would mention that in their report and I feel comfortable that we can make a motion to include that the re is a condition they have to meet the ITD and ACHD requirements and I feel comfortable with that. The only other point I was going to say -- it's always hard when you have got two access points really close together on a road like Chinden, so I would be intrigued to see if Double Eagle could ever be shared access to that, so they could access the stoplight at some point, but because it's a low density residential I don't really have a huge concern about it either , because you don't have a lot of trips generated off that road. But that was my only other comment looking at this map. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 30 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 28 of 118 Seal: I agree with everything that's being said here. The -- I mean the one thing that I can see about this, especially with things like Costco going in and everything, is there is an opportunity here to take something that could have just been , you know, a sold business that's going to be turned into a residential, be retained and be something that's going to be uniquely Meridian. So, you can have Costco, which is a national chain on one corner and you're going to have something that you can only see in and visit when you're in Meridian, Idaho. So, very happy to see that happening there. I also agree with what's being said with the ACHD report. Generally we would try and wait on something like that, but on this one I think we are enough all in favor of it that, essentially, it is something that ACHD is going to come out with the requirement and we just would likely recommend that we -- that they abide by that, same stipulations that are in the report from ACHD. Perreault: Thank you. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: As a -- as a question, does -- if we add something like that about ITD and ACHD, is that superfluous, because they have to do that anyway or does it provide some emphasis from us? What's the purpose of doing that? Perreault: Actually, if -- if staff wouldn't mind answering that question. Did you hear Commissioner Olsen's question? He asked if it is -- if we -- if we recommend in the motion that they would be required to comply with ITD or ACHD's recommendations, they have to do that anyway; is that correct? Leonard: Madam Chair, yes, that's correct. And this is actually just a point of clarification. It's just ITD that would be -- Perreault: Yeah. The applicant had supplied the traffic study to ACHD, but they don't have a decision in this situation do they? Leonard: That's correct. Perreault: Okay. Leonard: The decel lane specifically. Olsen: Thank you. Perreault: So, my thoughts on this are that -- I actually think this is going to generate -- well, first of all, let me say I think the building is really -- is really awesome. I really like it. And I am grateful they are deciding to stay there and so I don't have any concerns about the site plan itself. I think they have designed it well. But I do think it is going to generate Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 31 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 29 of 118 a lot of traffic, because I think you're going to have a lot of commuters that are going to want to pop in there and get gas and something to drink and a snack and -- and I do anticipate there is going to be a lot of people making right turns into there and I think it's probably going to be more than we even though and so with that said, I agree with Commissioner McCarvel, that I would like to see a decel lane, but that's not in our purview. However, with the -- with the two westbound lanes that are going to be -- that are going to be constructed I have less of a concern. So, my hope is that that is completed by the time that this is fully operational or shortly thereafter. So, other than that I don't -- I mean I -- I think it -- it looks like it's a beautiful building. I'm very appreciative that they are going to do so much landscaping in the front there and as far as the pathways go, I would like to see the applicant construct a pathway on the west side, even -- even if the current HOA is -- is not necessarily saying that they are going to connect to it, those HOAs change board members every year and next year you may have one that wants to. So , I -- if it's -- if it's not too much of a trouble and the applicant is in agreement , I would like to see a pathway put in on the west side. I would love to see one on the east side, too, but I understand the challenges involved in that and so, you know, you can't -- you can't have the easterly neighbors do something that they are not willing to do. I would like to hear the Commissioners' thoughts on the pathways before anybody makes a motion. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: On the pathways, I mean the -- to complete the pathway over into the adjacent road, that would require them to go into property that they don't own. Perreault: We are just talking about them completing a portion of the pathway from the asphalt area through the green space to the west, so it's just a -- I don't know how many feet that is, but it's not too -- it just allows for the connectivity if the westerly neighbor decided they wanted to run one through. So, if you -- yeah. If you pull up that -- the map -- the satellite view, then, you can see it would run to the -- if the neighboring subdivision where to put it in it would run to the north of the pond out to the street. So, it would be in the northwest corner of the -- of the -- of this site. Seal: So, essentially, what you're saying is you would like Wagner Farm to, essentially, stub in access where that could be completed? Perreault: Correct. That was a recommendation of staff. Seal: Okay. Understood. Thank you. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I think adding a pathway would be a good idea. I like that. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 32 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 30 of 118 Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Was that -- you said that was in the staff report for -- so, we don't need to add that to the motion? Perreault: Correct. McCarvel: Okay. Perfect. Perreault: But we want to clarify if we are only asking -- the staff report said east and west. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: You need to clarify what section that would be. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm fine with adding a stub connection, so that they can future connect. Does it say in the staff report that they need to connect to the east and the west ? Perreault: Yes. Holland: So, do we need to include it in the motion, then, if it's already in the staff report? Perreault: I think we need to clarify if we want -- wanted both or one -- in one area. Holland: I would like to see one to the east, too, but if they have already put up a fence it kind of seems like they are closing the door to wanting it halfway there. So, I would be fine just making a motion to include it on the west boundary. Perreault: So, does that mean we are ready for a motion? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2019-0035 as presented in the staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 33 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 31 of 118 report for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modifications: That a pathway be stubbed to the west side. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to -- oh, sorry. I turned the page too quick. It has been moved and seconded to recommend File No. H-2019-0035 for approval to City Council with the modification of adding a pathway stub on the west side of the development. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Commissioners, do we need a break or can we move onto our next application? Holland: I'm fine to keep going. C. Public Hearing for Bainbridge Southeast (H-2019-0042) by Brighton Investments, LLC, Located on the West side of N. Ten Mile Rd., Approximately 1/2 mile South of W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 21 Building Lots and 7 Common lots on 5.25 acres of land in the R-8 Zoning District Perreault: Okay. Let the record show that Commissioner Bill Cassinelli is joining us at this time. Next we will open the application for Bainbridge Southeast, H-2019-0042. Start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members to the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 5.25 acres of land. It's zoned R-8 and is located on the west side of North Ten Mile Road, approximately a half mile south of West Chinden Boulevard. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is a rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the west are single family residential properties in Bainbridge Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is vacant, undeveloped property, zoned L-O, limited office, and to the east is Ten Mile Road and the city park zoned R-4. This property was annexed and included in the preliminary plat for Bainbridge Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown, consisting of 21 single family residential building lots and one common lot on 5.25 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity is required to be provided based on the area of the site per the UDC standards. The applicant is proposing 11.43 percent or .6 of an acre of qualified open space, consisting of parkways along internal local streets and a common area in excess of 50 feet by 100 feet in a rea. The applicant is requesting Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 34 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 32 of 118 the extra amenities provided within the larger Bainbridge Subdivision, consisting of a second community swimming pool and playground in phase nine abutting this site to the west are allowed to count toward the site amenity required with this development. Because this subdivision will be included in the homeowners association for the larger Bainbridge Subdivision and will, essentially, be platted as a subsequent phase of that earlier development and will have access to the same common areas and site amenity, staff is amenable to this request. Additionally, the site amenities required for the 5.25 acre portion of the site were already provided with previous phases of development. No amenities were proposed in this phase in the earlier preliminary plat . A 20 foot wide gravity irrigation easement exists along the southern boundary of the site within adjacent proposed building lots. The Council previously approved this easement to be located within the adjacent building lots, rather than in a common lot. Staff is recommending that that approval carry over to this preliminary plat . Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the propo sed single family residential detached dwellings, consistent with those constructed in previous phases of Bainbridge Subdivision. There has been no written testimony on this application and staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Thank you, Sonya. Are there any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. It's kind of a unique situation, because this property was actually annexed, zoned, and preliminary platted in 2005 and then -- Sonya, I'm sorry, would you bring up my slides. And, then, included in the update in 2014 -- well, 2013 -- just a very quick run through. So, this -- this shows the underlying project, all of the lots were part of the approved project and so if you look in the -- this lower right corner where it talks about Bainbridge Southeast, that's as it was originally preliminary platted in 2005 and, then, restated in 2013. If you look kind of in the -- the upper left you will see a Bainbridge Connection and I just wanted to talk about the two things that have happened in the project since those approvals. Bainbridge Connection -- we actually acquired preliminary platted property from the adjacent developer, had approval for 17 lots in that area. We added ten in our final plat of that and fully improved it. In the Bainbridge Southeast area, because the zoning map that Sonya showed you just a moment ago, noted that there is limited office zoning adjacent to it, which was kind of a change from the original concept when they anticipated bringing the access street in from that side of the property. So, what we have done is we have simply extended the street, Ladle Rapids, the east-west street up near the south boundary for that southeast portion and that will provide them an internal access to the property. How we got here is that over the course of development of the 552 lot subdivision, plus the additional ten added with Bainbridge Connection, we picked up a lot or two here and there and we just show you where we picked up a number of cases of one additional lot, two in the -- kind of the north area, four near the southwest portion. So, over time there were an additional 13 lots created. We go over toward the Bainbridge southeast portion in the lower right, you will note that there is a minus three over there. We have deducted three, because just immediately north of that three is -- we took out three lots and are putting in a swimming Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 35 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 33 of 118 pool and tot lot in that area and that's the amenity that we are suggesting accommodates this particular small area of the neighborhood. So, in reality, of the 21 lots in this preliminary plat, 11 of those actually are approved, we are just in the technical situation where having added ten lots, why it's simple lot size adjustments over the course of the previous development phases, we have ten lots that just didn't have the approval from the original preliminary plat numbers. So, staff -- and we are fully in agreement with staff's recommended conditions and their -- or condition A.1.A, the red area there notes a request for a stub or a future street access into the Johnson property just to the north of us. We had anticipated providing that stub from the blue area, that -- which now shows a cul-de-sac that we are replacing a street stub there, but that was -- that created a situation where it expanded beyond the 450 foot distance allowed for a cul -de-sac. So, by doing this, Ladle Rapids, which is our street that dead ends there in that cul-de-sac as proposed, is less than 375 feet, which is far less than the 450 allowance and it gives some flexibility to Mr. Johnson to the north for what he might want to do in the future and, in fact, by not having just the stub coming up from us and, then, having to connect back through, it probably took two or three potential lots away from his ability to develop at some point in the future. Not certain when or if that will occur. So, in reality, we are just talking about this property that finishes off our subdivision adjacent to the Johnson property. The area shown to the west outside of this is actually the approved Bainbridge Subdivision Phase Nine and that is nearing construction. We will construct that this year and you will note that to kind of the north -- or upper left side is where that new swimming pool and tot lot complex will be constructed. So, Madam Chair, Commission Members, if you have questions I would certainly answer them , but, in reality, this is a -- kind of a technical situation where we just -- by adjusting lots over time created ten more than what were approved and we are asking for your approval now for the additional ten, so we can finish the project on property that was actually annexed, zoned and preliminary platted in 2005 and revised in 2013. But answer your questions . Perreault: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: While I have got you up here -- Sonya, would you bring your slide back up. Can we just have for the record this is Bainbridge, Delano Subdivision on that slide. Allen: Sorry about that. McCarvel: Yeah. I just want -- I just didn't want to get it in the record with that. Allen: Oh. Okay. McCarvel: Okay. That was it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 36 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 34 of 118 Perreault: One -- I do have one quick question for you. Code technically -- you know, that we -- there is a -- in the staff report we -- the staff discussed whether we would require that additional amenity and per code requirement. Is the applicant willing to do something -- I think amenities include things as simple as park benches, you know, some smaller things like that. Is the applicant willing to do that if we -- if we make that request just to stay in compliance with code? Wardle: Madam Chair, there is an opportunity for just a little -- you know, some kind of a seating area at the end of that. By doing the cul-de-sac, instead of the street stub, we actually wrap around and connect and go back to this, so that that area -- yeah. It -- there is a -- there is a possibility of doing something with some bench or something in there, because we will have to add a lot of trees and so forth . So, not a -- not an issue. Perreault: Okay. Wardle: Thank you. Perreault: Agree. Thank you. Any questions -- additional questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Perreault: Chris, has anyone signed up to testify? Johnson: No, Madam Chair. Perreault: Is there anyone here who would like to testify on this application? Okay. And -- all right. So, at this time can we get a motion to close the public hearing? Holland: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Bainbridge Southeast, H-2019-0042. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I don't see any big concerns with this project. I -- I don't think I have anything I even need to discuss, so -- I'm in favor of approving it. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 37 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 35 of 118 Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I'm supportive of it as well. It's pretty simple. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The only thing as far as making a motion was -- I mean I agree that maybe adding the requirement of a small amenity to the cul-de-sac area would be a good -- good idea, just to keep compliance in there. Perreault: I would agree with that. There -- this isn't the first time that we have had a small -- about five acre size development come before us and while this is part of a much larger -- much larger community and we wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for the lot adjustments, you know, we do -- every time we make one of these decisions we set an example of -- of whether we apply that code or not. So, just something to think about. Any additional thoughts? Ready for a motion? Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of the City Council of file number H-2019-0042 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modifications: That an amenity at the cul-de-sac area be required. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council for H-2019-0042, with the stated modifications. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) by Devco Development, LLC, Located 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E. Jasmine Ln. 1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4.10 acres of land which is currently in Boise's area of City Impact in to Meridian's area of City Impact with a Mixed Use- Regional future land use designation; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 38 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 36 of 118 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 11.57) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for multi-family development and 12 common lots Perreault: Okay. Next on our agenda is the public hearing for Delano Subdivision, H- 2019-0027 and as I mentioned earlier, the applicant has requested a continuance. So, at this time I would like to give the staff an opportunity to share their -- their understanding of the reason for the request for the continuance and is the applicant present this evening? That might be -- okay. Great. Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, the applicant has submitted a request for continuance due to the ACHD commission hearing having not occurred yet and the city not receiving a staff report yet from ACHD on this application. The meeting has not yet been scheduled at ACHD. They are looking at probably the -- either the May 22nd hearing or sometime after that. Probably the first of June. Possibly the -- June 5th meeting. Perreault: Okay. Allen: So, the applicant would like to be continued until after that time. So, I would think probably June 6th would be a good date, if the Commission decides to do that. Staff is meeting -- meeting with ACHD next week to discuss some of the neighbor concerns on this and the extension of the stub street from the north through this site to the extension of Centrepoint. So, that is a big contention with the neighbors and not sure what will come out of that meeting, if it will impact this development or not , but staff has written a staff report, you guys do have a copy of that and that is based on the applicant's proposal to date. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any questions in that regard? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Sonya, is June 6th really enough time -- if they are just doing the ACHD report on the 5th is that really enough time? I'm thinking -- Allen: Not really. The 20th would probably be the best. McCarvel: Because, then, we don't have time to read it either and -- Allen: Yeah. There is no guarantees it's going to be held this month, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 39 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 37 of 118 McCarvel: Yeah. I think we are -- we have got a lot of these that are coming through that are trying to get in under the wire and it's not good for any of us . I mean, you know, this stuff of having stuff coming in all weekend and still expecting it to be heard on Thursday is I think just putting a lot of pressure on everybody at every angle. Allen: Agreed. McCarvel: And, you know, when I first started doing this we used to have complete stuff usually on Monday and that gave us the opportunity to have -- you know, you can't guarantee that we all have W ednesday night or Thursday afternoon at 3:00 o'clock to -- to read this and to allow the Commission the proper time to review things and the staff the proper time to review and prepare. I think we need to pay attention to, so I would say June 20th, then, is more realistic. Perreault: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and express their thoughts on -- on the continuation or are they okay to have the Commission proceed? Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview Avenue. What -- what -- what occurred as far as our deferral is we -- we had our application in, it took a little while to get to ACHD from -- from -- you know, out of the city's process and into the -- into the system. On April 1st -- so, two days before April 1st this date tonight was set. ACHD cannot perform -- no agency can perform in 20 days or 25 days to get a public hearing. So, two days after this hearing was set we wrote a letter -- which was April 1st, which is exactly a month ago yesterday -- in hopes of not filling the stadium with neighbors and wasting everybody's evening . So, this isn't -- as far as our deferral request is because in 25 years of working in Meridian and Boise we have never been able -- we come to commission hearings without ACHD staff reports and ACHD actions, we get deferred either way. So, we were taking a month ahead approach proactive of saying -- we talked with ACHD, there was not going to be a staff report by tonight and, you know, there will be some planning issues, you will hear from neighbors, but the major issue we continue to hear is the transportation issue. It would not have been -- in our opinion you would have -- you would have deferred tonight anyhow in any other public hearing that we have come to over 25 years. So, a month ago we requested this. I guess we still request it. There is a lot of neighbors here, if the city wants to continue on with the hearing tonight I will defer to you , of course, but -- Perreault: That being said, was -- was it possible when you were scheduling this -- you knew that ACHD would set a hearing at some point. Was it possible when this was being scheduled for the city to have -- to have scheduled this at a later date or was that not possible, because you weren't aware of when ACHD was going to have a hearing or -- I'm just trying to understand the timeline. Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, we do not set P&Z hearings. I wish we did, but we do not. So, I would think that would be for Bill or Sonya and probably more importantly the clerk's office why tonight got scheduled. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 40 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 38 of 118 Perreault: Okay. Conger: But we do not schedule the public hearings. Perreault: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Conger: All right. Thank you. Perreault: Bill, do you -- I saw you grab your microphone. Did you have something you wanted to add? Parsons: I'm certainly happy to add some context to that conversation. So , Jim and I met on this particular application, because he was concerned about the timing to getting -- getting this application to a hearing. We met, I sent him an e-mail explaining the situation, gave him the timelines that it worked out. Sonya and I were -- what we try to do at the city is we try to contact ACHD ahead of time when there is controversy to ensure that we can make a certain hearing date. This particular case we got it in about mid March, it got routed -- I -- it comes to me, I go through the application, if I don't have everything I need to route it to other agencies I hold onto it and request additional information from the applicant. In this particular case that's what's happened. So , when Sonya got it about two weeks later after we received the application and we contacted the applicant and they were adamant that they get this scheduled for a hearing and so the next available hearing was March 2nd, we communicated that to them and they said, yes, we just need to get to ACHD for their comments and, then, as soon as it was related to them, then, we got confirmation from ACHD that it wouldn't -- they wouldn't be able to perform the review within the time frame. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: So, that's where we are at. We try to get them scheduled on the next available hearing when they come in as we can and so usually that can be anywhere from four weeks, six weeks to two months, depending on the scope and size of the project and this one took about six weeks to get the -- by the time it was submitted to the time we are today. So, it's -- it's right in alignment with our SOPs that we have in our department and that was communicated to the applicant. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Conger: Madam Chair, if I may add one item. Jim Conger again. So, no, all of that is good. We were in a hurry to get to ACHD because we wanted the review process for them to start. As far as the public hearings, this isn't a project we are trying to pave this year and even do this year. We -- we are definitely not in a hurry on public hearings and I would just ask -- the only -- part of the reason I came back up is I forgot to ask is the end of June, with other public hearings we have, that week would not be good. If we actually got pushed to July we would be fine as well. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 41 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 39 of 118 Perreault: Okay. Conger: So, the end of June we would request not to be scheduled for. Perreault: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And just so you know, with where July 4th falls we are not having a hearing that first week of July, it will be -- we are still determining a date of the two hearings for July, but -- Conger: Fantastic. Perreault: -- just so you know. Okay. Conger: No. No problem. Perreault: Thank you very much. Just for the -- for the public's knowledge, we don't often have this lengthy conversations about continuances, but because there is so many folks here tonight interested in this application we wanted to make everyone aware of the flow of communication that's happened regarding how the dates were set , because we know you all have taken your evening to be here and we appreciate that very much. So , the Commission will take that into account as we are deciding if we are going to vote on allowing the applicant -- of the hearing to continue to another evening or if we will take public testimony this evening. That being said -- go ahead. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I -- I would support having this heard on July 18th, since that is the only meeting in July that is firm right now. I just think there was -- besides ACHD, I mean there is other things that are flagged in here that probably need some more working out and when I read this I just thought, you know, a lot of it's probably not ready. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: So, I would be in support of a continuance. Perreault: Before any motions are made, the other thing I wanted to add is that we do read -- as Commissioners and the city Council Members read through every piece of communication that comes from the public. So, all of your letters have been uploaded to the public site. We read through them all and so if any of you have anything additional to add beyond what has been provided, please, feel free to do that before our next Commission meeting. We will read it. City Council will read it. It is important to us that we have -- we hear everyone's words. So, we realize, again, that you have come this evening, but we would like to hear from you. So, if -- if you can't make it for the July 18th meeting, please, do feel free to send some letters in, because they will be read. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 42 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 40 of 118 Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think I agree, there is -- there is some challenges from what we read from public testimony that was in the staff report -- that was in the application packet for us to review tonight and so I'm hoping that if we, you know, continue this application on July 18th that maybe the applicant can work through some of those concerns ahead of that meeting with the -- the neighbors that are here and care and passionate about the community and how it develops and that they would also have the advising of ACHD and have time to make some adjustments to their site pla n if needed. So, I would feel comfortable with July 18th. Perreault: Any other thoughts? Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I agree with the idea of a continuation. Perreault: Okay. With that let's have someone make a motion. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I got to get my notes really quick. I move to continue File No. H-2019-0027, the public hearing application for Delano Subdivision by Devco Development to the hearing date of July 18th for the reason that the applicant is waiting for the ACHD report and that there are a few things to work out before the hearing. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-005 -- excuse me. Sorry. That's the wrong number. To continue H-2019-0027 to the public hearing date of July 18th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Parsons: Madam Chair, before we close on that motion, is it your intent -- because we are continuing it out a couple months -- two and a half months do you want the project to be re-noticed, since we do have quite a few people -- Perreault: I would -- I would like -- yes. Yes. Parsons: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 43 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 41 of 118 Perreault: Do we need to put that in the motion? Parsons: And, then, who -- are you wanting the applicant to pay the renoticing fee? It's 183 dollars. Perreault: I'm sorry, could you say that again? Parsons: Do you want the applicant to pay the renoticing fee of 183 dollars? Perreault: Is there an option? Parsons: There is. Perreault: What is the other option? Parsons: The city eats the cost. Perreault: Okay. Well, if the -- it's 183 dollars, I don't think is significant, since the application -- or the application -- the applicant is in agreement with the continuance, I think we should require the applicant to pay the fee . Parsons: Thank you. And ask my fellow Commissioners. I made an executive decision. Okay. So, with that does somebody want to withdraw their original motion and restate any motion? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move to continue File No. H-2019-0027 for the Delano Subdivision by Devco Development to the hearing date of July 18th for the reason of needing to have the ACHD report and also work with neighbors on some of the challenges as presented in the written testimony received and that this application will be renoticed at the expense of the applicant. Seal: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing for Delano Subdivision, H-2019-0027 to July 18th, 2019, with the additional -- with the additional modifications to the motion. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Perreault: Thank you for coming this evening. At this time we will take a five minute break and reconvene here at 8:10. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 44 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 42 of 118 (Recess: 8:06 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.) E. Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment H-2018-0059) by DevCo Development LLC 1. Request: A Text Amendment to Change the Naming Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, RB, R-C, R-D, R-D and R-E, and Modify Other Related Sections in Chapters 1 - 3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed Naming Convention Perreault: Okay. We will call the meeting back to order. If everyone will take their seats. Commissioner McCarvel will join us here in a moment. As stated earlier, the public hearing that was continued from November 15th, 2018, for the residential district naming convention text amendment, H-2018-0059, the applicant has withdrawn that application, so we will not have any kind of hearing on that. Do we still -- do we know where Rhonda went? I think we can get started without her, because we have enough Commissioners. F. Public Hearing for Residential Self-Service Storage Facility (H-2019-0034) by Engineering Solutions LLP, located 3755 W. Perguia St. 1. Request: Text Amendment to create a new residential self-storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. Perreault: Okay. The next public hearing is for a residential self service storage facility, H-2019-0034. We will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, we have a couple of different UDC changes on -- for you this evening. Text amendments I should say. The first is actually initiated by the applicant. If the Commission will recall, back in -- I think earlier this year, about six to eight months ago an application came before you that was labeled -- it was called Elevate Storage and part of that there was an L-O office piece in front of an apartment complex near Franklin and Ten Mile intersection and the applicant came forward and did an accessory storage unit on the front part of that. Rezoned the property to R-15, you guys approved it, Council approved it with it as an accessory use and that's how it's currently allowed in the code. Well, going through that public hearing process they realized that the way the code structure and how the conditions of approved for that project wasn't going to work for the long-term vision that they had for that property and so after the hearing they met with staff and said what -- what is the best course of action that we need to do in order to get a self storage facility that's truly ancillary, but can still provide a service to the community and so we sat down, we pre-apped with them, we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 45 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 43 of 118 noodled ideas, we talked about a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, we talked about a rezone, we talked about a code change and we said what's the best course of action and as a result of that the applicant was nice enough to come forward and present something that we are -- I think works for us and it goes a long ways to show -- I think they put some thought into how it is to integrate. I think everyone on -- from what I recall during the hearing from the Commission everyone felt that this was a high quality project and it was a needed service in that particular area, particularly for the fact that it was adjacent to high density residential that's currently developing around it . We have had, again, the apartments to the north of this site, we had some Baraya apartments to the south and now recently the Council just approved some more apartments to the west of this -- of that particular project. So, we have quite a few -- a lot of density in the area and didn't really have a lot of residential -- or a lot of residential storage facilities in the area and that's really what's kind of driven this map amendment for you this evening. So, really their -- their application pertains to three sections of the code that need to be modified. One, they are proposing to add its own separate definition for a storage facility, what -- they have called it residential storage facility, giving you a definition, how it's supposed to -- what's the meaning of that and how it's supposed to be used. That's pretty typical to what we have in our code whenever there is a use defined in our code. In our schedule of use table we usually have a definition , so we know how to interpret what that use means. The second portion of their application is to require a conditional use in two of our residential districts, the first being R-15 and the other R-40 and that's primarily -- those are the two zones that we primarily see multi-family and so it makes some sense. And, then, the third portion of their request this evening is coming up with specific use standards to control the aesthetics, the hours of operation and, really, the character and the blending and access to these particular projects and that's something that we spent quite a bit -- quite a bit of time discussing with the applicant during our preapplication meeting. Really we want it integrated with the neighborhoods. It shouldn't be a stand- alone business that takes access from an arterial, like the typical commercial development. So, the changes that are before you for the specific use standards this evening are some that the applicant came up with and, then, the items that you see in red font are things that staff analyzed as we get our staff report. We felt like we could combine a couple of these specific use standards into one more coherent standard and, then, we took some out that didn't make sense , because there were other sections of code that governed those particular items and a lot of times a lot of this item we spent time on was making sure that this type of storage facility really does look like it's part of the community -- the adjacent subdivisions, the community, so it doesn't look like metal building surrounded by a bunch of rooftops. So, I want to go over these real quickly. I won't go through all of them for you this evening, but I do want to highlight some of the changes that I think is pertinent and what sets this apart from a typical industrial storage facility, commercial type facility versus what the applicant is proposing this evening. So, first of all, again, as I mentioned to you, self storage facilities are allowed in the R-15 and R-40 district currently. They just are an accessory use. So, at this -- in this particular case they will become a principally permitted condition -- allowed through a conditional use as proposed by the applicant, but what sets this different from a commercial development is it still will have to go through design review and go through all of those elements, but this one's very specific in the fact that it's limited to the size it can be , so the applicant's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 46 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 44 of 118 proposed that no greater than eight acres in size for these facilities. We have seen these facilities throughout the year come in anywhere on five acres up to 15, 16, 18 acres. So, capping it at eight acres was a good option for us. I think when we initially started we thought five acres was the right number, but I did work on a recent project with Becky back -- that's currently in the hearing process now in front of Council for The Oaks project and they had a seven and a half acre -- eight acre parcel that they want to have some kind of storage component for their residential community in the future and so that's where we kind of compromise on the acreage for the units and eight seem ed to be the right number. The item number C that you see here is -- really talks about access to the facility and if this is going to blend into the community, then, it needs to take access from streets that provide access to the residential portion and so that's why we are very specific that it only take access from a collector and/or a local road that's provided. If you recall when Elevate Storage came through there was a Perguia that came through and that was a local street and that's where their access was coming off of and it was directly across from the apartments that this developer and applicant worked on and built. The next item is limiting hours even further than what we have in the commercial districts. So, currently the way the self storage facilities -- specific use standards work in the UDC is they got -- they allow you to operate up to 11:00 p.m. and they have actually capped themselves to 10:00 p.m. So, an hour less than what we allow in our commercial districts. The other item that I wanted to point out is they wanted to make sure that they were fully enclosed . That's pretty typical of what we require regardless. And, then, the other item was they actually wanted denser landscaping and greater landscape buffers along the street. So, nothing new. A collector street requires a 20 foot buffer, but they have actually put a requirement on a 20 foot buffer along the local street , which in any commercial development when they front on a local street code only requires a ten foot buffer. So, they realize that this needs to have a presence that needs to be part of that community. So, having that greater landscape buffer and getting that additional landscaping and dressing up that facade, it really is important to the community character when these are integrated with the residential component and the -- if you go to item L that was exactly what they have proposed. So, they want the buildings to be complimentary to the architecture and the surrounding residential neighborhood and I went one step further, rather than just saying comply with the architectural standards manual, I wanted to make sure that they -- they comply with our traditional neighborhood district standards, because that's when we talk about walkability and integrating these mixed use projects. So, if you truly want the architecture to complement and integrate, then, we will hold you to a greater standard than what we would require from a commercial and/or even an industrial development and I think that's important -- that's an important aspect of this particular code change. The second item -- or Item M is signage. Code is going to drive that, but, again, a commercial business typically wants to have a taller sign , a brighter sign. With this restriction in the R-15 and R-40 zone you are capped at a certain height. You get an eight feet tall sign with 50 square feet of background area. So, that is pretty comparable to an L-O zoning district, so an office designated zoning designation or office development and that's usually kind of the zoning we use to buffer residential from more intense commercial use. So, we felt that that was an appropriate signage for these types of developments as well. And, then, a lot of the remaining items are just cut and paste items from our current self storage facilities and we think those are still important as well and I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 47 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 45 of 118 -- the other thing that I also liked about this is that they have said no outdoor storage. So, everything would be inside of a building or even a lean-to or something where you don't see RVs and a bunch of rec vehicles or -- so, it would be wholly enclosed and, again, looked like it would integrate with the development. So, again, staff's read the applicant's proposal. These are the changes to their requested changes. We received written testimony from Becky McKay, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the proposed changes that I'm sharing with you this evening. We have not received any additional public testimony or written testimony on this particular item as well. So , with that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Perreault: Are there any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I do have a couple. I didn't see -- can you go back to that -- you just mentioned -- one of the things I had written down, Bill, and you had just mentioned, but I don't see it in here specifically is outside storage. Item Q. What's that? Okay. Okay. Does that need to be more specific to eliminate -- especially RVs and things? That would be one question. Another question. What do we -- what about height? Is there -- what's the normal height restriction on -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, height is based on the district -- the zoning district. So, in an R-40 zone you have a 40 foot height limit. The R-40 zone I think it's 60 or 65 feet. I think -- I believe it's 60. So, there is -- there is no cap on height here at this point, but certainly the applicant can maybe elaborate on some of that for you. But my typical -- the only time I see taller buildings with these particular facilities is when there is RV storage, because you need a taller door and you have these roll up doors, so you get a 20 foot tall structure to back your RV into it. I don't know if that's the intent of the applicant here, but that's certainly -- there is no restriction of having RVs in this particular type of facility, it would just have to be within a structure. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, one other question. Sorry, everybody, for hogging it. What are the -- what are hours for noise? I know in construction what -- what are typical hours with regards to some other noise ordinance and whatnot ? Isn't it 7:00 a.m? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the noise ordinance I believe it's 6:00 am to 11:00 p.m. Cassinelli: Is that what it is? I thought it was 7:00. Parsons: That's my understanding. And the 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. that they are proposing is -- is with our L-O and C-N zoning district. Those are the hours that we restrict in office development to -- in our zoning ordinance currently. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 48 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 46 of 118 Cassinelli: Okay. I think that's it. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more question for staff. Was this -- this proposed change, did it go through the same committee process that the other ones did? No? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it did not. Typically when they are -- again, come forth with somebody else, other than the city initiated application, we do not vet those through the UDC focus group. We are analyzing that as staff, going through code, making sure that there aren't any other conflicts with what the applicant 's proposing. As I mentioned to you, there was quite a bit of discussion and we have -- before the applicant even submitted to staff they forwarded their proposed change s and got feedback from us as well. So, that's how this particular process worked. Holland: Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Two things on here. Was any -- was there any thought or consideration to limiting the hours of the on-site options for letter N there, as far as -- I mean it's going to be something that's in a residential type area. So, trying to limit that, instead of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., limit that to more of a business type hours, 9:00 to 5:00, 8:00 to 5:00, something along those lines? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean you can propose whatever you want to add to that or you could say don't even allow it and remove it. So, you have options and that those hours -- or, again, if -- take them off site and do that business elsewhere. Again, these are -- a lot of these last couple of items are consistent with the commercial self storage facility. So, I think the applicant probably wanted to pad it a little bit more and put a few more provisions in there to make sure that they are at least treated equal. A little bit more stringent than those, but still have those same standards applicable to their proposed changes. But, again, I could see this -- that being stricken if that's something you feel like should be removed from here. Seal: Right. And one more just on the -- I mean is it in our purview to limit it to a single story in order to put some kind of cap on the height? I mean I understand the need to have something as -- you know, taller in order to accommodate something like an RV, something along those lines. Some of those are pretty tall. But if we could cap it at a single story that might prevent, you know, multiple story buildings or something that's going to go along -- you know, above the roof line of the residential area around it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 49 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 47 of 118 Parsons: Certainly -- again, if that's something that you feel that you want to add, no more than -- again, a typical residential zoning district, the R-4, R-8, is 30. In L-O, C-N, 35 feet. So, if that's something that you want to cap on building heights with these particular proposed developments, it's certainly within your purview to do that. Perreault: Thank you. At this time would the applicant, please, come forward. McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm here this evening representing Ten Mile Development, Graye Wolfe, in this application. I would like to thank Bill and -- and Caleb, because without -- without their guidance and support I don't think we could have gotten to this point. Mr. Wolfe -- we have worked on a multi- family project for him for multiple years now. Finally, the third phase was constructed. It's 368 multi-family units just north of Franklin Boulevard and west of Ten Mile. The particular project had garages incorporated into it, along with covered parking and open parking, and one of the things that they recognized was a problem was a lot of people were paying extra for the garages, but they weren't putting their vehicles in the garages, they were putting their personal items or their recreational vehicle , jet ski, motorcycles, whatever and, then, taking up another parking space within the development. So, parking became an issue and in talking with some of the other multi-family developments they had seen the same trend, that 70 percent of those garages are not being used to park vehicles in and that's what they were intended and they are calculated in our parking ratio for a vehicle. So, in this particular piece of property we had approximately four acres that was on Franklin Road, but it had access to the local street and it was zoned L-O. So, we decided, well, you know, to alleviate this problem why don't we do mini storage and so we brought through an application to rezone it from L-O to R-15 and have mini storage as an accessory use. Well, as we moved through the process and my client's attorneys and partners kind of started looking at the conditions that basically stated because it's an accessory use no one outside of that multi-family project can rent a unit and so, then, they started talking, well, what if somebody moves out, but they still want to keep the unit for a period of time or what if their mother moves in with them and she needs to store something, but yet she's not on the lease or we have a military resident who has to go overseas and wants to leave his stuff in the storage and so when we came through the Planning and Zoning Commission and those questions kind of arrived, then, the Planning and Zoning Commission said, well, okay, how about you could have your personal items in the storage units for a period of one year after you moved out of the multi -family development and, then, you would have to exit. Well, then, when we went to the City Council, the City Council -- the city attorney said, well, you know, I don't -- I don't think we can do that, because the code doesn't really allow for it. It says accessory use and our hands are kind of tied. So, the Council ended up approving the rezone to the R-15. They approved the accessory use and they said, you know, we see that we are boxing you in and it kind of defies a normal business model that if you have excess capacity in that mini storage you can't accept anyone, even if they are from across the street in another multi- family development and allow them to lease any space. So, they said get with the staff and see if you guys can come up with some creative idea , whether -- whether it's a ordinance amendment or whether it's a comp plan change , we are open, but we see the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 50 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 48 of 118 definite benefit of incorporating these storage facilities into residential develop ments, whether they be single family or multi-family. So, we -- we got with the staff and, like I said, Bill and Caleb were very instrumental in guiding us in the right direction and so we -- we wrote this -- this ordinance with their guidance and suggestions and the key things that -- that we wanted to happen was, one, you could have within an R-15 or an R-40 zone under a conditional use permit, so there would be additional conditions, provisions, scrutiny and have a mini storage facility be a part of a larger development and that's why I put in there the language that the facility's encouraged to accompany or be a component of a single family or multi-family residential -- residential development with a conditional use permit and being a component, then, it's integrated into the project. We also kind of played around with what's -- what size should it be and we came to the conclusion that eight acres -- no, it cannot exceed eight acres. We also decided it could be located on an arterial, but it cannot take access from the arterial, it must take access on an internal collector within the project or a local street, that it can only be used for personal property. We also included that it had to be fully enclosed and screened and, then, we put specific -- specifics on buffers, as Bill indicated. We wanted to make sure that there was ample landscaping and buffers adjacent to any residential and adjacent to the collectors and the local streets and the key thing that -- that we wanted was that the building design will have to compliment the architecture of the residential development. And Bill added the compliance with the T and D design, which I think is excellent, because we don't want something that looks industrial or looks commercial that stands out, we want it to be integrated. The question arose on the options. 8:00 to 5:00, that's great. We don't have a problem with that. As far as a height limitation, you could put a height limitation. Thirty- five feet is what we typically see within like an R-4 and R-8 zone, so that, you know, you don't have some towering storage facility sticking up in the middle of a residential development, but I think this just adds another option and from a planning perspective we are trying to cut down the number of trips on these materials and if we can provide services in the developments, somebody's got an RV, they live in a subdivision, they are not going two or three miles down the road, the mini storage facility for their RV is right there in their own development. With the multi-family projects, then, we can ban the storage of any personal items in the garages and have it be only vehicles when you have mini storage that is adjacent to and part of that development and so the Council kind of saw this as, hey, this is a really good idea, it's -- it's kind of leading edge. We haven't done it before. You know, sit down, work with our staff to make it happen and that's what's before you this evening and we think we have got -- we have got a good -- a good section of code and, like I said, it's a conditional use permit, so if somebody pops in and they are trying to bring in a storage facility that is not complimentary, is not integrated, doesn't meet that residential architectural character, you deny it. It's not a principal permitted use. So, I think I would like to see us make a recommendation to the Council to support it. We think we are -- we are kind of moving forward, coming up with something new, something different. Doesn't happen very often, but we try. Thank you. Perreault: Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 51 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 49 of 118 Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I'm looking down the road, you know, five, ten years and -- and in running a business I mean you, essentially, want to keep all those units full, so how would you go about ensuring that all those units -- or a unit is available for any -- any resident, any apartment, any house that's part of that subdivision or part of that complex? McKay: So, is your question -- now, under -- under the conditional use it would be available for others outside the subdivision, whereas the way your code is now it's only available for those people within the development. I think -- are you talking about making it a priority that you offered to residents within the development? Seal: Right. Yes. McKay: And we talked about that and I think they were looking at kind of like on a pricing -- and I think Graye -- I think Graye could address that, making it as an incentive from a price perspective that we capture the residents there within that development and I think I will defer to Graye, if you want to talk about that, Graye. Because that -- that was kind of a question that the Council had when we discussed it. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Wolfe: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, thanks for having us tonight. Grey Wolfe. Ten Mile Development. 1409 North Main in Meridian. I, too, want to echo my thanks to Bill and Caleb for helping us with this. This -- this development, which is now the Franklin At Ten Mile, started as a fourplex development that I sold the property to a developer, he went bankrupt in '08 and '09, I foreclosed the property, got it back and because all the infrastructure was in the ground there I had to -- the curb and gutter and the sewer and water, I had to get with Becky and we had -- we came up with the multi- family idea and we created that development. So, there is a lot of open space in that development if you haven't driven through it. The buildings are spaced, because we had to stub them with the existing utilities. So, there is a lot less density in that development. So, it's really very nice. We are very proud of it. There is 368 units there. I also owned and developed the property where we sold it to the Ten Mile Christian Church and I developed the storage units behind that and sold it to Roger Allen , which is now Store-It. So, I have got a lot of experience in that area out there. So, this three acre parcel on the front was basically -- it came as a result of the problems we were having with the parking in that development. The fire -- and the fire marshal is not here, but the -- we were getting cars booted. My daughter lived there and her car got booted a couple times , because there is no -- there was no parking. So, this all came as a result of that. So, the storage units -- and this is a very unique storage unit facility. There is one -- Elevate is building one right now on Records off of Ustick kind of in behind Lowe's and the architectural shingles that they are using, the brick, it's very modern looking and what I have learned by going through this is the technology in these new storage units is pretty cutting edge . Everything is done basically on your phone. There is not a resident, like an older couple, living on site, it's all done via phone. There is a lot less traffic going in and out as a result Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 52 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 50 of 118 of that. The keys are all remote and they are all wireless. So, there is a lot of new -- new stuff that happens. So, to address what we are -- what our idea is is we will have a block of those storage units that would be reserved for those residents. If the -- so, in other words, when you move in if you want to rent a storage unit we have got one available for you. So, there is -- we are running right now -- and this is unbelievable -- we are running about a five percent vacancy right now. So, what we would do is we would make sure that there is vacancy available for those tenants if they want to do it and we will give them an incentive to stay at the Franklin and -- because we -- we operate and own that -- to stay at the Franklin, they will get a discount on the storage unit and one of the first things they come and they do is they ask we are going to move in, where is the nearest storage facility. So, these people move from California, they rent a three bedroom home -- or three bedroom apartment, they are building their house with no place to put their stuff. So, it's the question that really comes up first. And, then, after all this has occurred, the development to the west, which is right across the lateral -- I forget the name of the development that was just approved by the Council -- there is another almost 300 units of fourplexes and apartments and there is no storage available in Meridian. So, this is a -- this is a real need. So, I think what Becky said to the Council and what -- what she's saying to you tonight, I think this is really leading edge where you -- you can have an accessory use, you can have it look like the apartments architecturally with the same design, but have it be available for not just accessories, so we are utilizing the space, but we are still reserving enough units for the people that live in that development to take advantage of it and I think that's -- you know, apartments we were underserved in Meridian for years and years and years and when we went through the process and we have kind of seen that, I think storage is the same way, but storage has really started to develop. So, if we put those in a neighborhood and they are -- they are done architecturally right, I don't -- we are not doing any RV storage in this one, it's a three acre parcel, it's very small, it's all internalized, so there won't be any RV parking there. RV parking from -- from a density standpoint, it takes up so much of the land use to park trailers and stuff like that. So, this is literally a little triangle. Everything is internal. It's well lit. You will find a lot of females are inside these storage units and so when it's dark and they walk down a long hallway it's not lit well, so all of the things that we are trying to do here is to make this thing part of the community, make it modern and make it safe and so what the staff has done with us in reworking this -- and the Council meeting was very interesting, because they saw that it was a good thing, they approved it, but the accessory use kind of kills it from an investor standpoint, because if you don't fill it up with the 368 people that live there, you -- it's hard to turn away people when they come and they want to rent a storage unit. Well, you don't live here, so we can't rent to you. That was the problem. And, then, policing it. I think code enforcement for the city was another problem. I mean how -- how would you guys know if we didn't kick somebody out of it if they don't live there anymore? So, it was a burdensome thing. So, I think what they have come up with works really really well. But to answer, Commissioner Seal, your question, one of the draws to that development would be that there is a storage unit attached to it if they want to rent it. So, we have to keep a certain number of those free for those people. Now, once they -- once they move out we don't have enough capacity, that could be a problem. But I don't know -- you know, because this is all part of what we are working through, I don't know how we would be able to keep that and if -- if it fills up it fills up, but Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 53 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 51 of 118 our plan is to have that be an accessory to get people as an ince ntive to live there. Hopefully that makes sense. Questions? Perreault: I have several questions. Wolfe: Go ahead. Perreault: So, bear with me. Wolfe: Okay. Perreault: When I first read through this my immediate concern was about safety and I'm wondering if -- if you have had any conversations with the residents currently there and what their thoughts are in allowing outside parties to come in and be accessing those units so close to their -- to their apartments and are -- and if you could also, along with that, discuss, you know, are you going to need the additional lighting, security fencing and how is that going to affect the residents who live there? I mean I -- if I was in that situation I would be concerned that if it's an enclosed area where there is a gate that now I'm gated in and people are coming in that I -- that are not part of my -- of my apartment building and they are accessing those units, so have you talked with any of the -- I know we -- we are looking at a UDC text change for the entire city and you're -- Wolfe: Right. Perreault: -- you're discussing more of a specific application, but, you know, next to having when -- when each person signs a lease requiring them to pay for a unit , which you don't necessarily want to do, there is really no way to -- to guarantee income for -- you have a hundred units and you build 130 garage spaces and you want to allow 30 to be rented to the public and a hundred units for those residents next to requiring them to pay for a unit, I realized that -- that you can't keep those filled, but would you -- can you elaborate more on that, because I think there is -- to me I would have a safety issue as a resident if -- if there was more than a certain percentage of those unit s being rented to the public. Wolfe: Okay. So, all I can address is this development, but I can also -- I can talk about storage in general. The -- the height of the walls, the type of fencing that's around it, we have been required to fence the lateral by the canal with a high wrought iron fence. The development itself is well lit. If you know where the feeder street comes off and dumps into the apartment complex, it's a -- it's a wide city street with a cul-de-sac. The entrance to get into the storage unit -- the only entrance in and the only entrance out is on that cul- de-sac and it dead ends at the lateral. The lighting -- the lighting for the storage units will be -- it will be well lit, number one. Number two, the people in the apartment complex -- the apartment complex itself is very well lit as well. Right now, because of the parking problem, I think the residents are more concerned about people parking on the street , which they are doing right now and people parking on the street and, then, walking into development, this will get rid of that, because right now that street is full. If you drive out Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 54 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 52 of 118 there tonight the street and the cul-de-sac has cars parked all around it, because there is not enough parking in the complex. So, to answer your question, it's going to be extremely well lit. There will only be one entrance in and one entrance out, which is on that cul-de- sac. It will be extremely well lit. There is three parking spaces and there is a gate code. The only way people can get in and out of that storage unit is to have their own gate code , their wireless code, to get in and out. I know for a fact that the residents are more concerned about the parking. There hasn't been any -- any problem with theft and things out there, because it's well lit and so on. It's well lit and the facility is gated and the facility is secure and the hours of operation are not such where you're going to attract criminals and stuff like that to come at 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning. I think we have taken care of that and I think the lighting and the way the thing is done off of the arterial and it's not going to be -- it's not going to cause more parking problems, it gets those cars off the street, I think it makes the development actually better as a result of that. So, you have only got one entrance in and out. We have one emergency entrance up off of Franklin -- towards the front of Franklin where the emergency vehicles can get in . But other than that there is only one entrance in and one entrance out. McKay: One thing I would like to mention -- Becky McKay -- is you won't drive through the multi-family to get to the storage facility, because it's out on the periphery. So, it will -- you come down that collector roadway off of Franklin, you have the church to the east and, then, you come down and, then, you turn on a little cul-de-sac. So, it's not like we are going to be encouraging traffic through the multi-family to get to the mini storage. It's already on the periphery and kind of separated by a public street. Wolfe: Thanks, Becky. Okay. Perreault: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Wolfe: Okay. Perreault: Any additional questions? Wolfe: Thank you very much. Thank you. Perreault: Is there anyone signed up to testify? Johnson: Only Mr. Wolfe was signed in. Perreault: Okay. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify? LaFever: My name is Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way. Once again we are in the middle of a comprehensive change and I am not opposed to what he is trying to do for the storage. The fact that he wants it over by Ten Mile by the R-40 that's perfectly cool with me. Okay? What I am opposed to is making a sweeping change and a UDC change within this application. I have sat here for over two and a half years and watched people come forward and testify and there is a lot of outcry when you put a storage facility Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 55 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 53 of 118 within a residential zone, be it R-15, R-8, R-4. One of the things that I'm concerned about is when you do UDC change within this application the people that are notified are within 300 feet. This notification is broader than that. The impact for changing UDC code, you can take that out among the whole entire area of the City of Meridian and I have a feeling that there is some coalitions that keep standing in front of you that probably wouldn't support this and so I am concerned about the UDC change. I'm not conce rned at all about his development and what he wants to do , where he is asking for it, but I think there is a better way to handle it, than making a sweeping UDC change. Perreault: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Chair? If I may, regarding the noticing, the City Clerk's Office noticed this as a public service announcement to the entire Meridian city area, not specific to a residential area. Perreault: Thank you very much. Okay. If there is no additional comments from the applicant, we will go ahead and close the public hearing. Can I get a motion? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we close the public hearing on H-2019-0034. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and -- moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2019-0034. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I personally love this idea. I think it addresses -- it is a creative way to address the parking issue we see all the time with the high density areas, because we have sat up here and discussed it before how these garage units are getting used for storage and not parking and that's the problems on the street and instead of requiring additional parking spots, doing that math for all these identities that I think this would solve a lot of the problem with the current parking calculations the way they are. Holland: Madam Chair? Oh, go ahead. Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 56 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 54 of 118 Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I also think with the growth of the -- that we are seeing in Meridian specifically, I think this is a good idea and it's something that's timely right now, but looking down the road five or ten years when, you know, basically, the need for this type of storage as people moving in and out of the valley starts to decrease. I mean I would like to see some provisions put in here as far as if we are going to allow the onsite auctions or a public gathering of that, extend -- limit the hours to 8:00 to 5:00 p.m. Try and limit the -- or limit the -- limit them to a single story, no more than 35 feet, and put some -- put a requirement on here that a unit be available for any dwelling within the development. I think those three things will, hopefully, in the future make it to where there is always going to be storage available for folks that are within the development and it places a guarantee on that, so that you don't run into a problem of nobody in the -- nobody wants to rent those units necessarily from within and, then, you create a lot of public going in and out of a place that was really designed to be more residential. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, I have got a few comments. I agree with a lot of what's already been shared. One of my -- my biggest challenges -- which I know we have talked about before is -- it's always hard when you get a request to do a UDC text amendment change from an applicant that's -- it's not necessarily for a specific project, but it's triggered by a specific project. As a process I would rather see it go through the UDC committee and come through as a staff recommended change. That being said, I like the suggested change and I like the suggested language. It looks like the applicant's worked with the staff. I remember the -- the issue on Ten Mile and Franklin and the challenge with that subdivision and the conversations we had about it. I think for the most part this is a -- a good proposal and I'm -- I'm in favor of most of it. I would agree that for Item N on here, that for onsite auctions any -- any of those would happen during -- maybe a more limited time frame. I know sometimes people that want to participate in those might come after work hours. So, maybe it would be that we could look at it from an 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. time frame. So, that way you could still allow people to come after work hours to be able to participate in something like that, but it's not so late that it's causing challenges. I like the idea of having a height limit of 35 feet for the storage area and the only other challenge I see with your last suggestion there was that the units be available for applicants within the complex is -- it's hard to enforce that and hard to regulate that , saying that you must have a unit available for new residents moving in . I'm not sure how they would enforce that or regulate that they need to have a certain percentage maybe or I would love to hear more thoughts from the Commission on that , too, of how we could -- how we could condition something like that, because I get what you're saying, if you create an accessory dwelling and it's open up to the public and, then, you have a bunch of public come in and use the units and, then, there is nothing available for the residents in that neighborhood , then, you have kind of gotten away from what the accessory use was designed for in the first place. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 57 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 55 of 118 Perreault: I think the way to -- to handle that is to only allow a certain percentage of the units to be rented to the public, so that it keeps an appropriate ratio in relationship to the -- the units are part of the development and how many are being rented out. Obviously, they -- there is going to be some sort of management -- if it's a rented -- rental situation there is going to be some sort of management happening regarding the leases and how many lessees are there and how many units are there and so in my opinion I would suggest something like no more than 25 or 30 percent be rented to the public. I don't -- I know the conditional use process will eliminate someone trying to do a storage unit with a few residential property -- you know, a few residential buildings. That's -- that's, of course, what we will try to -- want to try to stay away from and really the main intent is still to have those storage units for the residents in that development and I think that we can keep that main intent that way if we limit how many are rented out. However, how do you require that to be -- who regulates that? Is it the management company that has to do it and -- you know, I'm struggling with who even -- kind of who is going to be the one that's responsible for -- if there is not an on site supervisor of some kind, do you have an outside party that's regulating all of the units and are they coordinating with a management company that's regulating the leases or are they different and just -- I just -- I have -- you know, I think all the fencing and the -- and the walls and everything are great, but that also can create a security issue where somebody who is a resident there could get in -- in a situation where they can't escape a potential issue and I have lived in communities like this, so I -- I'm intimately familiar with the possible concerns that can come up and I agree with Commissioner Holland regarding the onsite auction hours -- excuse me -- hours being different from the access hours. In my mind I thought maybe we could do sort of a sun up to sun down and have a separate hours winter and summer, just set specific dates, because I think it would be unfortunate for people not to be able to access it later in the -- in the summertime. And the single story height is a great idea, but, you know, the only way to get around -- I know that the -- that the investors who own the multi- family do not want to require each lessee to -- to rent a garage and that's really the only way for them to guarantee if -- if we have a hundred units and we have to retain a hundred units for -- one for each unit, you know, but at the same time does there -- if they just rent -- if it's just a first come first serve situation, then, you know, is that going to turn people away who would rent a unit, but can't access the storage. So, I know there is got to be a middle ground there and I don't -- I don't think that we should allow -- I think we should create some sort of standard for it and not allow the conditional use permit to determine how many, what percentage of units are that are going to be rented to the public versus the residential area. I think we should set some sort of ratio. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One other concern I have got with -- with that concept is I think there should be some ability with the conditional use permit to negotiate it for each situation , because every time we encounter this it's going to be something different. There might be one that's a multi-family project that needs three acres of an accessory use for -- for storage. There might be another neighborhood that's an R-15 that has dedicated that a hundred Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 58 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 56 of 118 percent of their units would be just for the residents. There might be one that has 20 percent of it. I don't know that we want to get in the way of stopping the business . I -- I totally agree with, you know, having some parameters in there that would limit them to it, but I'm concerned that we might get in the weeds too far if we put a specific limit on it th at they have to calculate 50 percent exactly or 75 percent exactly. So, I think it should be something that's decided as part of a conditional use process what that ratio looks like, so we analyze it every time it comes through. Perreault: So long as it's guaranteed that that's a topic of conversation and -- and I guess that would be something that staff would, then, have to initiate for each Commission -- or, you know, for each Commission hearing, because I just -- I see so many possible safety concerns with this. It really actually has me -- has me very concerned. I think the -- the overall concept is great. I don't have an issue with -- with it, I just -- I just think -- I have concerns about -- about the safety element of it, because there isn't probably going to be an onsite supervisor. Holland: Madam Chair, I can give one more comment. My only other thought is the nice thing about the way this is set up is that they can't do an accessory use for an R -15 or an R-40 unless they have the conditional use permit. So, it's going to come to us every time regardless. So, it could be something that's listed in staff reports moving forward potentially. Perreault: Yeah. If it's something that there was a way to guarantee that the conversation would be had regarding the number of units that are rented , then, I -- then I would be agreeable to that. I just don't know how you go about doing that. So, that being said -- Hood: Madam Chair? Perreault: Yes. Hood: Can I just interrupt -- Perreault: Please. Hood: -- into that conversation and you certainly can talk about it as these come in for conditional use permits, but that's, essentially, why we are here with this code and previously we had it as an accessory use permit. We don't want to be in the business of policing how many -- you have had this discussion already tonight. Please do not institute conditions in the future that say 50 percent, 20 percent -- any percent, because we can't enforce it and we won't enforce it, just quite frankly. What we have tried to do with this code is through design -- even if they don't function for the residents and -- and I do think that most developers want them to be for residents that are near -- in near proximity, but even if they don't, we have design elements here that make it feel like they are part of that project. So, that's really the intent here, without getting into checking IDs to make sure you're renting a unit that's in the neighborhood , it feels like part of the project. So, I hear what you're saying and the safety concerns I can address -- but a couple more Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 59 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 57 of 118 things, though. But, again, that's the heart of why we are here. We are making it a conditional use permit instead of having to strictly be accessory to the nearby project, we aren't going to police or regulate who is actually renting these units and at the heart of it, if you don't agree with that, that's your prerogative, but that is what we are trying to do is get out of the business of making sure that residents have access to these units and, again, if you don't think that's right, then, so be it. But I just wanted to clarify that. There were just a couple of things. Auction hour. So, I went through this -- and it refers to Chapter 3, Article E, temporary requirements is actually in the city clerk's purview. They don't have as a standard any time limitations, but there is an application process and you have to state your proposed hours of operation, how people are going to park, how many days you're operating it. It is limited duration; right? It can't be a year long sale. So, through that process the clerk, which we are a part of, we could limit the hours of those auctions, sun up to sun down, 7:00 to 7:00, whatever we want to do. If you don't trust staff to do that you could put that in here, too. Just letting you know there isn't a standard in the temporary use permits, but it is something that's asked about when someone applies for that and we evaluate that to see if it makes sense and is acceptable. The other thing that I just wanted to -- we mention I think 35 feet was mentioned before, a standard R-4, R-8 height limitations. R-15 is 40 feet, R-40 is 60 feet. So, instead of -- if you're going to put that in here and add a -- an S or whatever, please, put a height, not a story; right? So, if you want to go 35 feet, because that's consistent with R-4, R-8, fine, but if you're going to add a height limitation I would just request that it be measured in feet. So, I think those are just the few things that I wanted to point out. Safety and some of those other things I'm not going to touch, but those are just a couple of points I want to make. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: One thing -- I'm surprised nobody's touched on this yet -- that's really got me concerned on this is the size. Eight acres is substantial and that could take up a pretty good chunk of a -- of a development. If my math is correct, that's two football fields wide by two football fields long. Square. That's a -- that's a -- that's a -- that's a large area. I think five is even pushing it. I would -- I would like to see probably something in the -- in the neighborhood of four. I mean to have an enormous eight acre storage facility in the middle of a -- of a development -- obviously you have to have the -- the overall land to do the whole project, but I just -- I think -- personally I think it's way too much. If it's going to look like everything else in the development it can't -- can't overtake the development. So, that's a big concern I have. I'm in agreement with the 35 foot height. I don't think we -- there should be -- with regards to hours, I think auctions could be held -- we could -- we could go 8:00 to 5:00, even tighten that up I think. I don't see auctions taking all day every day for -- for that. The other thing that I might possibly like to see is even tightening up some of the actual hours of operation, if it's going to be in the middle of a -- of a -- I mean I -- I envision what -- you know, what some of these may -- and, again, I'm looking beyond this single project here, but looking out -- as was mentioned to -- to the future where, you know, somebody will take these -- you know, these guidelines here and take it out and so Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 60 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 58 of 118 we don't -- you know, we don't know how they will be built, where -- if they will be out front in -- sort of in the middle, how they will look. So, I would like to even see maybe tightening up some of the hours of operation. If they are not going to be -- and they are designed more for the tenants, I think people can -- can work around that. I do agree that there is no way to police the percentage or anything. I mean you can start with that number, but as people move in and move out, especially if it's -- you know, if it's a multi-family rental facility, people are going to move in, move out, those percentages are going to change. Security I know was a big issue, but I think, then, we also got to look at -- if it's well lit what is too well lit, you know. I mean is this thing going to look like a -- like a football field in the middle of a -- you know, with the lights on in the middle of a residential area. So, that -- that's a concern how we would -- how we would look at the lighting and that. So, those are -- those are my thoughts on that. But, you know, if -- and I don't know, maybe I -- maybe we don't approve this tonight , maybe this goes back and gets tweaked a little bit, but this size -- and I would love to hear everybody else's thoughts on that, but I think eight acres is huge and I know it was -- it was -- Bill, what you said it was bumped up to eight, because there is a potential future project at seven -- seven point something. But we open the door to eight and everything is eight. We can look at -- how do we do it so we can look at a -- at a project. If it fits in terms of, you know, relational, you know, aspect wise, if it's a -- if it's an eight -- seven and a half, eight acre project in the middle of -- of a hundred acres, well, that's one thing, but if you're -- if you're doing eight acres in the middle of 20 acres, that's what -- we approved it, but we have -- we have allowed for eight. So, love to hear everybody else's thoughts on that. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Question for staff. For the size of a storage facility is there a way we could put a percentage in there that it couldn't be more than a certain percentage of a development? Is that something that would be helpful? Hood: So, I'm going to take this one I think. Again, this isn't accessory anymore to any one 20 acres or in that example per se. It's -- it is a standalone storage facility with the residential feel to it, if you will. I mean that's, again, what we are trying to do with design. So, I don't know how we do that, because this could come in as a separate application that isn't tied to any adjacent project. They are going to sell it that it works with that project or projects that it's next to, but I don't know how you -- you know, there is 640 acres there and I don't know what percentage you -- I think acres is the right way to do it, I guess, is a short answer. If you want it to be less than eight, that's fair. Percentage I don't know how -- percent of what? Perreault: Thank you for clarifying that, because that makes me even less comfortable putting it in a residential area. What -- what's the -- it -- why have this be a UDC text amendment and why would somebody come and -- is it just so that people can now bring in a storage facility that really should be commercial, to bring it into residential if it's not tied to a specific residential development? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 61 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 59 of 118 Hood: Madam Chair, I mean, again, I think we would still look for it to be consistent with the residential around it. It's a good question, though, on why couldn't you rezone it to a C-C or C-G or something else where you are -- Perreault: Just some way to keep the -- the actual structure looking more -- looking more -- similar to a residential elevation than a commercial elevation, is that the idea of putting this in R-15 and R-40, instead of keeping it in a commercial -- if somebody can come in and make the application outside of a residential application? Hood: No. I think it has more to do with the comp plan and its designation for how much, you know, volume we have residential planned in our community and you wouldn't have to go through the comp plan map amendment to get to the zoning then . What we have here in L, with the T and D design standard and some of those other things, we recognize they are going to be commercial buildings, but -- but, then, again, they should feel -- have more residential feel. So, I think that element is covered there. But I mean, really, that's -- that's what this is more -- is so you don't have to go through and modify the plan for commercial -- to get a commercial zone, because it is -- it does -- and it's tough; right? I mean it's something we -- that's why it was only -- well, currently -- previously only allowed as accessory to that residential project, because it is directly tied in and accountable to that project. This is sort of a -- you know, I didn't want to call it a hybrid, it's -- it is a commercial in a residential zone. Perreault: I appreciate you clarifying that, because my recommendation was not so much the city police the percentage of units that are being rented to -- to the public versus the residents, it was when a project is developed to put a percentage of units so if there are -- if it's a hundred unit project, then, they are permitted to build say 130 storage units that -- that was the idea, not so much the police is coming in the -- the -- the city is coming in and policing who is getting what unit, it's -- you know, if there is -- if it's -- so -- but if it is not going to necessarily be required to be tied to a residential application, then, that's that -- that wouldn't make any sense, so -- McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: This is being presented as a CUP; right? So, every one of them is going to come in front of us and we can make these -- I think if something comes in front of us that doesn't look right, you can make those changes on a case-by-case basis. Am I -- yeah. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: Is it -- is it possible to approve this specific project, but not make the changes that we are talking about as far as the designation goes? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 62 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 60 of 118 Perreault: No. They would have to submit their own application for that. A separate application for that. Which I don't know if that's already been gone through. McCarvel: Madam Chair. I guess we will see this project come through, because it will require a conditional use permit, so we will -- we will see the project at that point. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The concerns that I have on this -- and I think that what's being proposed here for the project at hand is -- the intentions are very good. My concern is that if the intentions aren't good, somebody is trying to sneak something in that doesn't necessarily belong, if they are -- if they are trying to nudge something in -- into a residential area with, you know, basically less process to go through in order to put something like this in, then, what -- as far as trying to institute that and us being able to control what goes in there , I mean I'm worried about the legal ramifications of that as far as -- now we have opened the -- we have opened the gates, how do we -- how do we close those a little bit, because now we made it a ruling that these can go in there, but, then, we say well -- and it's partially our job -- and it is our job in order to make sure that what comes through fits for the city , but legally can we constrain them if we don't put it in the original -- McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think it would be just like the case we heard earlier on the daycare that's allowed up to 12, but we decided here tonight only to allow eight, because of the specific situation they were in and the site -- you know, we saw some things that thought needed a little adjusting and I think these would all come through as a conditional use permit and we would be able to evaluate that each time and say, no, it makes more sense for this to only be five acres. It makes more sense -- you know, additional lighting on this or the hours -- all that kind of stuff could be each conditional use permit. But I think this -- I think in general this opens for just a nice product in general that serves a need and answers a lot of our parking questions and just a nice -- I mean because very few people I know move into an apartment and don't need extra storage -- I mean places to put their stuff. Seal: And I agree with that and I think -- I mean going up to the -- you know, like having eight acres seems like a large amount, but in a lot of the subdivisions that are going in they are not allowing RV -- they are not allowing RV bays now, so they have to have a place to put these things. So, now they are going -- they are having to go across town or somewhere else in order to park them, so I understand why you may need something that large, you know, even larger, to tell you the truth. That said I'm just -- I'm worried about not being able to police that somehow. To me that seems like a risk where somebody can put something in and we have a limited amount of information that's in front of us, so -- I mean I'm not going to be able to tell from the information that's being Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 63 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 61 of 118 submitted necessarily if -- if that's going to be a good fit for what they are trying to attach to as far as a development. So, knowing whether or not they are, you know, going to actually be able to provide for that development , you know, those houses, those units, whatever that might be, is -- I think that's something that we have to be able to police somehow and I don't know if that's done through code enforcement -- I mean the ability for somebody to call in and say I moved into this place, I'm supposed to have a storage unit, I don't -- you know, I don't know. I don't know how that works. But to me it -- it kind of opens the door for somebody being able to come in with a conditional use permit and put in something like this that's not necessarily going to be a fit and that doesn't serve the community that's there. Perreault: We don't want the city to have to police that. That's not -- we don't want them to have to do that. But what I -- was there any conversation about changing with the accessory use on a residential application, was there any conversation about changing that, so that they could rent a portion of those units to the public? Is that a possibility, so that we still tie these storage units to residential application? Is that a -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam -- well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, when that project came before you -- that Elevate Storage, regardless if it's an accessory use or a full on commercial business, those specific use standards that are currently in code go with that accessory use or it goes with a standalone business. That's the issue. Never put a cap -- we didn't say let's -- that wasn't an idea that we had discussed where we would do that. Perreault: No. I just mean -- I don't mean specific to that application, I mean in general is it possible to make a change in the code that would allow -- Parsons: That's what I was saying, it's -- if it's an accessory use it's still subject to those specific use standards regardless. That's how it's set up in the code. But, no, we didn't -- we didn't have -- have that discussion. Perreault: You didn't have that discussion? Parsons: We did not have that discussion. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: The one thing I think we are -- we are getting in the weeds a little bit here and I -- I really appreciate the Commission's pause on this, because when we change code it's city wide. It affects everybody here. This is something that we should take very serious. So, I don't want you to think we don't appreciate the commentary. We do. We looked at this hard. We take it serious, too. We don't want to just arbitrarily change code, but if this doesn't work we can take code away. We can modify it and say it doesn't work. Now, for example, where I see this -- some of the concerns that I'm hearing from you , Commissioner Seal, is if someone had a five acre piece of property in the county and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 64 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 62 of 118 there was no residential surrounded by it , why is staff going to annex it in and support a conditional use permit. Perreault: Yeah. Parsons: When I'm looking at number A right here and it says it needs to accompany a residential component, but there is no other residential around it. It doesn't fit this use. So, we are going to tell them, no, don't even apply, because we are going to deny your application. The intent behind this is you have an existing established neighborhood with a potential three to five, eight acre piece of property that you can integrate in with an existing community and/or something that's already been approved by the city. That's the intent here. That's why you -- A, it's so critical and that's why these design elements are so critical. It's not the intent for someone to go around and find five acre parcels RUT and -- out in the middle of the city of Meridian with nothing around it and start doing all these storage units. We are just not going to support that. If there is something we need to do to really beef that up a little bit more, I think staff and the applicant could come up with something to give you a little bit more assurances of that, but that's -- that's really the discussion here and that's what kind of prompted this change , is that we wanted to integrate with something that's already been approved , under construction, or existing, not just come in and find greenfield development out in the middle of nowhere and start doing rogue storage units all over the City of Meridian and that's the intent behind this change. Perreault: So, that being said, would it be possible to require that residential be within a certain distance? I don't know how you determine what that distance is. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I think that's actually probably addressed in L -- in between E and L, now that I look at this more. I mean, essentially, you're going to have to be -- it's going to be used for residential related personal property and, then, it has to conform to the architectural standards of the existing subdivision, basically, that they are going to be going into. So, taking those two things into consideration, if it's not next to something -- if it's not next to some kind of development and it doesn't have an architectural standard to follow , then, those -- those two things -- then, basically, it won't fly. I mean that -- looking at this a little bit more and reading a little bit more , you know, specifically about those two things, it seems like those two things would govern this more than anything else as far as whe re it's going to land and what it's going to service, because it has to have the ability to be next to residential, it has to have the ability to follow an architectural standard that's already in place where it's going to be going. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 65 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 63 of 118 Holland: I tend to agree with Commissioner Seal that it -- it's only allowed with a conditional use permit for an R-15 or R-40 zone and I think if staff got an application to just do a storage unit for an R-40 zone that didn't have anything else around it, they probably wouldn't encourage them to apply for it. That's what the staff was making the point about earlier. So, I think that kind of naturally limits it in general. The nice thing is that they still have to have the conditional use permit. So, we will get to see all of these accessory use units coming forward before us before they get approved anytime they come through and so I feel a little bit more comfortable with the language because of that, that we still have a little bit of control that if someone comes in and they say we want to do six acres and we have only four acres of multi-family that we are putting in with it, we can say that doesn't seem like a compatible use, let's switch it and have six acres of, you know, multi-family and four acres of open space . We can still make some of those recommendations later on. I don't know -- my other thought is if we wanted to limit the size of the acreage, the number that's in my head is either five or six acr es, because if you're looking to do more than that they probably should go get a comp plan amendment change and do it as a commercial zone, but I don't know what anybody else thinks about it and if people feel comfortable with it I could attempt to make a motion and see what happens, but if we want to keep discussing certainly we can pause. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I agree there. I think -- I think a lot of the control that we get -- but I think we can deal with a lot of our concerns just by minimizing the size, maybe even to four and five acres, as opposed to six to eight. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: On that, again, it's -- it's going into -- this is allowed for what we are looking at now, R-15 or R-40. I don't know -- I mean eight acres in a -- in an R-15, I mean that's -- it's got to be a pretty substantial development of R-15 or R-40 to make eight acres not stand out. So, I think we need to look at that. The other thing, are we solving the issue? I mean this -- this was kind of brought up with this one project in mind. It all stems from parking is the problem, that -- that -- that I heard when it was -- when it was presented here. Is this -- again, we get -- we go back to that -- the issue of having units for -- for that number and it's -- first, I was kind of like putting my head around this with -- with single family residence, but that's not the case. This is going to be -- be an R-15, R-40, so it's going to be multi-family and a multi-family situation. If -- we don't have the ability to police it and as you indicate I mean we can't ask the city to do it. So , if it opens it up and if it's other people outside the development -- and if it's not specifically tied to that development, because it doesn't have to be, do we solve the problem -- the problem -- the problem -- the underlying problem being that of the parking issue. Do we -- are we solving it by -- by looking at the way it is. Do -- I think -- personally I think this is a great Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 66 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 64 of 118 start, but I think we need to take some time and dig a little deeper and figure out some of these things. So, I'm -- that's my thought right now is to -- is to -- to go back, to tweak some things, to look at some of these things and, then, get it done, so that -- so we have got a good guidance. Because eight acres right now -- and some of these other things are not -- I don't think a good enough guidance to certain -- certain projects and -- and personally I don't -- that size is -- even six is way too much for me, because it would have to be an enormous R-15 or an enormous R-40 project to even justify eight acres in my mind. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, is there a size from -- aside from the size limit, if we were to look at conditioning it that it could be -- it needed to be less than five acres, we wanted the height limit of 35 feet, we would want -- I think we covered the -- the item that they would have to operate an auction during the hours of -- whatever it is, because they have to apply through the city clerk's office. So, feel comfortable about that, too. Is there -- what else specifically would you want to work through before you feel comfortable moving this forward? Cassinelli: And I get that they would all be a CUP and it would come back to us and -- or five years from now whoever is on the commission, but, again, how does it address that issue of the parking and -- which in these developments in an R-15 and an R-40, that's what the underlying issue is and I don't know -- you know, when we approve this where we -- where we sat at with the -- sat at with the number of spaces that were approved in this -- in this specific project. But that's -- that's I think why this whole thing is here now is addressing storage and parking for multi-family. So, that's the other -- that's the other key, too. Do four acres -- put another four acres of blacktop and let them park there. I'm being sarcastic. But that -- I'm fine with a lot of those, but how do we get in this -- how do we get to that -- I think final piece, which is why we are here, which is solving that parking issue. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I thought I heard the applicant comment that with this, then, they also limit the usage of their garages to parking cars. They don't allow them to put so much personal stuff in their garages that they can't use. If they have a garage they need to use that as their parking space. I mean -- so, with the allotted numbers of parking spots with -- that includes garages, that eliminates -- Perreault: But if this is not tied to a residential -- a specific residential area, then, how does that work? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 67 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 65 of 118 Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: The other -- McCarvel: It's accompanying the residence. Perreault: The other concern -- well, Caleb just said that this doesn't have to be tied to a specific residential development. This -- as the text code reads here it would not be specifically for -- somebody could come into an area that has multiple existing developments and make a proposal to put a storage facility in there that isn't tied to any specific one of those developments necessarily. But, the -- and I just lost my thought and it was a really good one. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean I -- understanding what they are -- they are trying to accomplish with the project at hand, I think that this would accomplish that, but trying to protect us down the road is -- again, that's where I feel this is kind of falling short. As Commissioner Cassinelli said -- I mean we -- we are trying to solve a problem not just for one project, we are trying to solve a problem for the City of Meridian. So, how do we make sure that we are solving that problem, because I personally know a lot of people that will store 2,000 worth of stuff in their garage, park hundred thousand dollars worth of cars outside to save 50 bucks a month. So, that's a mentality that's going to happen. You know, when you get into a multi-family dwelling that's something that could be taken even further. And, again, if we don't want to have to enforce any codes or any rules , who enforces that? I mean who -- who is going to enforce that they can't store their extra couches and everything in their garage in order to park their car in there. Does that fall on them? Does that fall on the city? And if somebody calls and says, hey, there is too many cars on the street, who gets to go door to door and open garage doors? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Sorry, let me ask one quick question from staff. Is there any reason that an applicant -- applicant couldn't come and build a development with one car garages and , then, have a separate storage area for people to access? I mean are we going to start getting applications submitted with a single car garage -- single family residences? Hood: Madam Chair, I can't guarantee you won't get that application. I mean -- but we have a table that requires on site you provide a certain number of car parks, depending on how many bedroom units you have. So, that -- that doesn't go away with this or I can't see -- Perreault: No. I'm saying that they would -- they would, then, have -- like let's say -- I understand what you're saying, but -- but I'm -- my thought is that they would -- they would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 68 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 66 of 118 have single car garages for the individual residential units and, then, they would have a separate section where they would tell the owners of those homes , hey, if you want your second car garage, you can go rent it from -- that's -- I don't know if there is anything that would prohibit that from happening. Hood: I don't either know if there is anything that would prohibit that. That seems -- yeah. I mean they could charge for parking, we don't say that you can't charge additional -- you know, here is your one that we are allocating you and, then, the other one is 50 bucks a month or whatever. Again, we don't regulate that. Not that we -- we couldn't, we just don't have the bandwidth and resources currently to do that. Certainly it's possible, but as a Meridian taxpayer I don't necessarily want to get in that game. Yeah. Maybe just one more point. I -- this -- the intent of this was not to solve the multi-family parking issues we have had though. That isn't the -- the reason why we are looking at some of this. Now, there have been cases where some of this has been couched as , hey, this will provide some relief, because we get people storing their couches or whatever where they are supposed to be parking their cars and if we built this nearby that would free up their -- where the car is supposed to be parked, so they could put their -- their stuff here. But that isn't -- again -- and the next item we have tonight we can talk about that table and if you still don't like the ratio that we are requiring for apartment complexes based on the beds, then, we can change it there. But, again, this -- this wasn't -- we are not trying to say this -- this solves the problems that we have experienced in the past regarding guest parking and the number of parking spaces for -- it's a different -- different thing. And I think it -- maybe it can help in some cases, but, again, if it's not tied to that project directly, there isn't some of these agreements, yeah, it may not. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I was going to echo what Caleb just said, is that I think we are getting in the weeds a little bit, because I think -- talking parking solutions for R-15 and R-40s is a completely separate application from what we are looking at here. This is just looking at a UDC text amendment for the purpose of an accessory self storage unit to go with an R- 15 and R-40. I would like to attempt to make a motion and see if it carries and see if everybody feels okay with it, if everyone's all right with that. Perreault: Yeah. Please do. Holland: All right. After considering all staff , applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modifications: That storage -- self-storage facilities as an accessory use would be limited to 35 feet in height, that the size limit would be limited to -- or that Item B on this amendment would be adjusted to say a size limit of up to five acres and that applicants who would like to have an auction on site, letter N on the staff report, would work with the city clerk's office to come up with reasonable hours of operation with sunlight and -- sunset and sunrise. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 69 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 67 of 118 Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: That was a great motion. Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for -- either Bill or Caleb. If we don't -- at this point if -- if we don't pass something here tonight we are still is -- as far as in an R-15 or R-40, we are still looking at the way it's been, which is -- is approving something or denying or whatever, but looking at something as an accessory facility; is that correct? Hood: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner, that is correct. It would be accessory in all the residential zones. Just a point of clarification. I'm not the attorney, but we do have a motion. I didn't hear a second. So, that should probably be addressed, then, we can have follow-up conversations if there is any questions on the motion or -- or others. But that -- your -- yes, it would be business as usual, accessory uses only in residential. And we can pull that up and if you want to familiarize yourself with how that reads now and what that looks like in the schedule of use table, we can do that as well. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: Could I request that the motion be amended to say four acres? Perreault: To say four acres? Olsen: Four acres. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I was going to go the other way, so -- I just -- I really think -- I mean this is all relative to how big the -- the multi-family area is. I mean you have got some big multi- family areas out there and some of them have justified for six and seven acres and I think -- I said before, every one of them is going to come before us and we can make that judgment, but I -- I don't know. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I think we are just trying to regulate too much. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 70 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 68 of 118 Holland: I would agree. I was -- I was more -- I was comfortable with allowing each application to be kind of judged on their own merit. I suggested five just from the conversations we all had, but I'm happy to restate a motion if there is something we can come to an agreement on. McCarvel: I would have seconded it if it would have been left at the eight acres and just -- Holland: Should I restate it? Madam Chair, I would like to resend my prior motion. Perreault: Okay. Holland: I'm going to state a new motion. After considering staff , applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of File No. H-2019-0034, as presenting the staff report for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modifications: That any accessory use self-storage facilities would be limited to a height of 35 feet, that the size limit would remain, but it would, obviously, be discussed in any conditional use application that comes through and that anyone who wants to participate in an auction on site would work with the city clerk's office to have hours that would be reasonable within sunrise and sunset time frames. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council for File No. H-2019-0034. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. McCarvel: Do a roll call. Perreault: How many ayes did we get? Could everybody state their ayes? Johnson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Oh, sorry. Johnson: We can do a roll call vote. Perreault: I'm sorry? Johnson: We can do a roll call vote. Perreault: Yes, I think we should. Roll call: Perreault, nay; McCarvel, yea; Fitzgerald, absent; Holland, yea; Cassin elli, nay; Seal, yea; Olsen, nay. Johnson: You do have a tie vote then. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 71 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 69 of 118 MOTION FAILED: THREE AYES. THREE NAYS. Perreault: Okay. So, then, we had four yeses -- McCarvel: Three. Perreault: Three yeses and three no's. Do I decide the vote? Wait? McCarvel: No. Perreault: Kidding. Cassinelli: You get two? Perreault: I get five. This is the first time I have come across a tie, actually, so how does that work? Pogue: You can open up to discussion. Do a motion. I think we have to get a resolution. So, those are my suggestions. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: If we were to restate the motion and restrict the size would that change anyone's vote and should we try again is my question. Perreault: Size of -- Holland: Limit the size of the facility. Was that the sticking point? Or is there other things that the nay votes would like to see changed? Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I just -- looking at this I think there needs to be a little bit more teeth into what it's trying to accomplish. I know that's not necessarily in the purview of this, but I mean if we are trying to ensure that we are getting something inside of a residential area that's going to be part of that residential area for this kind of us e, so it eliminates, you know, the overusage of, you know, garages for storage, then, there needs to be more teeth in order to allow for that. Again, I think the case that we have in front of us we are -- we are good, but for every case here after for the City of Meridian maybe not. I just want to make sure that there is teeth in it to provide for that somehow some way. So, I would offer that this is worthy of a continuance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 72 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 70 of 118 Perreault: It was my understanding from staff that that wasn't necessarily the purpose of it was to alleviate parking, although that may have been where -- what spurred the original discussion between the applicant and staff. I'm not sure that's what the sole reason was for the text amendment. Is that right? Parsons: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, parking wasn't what spurred it, it was how do we police people that live in the complex when they move out that they can keep their stuff there until they move in. That was the issue, is that they couldn't lease to outside residents, they had to be tied to the people that physically lived at the residence -- at the apartments. That was -- that was really what was driving this. Because there is just no way to do that, is -- because when it's -- right now an accessory use is exactly that, it's ancillary to a primary use, which means the apartments is the primary use and that becomes subordinate to that use and, therefore, needs to be used by the residents of the apartments and tied to that and that's how we structured our approval when that project -- that's how it's been approved with the rezone and the DA that hasn't been executed. They haven't even signed the development agreem ent, because they are trying to get this new -- this is an accessory storage use. This is a new separate standalone residential storage facility use. So, this will be -- as Caleb said, this is a standalone operation that's meant to compliment existing or proposed -- not necessarily multi-family developments, but also single family developments, so you could conceivably have somebody come in with an R-4, they control two or three hundred acres, like The Oaks project, where they are going to have 650 homes where eight acres might be the right size for that when you're talking 650 homes or it might be a multi-family project that has 300 units and it's only 15 acres. Like you said, it really has to be a case-by-case basis when you're looking at this. We just don't -- we don't entirely know. But that's why in my earlier commentary the intent isn't to go find five acres on an arterial and do a storage facility. The intent is to find possibly an enclave or if a developer out there has a master planned community already and they want to have a residential component, because now they see that as a need for -- to add to their -- just like this gentleman has, they have the ability to do that under the code and, then, either, one, rezone their property to R-15 and go through the conditional use process. But, again, the comp plan is going to dictate zoning and as we are all aware R-15 doesn't mean that it can't go in a medium density residential. It can, it just has to be associated with that use. So, that's really why we are here. Again, it's to address that -- that need that may arise when we have these larger residential projects, whether it's multi-family or single family, to give them an option to establish some storage and alleviate some of those code enforcement concerns where people are storing junk or wrecked vehicles on their cars or they are having HOA complaints, because they are leaving their trailer on the street during the weekend, because they haven't returned it across town to the storage facility, that's their neighbor, they go right down the street and put their storage facility -- their RV away or put their stuff in storage. That's really the intent. Perreault: I don't doubt that there are existing developments that have a great need for that. I don't know -- I have no idea what the land layout looks like off the top of my head to know whether there is actually space in the already developed areas to put in anything of substantial size. I don't even know if that will be a question that will come before us, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 73 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 71 of 118 because the areas that are already developed and already existing, just thinking of places off the top of my head, there is not all that many where we would have even eight acres to set up and use for, you know, a full storage unit facility. This is tough, because I -- I understand if this is going to go into an existing area that we can't tie it to a specific residential -- a specific development -- Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: -- but at the same time -- oh, sorry. At the same time I -- I would really like to -- to somehow figure out on the applications that come in for new projects that it be tied to a specific code, so -- Commissioner Seal. Seal: I just want to express that -- or I guess I would ask the question of -- if this were a standalone storage facility, is there a separate process that it has to go through and would it be more rigorous than what we are proposing? Perreault: It would be a CUP. Seal: So, it would be a CUP, it would be the same thing, just under it -- so, if it wasn't an accessory? That's -- that's my question. If it wasn't an accessory use, then, would it go through a different process and is that process more arduous? Hood: So, Madam Chair, Commissioner, we, essentially, have three processes. Administrative, which would be an accessory process where staff just reviews something. A conditional use permit, where the Planning and Zoning is the final authority and, then, typically, something goes as a recommendation from you to the City Council. I mean those are really our three processes. You know, subdivisions have to go through the latter process; right? You make a recommendation to some of this. Is at the level where you would be the decision making body on that. We really don't have another -- we don't have a CUP with Council approval; right? There is not two public hearings for -- for CUPs, it's just administrative, conditional, or two public hearings. I don't know if that quite answers your question, but that really are the options. Seal: My question is if -- if this was a standalone storage unit what -- which of those processes would it have to go through, not as an accessory, but as a standalone storage unit. Hood: So, that -- the answer, to that question, Madam Chair, it depends on the zone. So, if in a commercial zone staff level. Administrative. We are just -- we are signing off on it. If it's in -- we don't have it up here, but if it's in an R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 or R-40 today, that's an accessory use. So, it does have to be directly tied to the adjacent project and we put conditions on there that say these are available to your residents. I'm not going to talk about policing still, but that -- that's the -- that's what would happen today. Commercial. Industrial. There may be one of the zones where it's required a conditional use permit in like an industrial zone, but zoning -- but long story short there is the zone depends -- determines what process you go through. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 74 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 72 of 118 Seal: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just one more thought for consideration. So, right now currently applicants who are putting in an R-40 or an R-15 can request an accessory use of a storage facility. So, they are allowed to do this. I think the point of why they have put it in code was that so next time there is an R-15 or an R-40 application we have some sideboards put around it already, so that we don't have to go through and discuss all these items every time we get an accessory conditional use permit. So, I like the concept of this, because it helps simplify it a little bit, but at the same time we still get the option to look at each one on a conditional use basis. So, just putting that out there as another comment. If this doesn't change -- if we recommended denial of this they could still go forward and put an accessory use request in for a storage facility. All this does is gives us some additional parameters we put around it that it needs to blend with the existing uses , that it's got to be fully enclosed, that it's got a minimum of 25 feet -- it just kind of gives us some additional sideboards around it and so that's just another -- another point to consider. But I don't know that we have enough that I feel like we would really need to continue it, because I feel like we have talked through a lot of the major issues and we can include those in a motion of things we would want to change. Going out and saying that parking is the biggest challenge is not really part of this application. If we wanted staff to say we want to look at parking for R-15 and R-40, I think that could be a separate request that we look at it at another point in time, but I don't think it should be part of this application. So, that's just my -- my final comment and I'm happy to attempt making another motion if anyone wants me to, but happy to hear other comments about how that would fare. I have got no more to say. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I think you should try again. That's a good idea. Because I think the only thing we are talking about is size. Holland: Before I do that again, is there any specific requests on the size notion? Do we want to leave it open ended, up to eight acres? Olsen: I would like to see five or less. Holland: Any other comments on that? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 75 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 73 of 118 McCarvel: I think I heard staff several times say how proud they were of this and how it's been put together and how much thought has gone into it and I would be supportive of their efforts as it stands with the 35 foot height requirement and that will have the teeth in it we need to -- to make changes if they need to on a case-by-case basis. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I agree. Essentially -- I mean if we stick with eight acres it's -- being a CUP we can control that. We can -- we have the ability to say no, six acres, five acres, four acres, whatever that looks like and I'm -- I would think after the robust discussion we have had on this that staff would probably look at that pretty hard before it came across and understanding that -- I mean, essentially, this isn't going to fall outside of any kind -- I mean, essentially, this isn't bypassing or making any kind of application process easier in the end. I mean I'm very much comfortable with it at this point. Holland: Okay. Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of File No. H-2019-0034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modifications: That there be a height limit for any accessory self storage facility to be at 35 feet in height , that any auctions, Item N, that was listed in the item 4-F here would be worked with the city clerk to find hours of operation that could fit between the sunrise-sunset time frames. That's it. Seal: I second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council of File No. H-2019-0034. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Did we come to the same vote? MOTION FAILED: THREE AYES. THREE NAYS. Perreault: Okay. Holland: Does anyone else want to try and make a motion? McCarvel: Madam Chair, I just -- one of the thoughts that I'm throwing out is we are sitting here trying to make a -- it's not exactly arbitrary, everybody's got their reasons for wanting the number on there that they want, but I think these decisions are made better when we have -- when somebody comes and presents in front of us and we have the diagrams and what's laid out around it and I think this Commission has a very good sense of what doesn't fit and what doesn't and we make these decisions on each case every time and I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 76 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 74 of 118 think we can tell when it -- I think we should have some latitude in this that when a larger storage unit is made is -- it makes sense, that we can -- we have the latitude to do that. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If I could just -- my -- my objections is that we are allowing a standalone, separate storage unit to be built in a residential area that isn't -- it's -- it's solving one problem of giving more storage, but it's not -- it's not really going -- going to what I believe is the core of it. Bill, you mentioned that, really, the reason we are here is -- is because of the -- how do you police the -- the number. It wasn't about the parking, but that came about because of the parking. So, I see -- the way I see it, really, the root of it is -- is the parking. That's why they came up with the storage facility and, then, we had to figure out how do we police that and we can't. And certainly if it's standalone we can't. I mean it's going to be impossible to tie it to. So, in my mind it -- while it, yes, does solve a -- a problem of having the storage, is it going to solve it for that particular development or is it going to solve it for somebody a half a mile away in terms of the storage. So, that's -- yeah, I'm hung up on the size of it. I understand that through the process , the CUP, we can figure that out, but ten years down the road they are not -- you know, they are not -- whoever is looking at this ten years down the road isn't in our minds, thinking what we thought, and I know we have seen some projects that were approved in 2000 , 2002 and that sort of thing and I think we have probably sat up here and say what in the heck were they thinking when they approved that, it's -- it's nuts. So, we are -- I just -- I think it's a great start, I just think there is a few more things and right off the top of my head I don't know what that is, but to make sure that, again, ten years, 15, 20 years down the road that it's -- it's going to fit and I think rushing to approve it tonight -- that's where I stand, I think rushing to approve it tonight is -- the way it stands I just think we have to -- Commissioner Seal said getting more teeth into it, something to make it so that it's -- it's -- really it's crystal clear in 20 years of what this -- of what the intent is. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I have got a couple more comments again. Commissioner Cassinelli, one more point I mentioned earlier was applicants are allowe d to do this as an accessory use right now regardless of whether this goes forward. I -- we could certainly direct staff in our motion that we would like them to look into parking requirements for R-15 and R-40 zoning designations and come back to us with a -- with an overview of what we currently do and maybe some suggested changes on how we can make it different in the future, again, that's not tied to this specific application, but we could request that of them. The only other comment I have is if we decide to continue this as a commission I think we need to have more specific reasons for continuing it, other than just saying we want more teeth in it. We would have to come up with more specific actionable things that we want them to come back with, because I think we have -- we have talked around it a lot on what the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 77 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 75 of 118 challenges are. Some of us have talked about size being an issue. Some of us have talked about that this doesn't necessarily solve the parking issue. But , again, I don't think that's tied to this specific request. So, that was my only other question to the commission is if we have some other specific things we really want to have the applicant or staff come back to us with concretely -- otherwise, I don't see the point in continuing it. Perreault: So, my concerns are not regarding the number of acres. My concerns are -- overall I understand the need for the separate text amendment. I understand the thinking behind it. What it would allow someone to do. But my concern is that there is an area that is designated residential that could very well be used for residential and there is a need for residential and there might be a property that's eight acres and a very ideal location where it would be much better use for residential, but we -- but at some point it's approved to allow a storage facility to go in that location and now we may take up some of that -- we are getting more and more in-fill projects going in in Meridian all the time and I don't want to see prime residential areas being taken up for storage facilities simply because there -- there is a bunch of existing residential facilities that need additional storage. The second concern I have -- and I know this can somewhat be dealt through the CUP processes is let's say you're in an area that has four different types of elevations, we have got a modern community and a traditional community and you -- you're surrounded by four subdivisions, how do we decide which is the appropriate architectural design for this -- for this storage, you know, that -- that would have to be decided through the CUP process and it could be that that's another issue that it could create if you're putting in a storage facility in an existing area of residential, how do you decide what -- what exactly that's supposed to look like. The second issue I have is -- is -- is, again, the security issue of -- if we only have a five acre -- or a three acre area with -- with storage units, is there going to be an onsite person? Is there going to be an onsite staff? Is there going to be -- you know, how is that going to be regulated? Because now we have got it smack dab in a residential area, instead of a commercial area, and there needs to be some sort of way -- and to avoid the city from coming in and having all these calls regarding safety or code enforcement to an -- an area that has no on-site office, no on- site person -- I don't know. I just think that there is the possibility of that. I think it just -- I don't like the idea of having a storage facility in a residential area with absolutely no oversight from an HOA, like the accessory use storage units with -- in a residential application is going to have the HOA overseeing some of it and who is coming, who is going, who has access to those. A commercial storage facility is likely going to have -- if not an on-site person, a corporate entity that's controlling security. But that -- neither of those things are going to happen in this kind of application. So, those are my main concerns about -- about it. It's not even about the parking and it's not about the size , it's about those elements. So, I don't know if -- there is other thoughts on those or if I'm way off base in my thinking on it. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Maybe I'm totally not grasping what we are trying to do. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 78 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 76 of 118 Cassinelli: Based on your comments there are you -- would you believe -- are you leaning towards a denial altogether? Perreault: I'm not having any easier time finding a solution than you. What really -- what my ideal scenario would be, would be somehow to actually change the -- this is tough. I don't know. I mean -- I don't know. I wish I could give you an answer for it. I -- I think until we have an answer it's not fair to necessarily continue it and I agree with Commissioner Holland that we either need to give something specific or we don't , but if we deny it, then, they have to wait another year to submit it. No, it goes -- recommend denial to City Council. The City Council decides. So, I guess we could recommend denial. I don't know. I don't want to necessarily recommend denial. I don't think it's all bad. I just don't know how to resolve the concerns that -- this is not -- this is, obviously, not my big forte as far as -- and probably none of ours and I don't know if any of us are super well versed in how storage facilities work. Holland: And -- Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Maybe just as a suggestion. In addition in a motion we could put something in there that we would like to see any self storage accessory use facilities required to have on site management and security available on site . You could put a condition like that in there. Perreault: That would be very helpful, if we are permitted to do that. Holland: If that would help alleviate concerns, happy to include that in a motion. And, then, the other thing we could ask is that staff will put together a summary of wh at our parking allowances look like right now for R-15 and R-40 and maybe how that compares to other cities. I don't want to give staff a bunch more work, but if that would help us as a commission, they could come back to us with that as something separate at a future date. But I will let staff decide if that's something they even want to tackle or if there is something here that we can do that would help with that. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Before staff answers that, I would like to say that if -- if it's permit -- permitted for us to require an on-site or have specific security provisions, then, I would be more inclined to -- to vote yes on the motion. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: I just don't know what we are allowed to do. Cassinelli: If I can jump in -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 79 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 77 of 118 Perreault: Yes. Cassinelli: -- one of the things -- Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: -- so, give you a chance to address it, too. One of the -- the other item you brought up, which I think is a great -- great thought is the architectural aspect. So, when you're doing -- if this is allowed to stand alone, which comes first in a -- I mean if it's an accessory it's tied to the project, it's going to be architecturally designed with that project. If this comes first, knowing it's -- that this is an area zoned for R-15 or R-40 and the storage unit comes first, is now the storage unit setting the design of what's going on around it? I mean how is -- so, that -- how do we -- I think -- so, that's another issue that I would want to see in the motion addressed is how do we regulate -- I understand that the architectural designs in here, but -- but how does that fit with the different -- Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: If we know for sure that they are going to be within a certain range of existing residential, then, I trust that the commission can make a decision about the architectural standards through the CUP process. There may -- that may not be the easiest decision, but I think it can be done. So, it's the least of my concerns of all three that I presented. The -- the primary ones are that we are taking space that really should be used for residential to be used for storage and, then, again, that decision can be -- can be made and resolved through our decision making process. But safety for me is the primary concern. Holland: Madam Chair, the only thing I was -- Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: -- going to comment on is, Commissioner Cassinelli, if someone comes through and puts an application in for an accessory structure without a residential built first, we have the opportunity as a commission to deny that conditional use permit or say that it can only be constructed after the residential is constructed. Cassinelli: But -- well, if it's an accessory it's going to be designed with the -- with the whole project in mind, so it's going to fit into that. But this being a stand alone, if -- if this gets approved before the residential units, which it could be, knowing that residential is going to come in behind it, now all of a sudden you have designed -- you have designed the storage unit to look like, you know, one -- one style and everybody that's coming in and they want to design the R-15 and R-40 to -- I mean their plan was something else and they don't -- and now they are clashing. You know, with the accessory you're tied -- you can be tied to the main -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 80 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 78 of 118 Holland: We could still condition them that they wouldn't construct them until something else was done first. Cassinelli: Again, we are -- we are conditioning that -- we are conditioning that. How does that help -- how does that help the Commission 15, 20 years down the road? Holland: Because each one will come through as a CUP. So, we look at them each on a case-by-case basis. Perreault: However, Lisa -- Commissioner Holland. Excuse me. Sorry. You know, I think we could approve a CUP for one of these units and then -- and, then, a residential development gets proposed and we -- we recommend approval, but City Council deny it and now we have got an accessory -- or now we have got these -- the CUP has been approved for the storage units, but the residential development gets denied by Council. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I heard staff comment before, too, a UDC text amendment is not necessarily written in stone forever and all eternity, it can be changed just as easily as we are changing it -- we are proposing to change it now we can propose to remove it if we are seeing stuff that comes in that we don't like. I mean it can be proposed to remove this later down the road. Holland: Madam Chair, one other -- Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: -- comment and, then, I'm done making comments, but -- for now. In order -- I have been on this commission for a year and a half, two years, and I -- we have only seen, really, one of these situations come up in that -- that time frame. It's allowed to do it as an accessory use. This doesn't mean that we are going to get a whole slew of every single residential neighborhood's going to come in with a storage unit application either. That's why we get the opportunity to look at them on a case-by-case basis. But I don't think this is going to open the floodgates to say that we are going to have six of these in the next year. Just as another thought. Perreault: I don't anticipate that either. But even if we have one , we want the guidelines to be really clear. That saves staff's time and our time and the applicant's time for sure. Olsen: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Olsen. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 81 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 79 of 118 Olsen: I'd like to ask again the same question Commissioner Seal asked. Is there a different level of permitting for a commercial storage unit, as opposed to one of these? There is? Hood: So, Madam Chair, I can -- Olsen: Is that correct? Hood: -- answer that again, because I have -- Olsen: What's the level of permitting for a commercial storage unit and what we are talking about tonight? Hood: So, in commercial -- so, C-C and C-G zones, they would actually go through this same process that gets a conditional use permit. Olsen: Okay. Hood: In our industrial zones it's staff level approval. So, there are different levels, but in the C-C and C-G you review them with some different standards. These are meant for -- if you -- if you allow this in a residential. So, yes, there is a -- it's the same, but different if you will. We look at it through a little bit different lens, because these are specific use standards in a residential district. Olsen: Okay. So, my -- my position or my concern is it's understood. What I'm concerned about is a commercial storage facility, using this approach to get by or get an easier permitting process. That's what I'm concerned about. And if we can handle that through the conditional use permit process, then, maybe I guess I don't have a concern. But it seems to me that at a certain level of acreage, any storage facility would go from being a -- what we are talking about to a commercial storage facility. That's my concern is the size and I think we can control that with the size. Holland: Madam Chair? Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Holland: Go ahead. I'm sorry. I said I wasn't going to comment. Seal: A couple things, because I was really more opposed to this in the beginning, but I -- I think that they have -- some of the concerns that are here -- I mean even on giving up that land that could be used for residential use , I mean I -- I see the other side of that where you have a great residential use, even something that's huge that might go in and you have -- let's say you have something that's going to be 600 acres and you're going to have eight acres of it for storage -- again, there is a lot of subdivisions that are going, well, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 82 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 80 of 118 I can't speak to a lot -- there are subdivisions that are going in and they are popular that aren't allowing things like RV bays and things like that to go in. So, you're going to need a substantial amount of storage to do that. So , if you can enclose that within the same subdivision in order to accommodate that, then, you don't have to give up that other land or you don't have to truck it across town and you don't have -- you don't have the problems like you have, because those are real problems, people parking it on the street, officers getting called because they are leaving their trailer out there too long, you know, those kind of things aren't going to happen. Perreault: But on new applications they -- they would just go -- they would include that -- that eight acres as part of their overall development and it wouldn't go through -- we wouldn't be using this text code to wait. They would just go through the regular residential accessory use process. They wouldn't go through the process of using this -- we wouldn't be using this text code, because they would be putting in an application including that storage area as -- as part of their overall residential application , because it's for their -- their residents. Seal: Right. Perreault: Right? So, that's not -- Seal: But I think part of the intention of this is to make sure that -- that whatever they build -- let's say they build eight acres worth of storage. If that doesn't get us ed by the people that are in there, they, essentially, want to have the public -- they want to be able to rent those out -- those spaces out, those things out to the public. That to me is really that -- that's the -- that's the crux of the issue, because they can go in -- right now they can do all this. Right now. They just -- they can't give that space up -- they can't give those rental units up to the public. That's -- that to me is where -- you know, I mean that's where the rubber meets the road for me on this issue. I mean it could solve -- solve things like parking and getting people to -- to store things on site, instead of in their garage and I mean there is a lot of different positives that can come out of it. But as far as, you know, tying up that land or anything like that, I think that that land is -- you know, I mean as far as a good use of it, it's probably a good use. It's just adding that exception for them to come in and be able to have somebody in -- you know, somebody that's not part of that subdivision lease or rent that -- that storage unit. So, I think that even if they did, you know, 600 acres of housing in a subdivision and they did eight acres worth of the storage, they would still go through this process, simply so that they could have the option to take those units and rent them publicly. Hood: Madam Chair? Seal: I would if I were a business owner. Hood: Madam Chair, I -- I can just let you know quickly -- I mean that is the case sometimes. Financing. A bank won't let you finance a project if you're going to be limited to a certain clientele. So, that is -- I mean that's not necessarily our problem, but that's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 83 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 81 of 118 the reality of it. If there is this provision -- even though we may not be able to technically enforce it, if there is a piece of paper that says on this property you can only lease to them, a bank's going to go, oh, there is some risk here then. So, that is -- that is certainly a reality. Again, not a hundred percent driving these changes, but that is part of the equation. Yes. Seal: Madam Chair, the -- I lost my train of thought on that. It's getting late. I yield. Go ahead. Holland: Madam Mayor? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm sorry. Perreault: Bring your train of thought back. Holland: So, I -- in economic development I have worked with a lot of storage units. They are kind of a necessary evil. No one really wants a storage unit, but I will tell you that most storage unit facilities, if they are looking, are not going to be looking to come in as an accessory use. It's way easier for them to go in to find a commercial designation parcel that's five acres, ten acres, 20 acres and work administratively with staff, if it's already zoned commercial where they don't have to go through any process , they would much rather do that than come through and do an accessory use permit to put a storage facility in here. The point of this is to really help R-15 and R-40 developments have the ability to have an accessory use for their residents initially, but open it up to the public, so that they can have additional units if needed, because they can't fill it internally. That's all what we are trying to discuss here. So, I'm not concerned with a bunch of commercial storage units coming in and trying to go through this process and manipulate the system, because there is far easier channels for them to go through than -- than this process. So, that's it now. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for staff. With the current way it is with accessory storage, what are the -- I don't know that we have touched on this tonight or not, but what are the guidelines as far as making it available to the public versus having to be for that particular project and how is that -- is that something that -- if that comes before us we get to look at that -- how that's -- how those spaces are doled out or however you want to look at it ? Hood: So, in today's code, again, all hundred percent of the units have to be accessory to the project that they are ancillary to. Cassinelli: A hundred percent of them? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 84 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 82 of 118 Hood: Yes. That has to be ancillary, subordinate to the project that you're developing. It's almost an amenity to that project; right? So, again, that's a problem for some, because now I'm limited to my clientele can only be you and that's the code. I mean -- yeah. So, that -- for -- I think we -- good intentions and some of the -- for some of the reasons, I mean that makes a lot of sense. It really does. That it is -- we are really -- it's a -- it's an empty threat a little bit; right? Because we aren't policing it. But that's -- it's a real condition. We condition it that they all have to be rented to your people are that living in those units today. Perreault: Caleb, is there any concern with us putting a requirement that there has got to be an on-site individual or -- I don't -- I don't know how you would police the security situation. That's -- that's the only reason I keep going back to having someone on site is, because I don't know how you would set a standard -- you can't -- we can't set a standard for the type of security they would have as far as access and gates and codes and all that kind of stuff. Hood: So, Madam Mayor, I -- or Madam Mayor. Perreault: Thank you. Hood: Sorry. That's Tuesday night. Cassinelli: Congratulations. Perreault: Yeah. I just got promoted. Hood: Everything you see on the screen now is up for discussion. So , N, O -- right? We talked about unattended. If you want to change that to be these shall be attended, period. Perreault: Okay. Hood: I mean it is the standards and you can -- and like it has been talked about it seems like ad nauseum -- no offense, but you can even tweak these further; right? I mean if these are the baseline standards, but you get an application and you want to make that -- you know what, you need two attendants. Okay. Three acres. But you can change any of this to read -- I mean we have got an attorney here, so she may reign you in if you get a little crazy, but, yeah, it's all up for discussion, so -- Perreault: So, again, I'm in agreement with -- I'm an agreement with, really, all the rest of these. I would really like to see it have an attendant or have a security requirement of some kind. That's really my main thing. McCarvel: Okay. Olsen: Madam Chair? Oh. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 85 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 83 of 118 McCarvel: Go ahead. Oh. Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I mean is there -- I hate to bring this up, but does it seem realistic to have a security person at a smaller one? I mean is that something we just link through the CUP or -- if you -- do we just added in and say discussions will be had based on the size of the lot if a security person is required? I mean I'm looking at the body language of the -- Perreault: If it's a standalone -- McCarvel: -- application and they seem to be fine with having a security person. Perreault: If it's a standalone I -- I don't -- if it's a standalone I don't know how you -- do we create a hardship on the city then, because we don't know who is -- who is policing, what happens inside that -- inside that area. Even if it's three acres that doesn't mean that there can't be issues there. And I realized that not all existing commercial facilities, because of the technology, have people on site. I recognize that that's true. And so it's not as much that I want a physical person there, as -- as something that says that there has -- that it has to be secured in some way. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Yes. Seal: Oh, I -- Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I'm going to try and -- I'm going to try and get both birds with one stone here. Perreault: Please do. Seal: Well, I was going to say that the size of it is -- is a concern and also the security of it is a concern. So, what I would propose is that we amend this -- or we, you know, augment it to say something along the lines of anything -- you know, three acres or smaller can be unattended. Anything up to eight acres needs to have at least a monitored security system, if not someone on site. Would that tidy this up for folks? Holland: Could we just say that needs to have a security system in place and either on site management or on-call management for smaller facilities? Perreault: That would be fine, as long as -- if they -- if when they presented the application if they could give some more detail as to the security systems, so that through the CUP process we could lend approval or not, I'm okay with that. I would vote on that. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 86 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 84 of 118 Holland: Something like that. Am I making the motion again? Perreault: Yes. Holland: Want me to try it. I haven't had much success, so -- Perreault: I think you're a great motion maker. Seal: Does that -- for our dissenters is that something that's going to -- are we still -- Perreault: I don't particularly care to make a separation for the number of acreage. I would rather it just say that they are -- as Lisa stated -- state your three items again. Sorry. Go ahead. Holland: Height limit of 35 feet. Perreault: No. I mean as far as the security goes. You said either on-site attendant -- Holland: On-site management or on-call management available and security available on site. Perreault: Okay. I'm -- I'm in agreement with adding that in without it specifying an acreage, because, then, that gives us the latitude to decide that through the -- the CUP process. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Is there any way we could tie the size to the overall as a percentage? Perreault: Of what? Cassinelli: Of -- of the developments that it's a part of. Perreault: Well, it's not going to be -- it's going to stand alone on its own as its own application, so we would have to say within so many miles, acres, area -- you know, you would have to have this many residential units for this -- you know what I mean? I don't even know how you -- Cassinelli: And that's -- and, again, that's where -- that's where my problem -- one of my -- one of my biggest problems lies is, again, 20 years down the road the Commission here looking at it and they go, okay, so we can do up to eight acres, we will do eight acres, but in it -- and it's a -- it's a square peg in a round hole. Perreault: But if we have the application come before us and we are -- and staff says, hey, there is, you know, 600 houses within a square mile, then, at that time we can decide whether eight acres is sufficient or through the CUP process we can tell them they can only do five. Well, no, maybe they own an eight acre piece, what are they going to do Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 87 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 85 of 118 with the other three acres, that's not really necessarily our decision, but, I don't know, I think that that could be decided as we look at them individually. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: That's what I was kind of trying to do with the -- trying to put some variance on the size, along with the security, because if you have monitored security -- I won't say somebody on site, but if you have monitored security versus recorded security, for instance, some kind of a standard like that in there, then, you can tie that to something smaller, two or three acres, where it has to be recorded, meaning there is cameras somebody can go and review. It's more for like something -- that's not going to protect somebody from getting mugged, for instance. However, it's a small unit, it's going to be tied to a residential area, it's more than like -- it's not worth building a unit like that just for storage. It's not going to be a moneymaker. It could be an augmentor, where if you're going to go to something larger, then, you have to have something that's monitored , not necessarily a staff position, but something that's monitored 24/7. Perreault: It's sufficient to put the requirement for security in there and, then, as each application comes forward we have specifics that will require the applicant for the type of security. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to try again. Perreault: Okay. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of File No. H-2019-0034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2nd, 2019, with the following modifications: That any residential self- storage facility as an accessory use be limited in height to 35 feet , that there would be on-site management or on-call management available for the storage facility and that there would be security available on site and that any application that comes forward with the conditional use permit would share their security plan with the Commission. That we would also modify letter M on the 11-4-3 for the self-storage facility to say that they need -- the applicants need to work with the city clerk to set up auctions and that they would occur during daylight hours, between sunrise and sunset. Perreault: Did you reference letter O in regard to the unattended, to strike that? Holland: And that we would modify letter O that -- I'm not sure how we wind them up -- modify letter O. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 88 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 86 of 118 McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: Staff, do we need to modify letter O with the motion that was made? Hood: I would recommend not, although we can put it on the screen if you want to see what that refers to. It basically talks about your entrances being visible and not putting shrubs near ATM machines and those types of other nonatten dant uses. Perreault: Okay. Holland: I'm not worried about -- McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval the City Council of File No. H-2019-0034. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. Perreault: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Perreault: Thank you for sticking with us. Okay. Does anybody need a break or are we good? Holland: I'm done with my motions for the night. G. Public Hearing for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019- 0049) by City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: A text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 and other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division Perreault: All right. Let's move on. Next we will open the public hearing for 2019 UDC text amendment, H-2019-0049, and open with the staff report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 89 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 87 of 118 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening is -- is the city initiated text amendment. This was a joint effort between many different parties so in the -- the graphic that I have before you this evening here there is -- as I mentioned to you, dual efforts. One, some of the changes came forth from our Code Enforcement Division. Back in February or later part of 2018 they were in front of Council kind of sharing with them some of their code enforcement concerns and how -- trying to garner some City Council support of changing some of our UDC standards to help better give -- to help them have better tools to enforce our city code and so in this graphic here I have highlighted those specific changes, so you know what's being initiated -- initiated by the code enforcement division that was endorsed by City Council back in February. They did work with us and we worked with the attorney's office and came up with these solutions. So, I won't go into a lot of those. I did try to have somebody from code enforcement try to join us tonight in case you had any questions, but the supervisor was on vacation until May 8th, so, hopefully, if you have any questions I certainly can follow up with him and, then, as we go through the process he can certainly join us for City Council and clarify any of those questions you may have for -- for our City Council as well. And, then, the other portion of it is the staff initiated. So, planning division changes and I apologize to the Commission, because I remember being back in front of this body in November and was hoping to have these changes before you in J anuary and that did delay some -- some projects for some of the attendees in the audience, so I do owe them an apology as well, because that wasn't our intent, but as we went through this process we decided there was more and more changes that came about and so we went from -- I would say six pages of changes to 18 this evening and I won't go through all of those specific changes, because a lot of them are clean up. Those are things, as you know, as we speak to you when we come to you every year we talk about changes, we keep a running list of cleanup items that we want to bring forward and a lot of those are clean-up items. As -- as this body knows, we also have what we call a UDC focus group and we try to vet these changes through them and our partners with the BCA. This year we even extended some input from our friends at the irrigation district and we do appreciate everyone's partnership as we go through these changes. We want this to be transparent, we want input from all of our stakeholders, and I think over the years you can see this -- they have definitely provided some value add to this -- this particular process. So, moving on. I think if you look at the public testimony we -- I want to step back a little bit more. So, we started this in June. At original kickoff meeting we just had ideas. There wasn't really anything on paper. As we got into it we went over the list of 20 items that staff wanted to initiate with the UDC focus group. There were some -- some changes that they had proposed. So, staff puts together this table. We send it out. I sent that to legal and Caleb for review back in July. As we progressed through the hearing process -- or progressed through the changes we had our legal counsel advise us that we need to make additional changes and, then, other requests came in and this just kind of -- as I alluded to earlier just snowballed into something bigger than what it meant to be and that's why it kept being further and further delayed and that's how we got to 18 pages for tonight's presentation. But, really, again, a lot of this is clean up and a lot of the discussions that we -- and the feedback that we received as a lot of -- a lot of our community partners do endorse many of these changes. Where we really got hung up on was really specific to our irrigation changes and -- in our code, which is UDC 3.A.6, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 90 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 88 of 118 which caused some concerns for our irrigation districts and the other big one is open space. I think this body is aware that over the years we have had multiple changes, multiple discussions about open space. We have also been directed by our City Council to look at revamping our open space standards and how we can apply them more equitably throughout different scales of development and so some of the changes tonight that I have proposed this evening are meant as interim changes, not necessarily set in stone forever in perpetuity. As you're all aware, we are in the middle of a Comprehensive Plan update and a lot of the members of the audience sit on that steering committee and have input on that process and so a lot of the -- the testimony that you will probably hear on that open space is that we should maybe hold off , remove that from this round, or make some minor changes to staff's recommended changes this evening and wait until we get the Comprehensive Plan in place and, then, come back with a larger text amendment and reevaluate our open space. I can let you know that we did meet with -- multiple times on this particular issue, talking about this. I also prepared a memo to the BCA in regards to some of these concerns and shared staff 's perspective on it and as I get through the presentation and we get closer to that specific change , I will definitely share more information as where staff's position was on these recommended changes. So, let's -- for -- to save interest in time I want to go through some of these more substantive changes. I don't think we have to go through all of this, but, again, a lot of the changes to the UDC that we have here on this first page came from our code enforcement officers and that's really just adding definition, so that we can -- and a lot of it had to do with light trespass and our lighting ordinance and they are really our enforcement arm for the UDC, so we certainly wanted to partner with them and help provide a more enforceable code for them. Let me go through my -- the other item that I wanted to point out to you on this particular page was the definition of open space and this is where a little bit of the rub came from our irrigation district is the definition of linear open space and so as this body is aware, a lot of our properties within our jurisdiction in Meridian have canals, waterways running through them and a lot of times those facilities are tiled and sometimes there has been developments that have been successful and left them open and made them as amenities or water feature open linear space -- open linear spaces and so that's why that's added to that particular definition of open space, it's just to mirror up with another section of our code. Moving on to page two. One of the talking points that we received -- Mr. Wardle sending some comments this evening late, about 5:00 o'clock this evening and wanted to talk to us about access to common driveways and currently the way it's written in code when we have properties that take access from a common driveway, we limit those to six properties and usually code requires that they take access to a public street and not a private street. I would let this body know that we have on occasion, on a case-by-case basis, approved alternative compliance where a common driveway can take access from a private street and one of the developers that was -- a couple of developers here in the office have done that successfully and gotten that approval. I did communicate -- have some correspondences with one of the developers and shared with them that staff was supportive of that change . I mean the intent is not to have a bunch of private streets with -- within our community. We want public street access. As far as maintenance of those, I mean we don't want to burden HOAs to take -- how is that going to structure in the long term, people having to maintain these private streets with no public dollars and so if we have a private street abrogation Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 91 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 89 of 118 should be looked at on a case-by-case basis and make sure that it is in the best interest of the city to allow those types of developments. So , that was my communication to the applicant. If you want common driveways as part of your development , then, you really should label the common driveway as a private street and just make it part of that private street application, rather than going through the alternative compliance process and creating these drive -- common driveways off of private streets and that's something that the director -- a private street application is approved by the director, essentially, with a development. The other item on this particular page is the side loaded garages that came from the development community and so it wasn't clearly defined in code, so we are adding that. The second page has to do with a couple changes and I think this body was speaking about -- primarily about parking. I would let you know we have looked at our parking standard for multi-family. We didn't address that with the last application, but we heard you. We actually partnered with our fire department, because we -- we have been having parking issues with multi-tenant buildings and multi-family developments and so one of the solutions to this is to add -- we added specific use standards for restaurants, so we required a higher parking standard for restaurants moving forward. We did not at this time propose any changes to our multi-family standards for parking, because we have actually informed this body that you -- under the CPU process you have the ability to require more parking. So, as these apps -- those CUP applications come before you for multi-family, if you feel like that project is under parked, it's within your purview to require more parking. So, you have that authority. So, at this time this particular UDC amendment we have not addressed those concerns in multi-family. The next items are a couple of clean-ups, but the -- the one particular item that the irrigation facilities are having issues -- take issue with and -- we did receive written testimony from Bryce Farris, their legal counsel, and as part of the public record is -- the current language that we have proposed now it didn't -- in their opinion it wasn't strong enough and gave them assurances. I would let you know that Caleb and I did meet with Mac M eyers and Greg Curtis, who is in the office, and we told them that we were more willing to work with them and wordsmith that so that we can make sure that their interests are protected and I think Caleb had some changes that we will share -- we won't talk about those changes at this point in time, but we will get through kind of my presentation and, then, we will share with some of the wordsmithing that we would like to do and see if we can get some concurrence from our irrigation facility partners as we wrap up tonight's hearing. Perreault: So, may I interrupt you for a moment? Parsons: Absolutely. Perreault: It was my understanding from a few of the Commissioners that they did not get a chance to review the letter that was sent from the irrigation district today. So, in lieu of them not being here to make a presentation, would it be okay if either the Commission had a few moments to read it after your presentation and/or its read out loud for the public record? Parsons: Commission, that would be appropriate. We have representation from the irrigation district here, so we -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 92 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 90 of 118 Perreault: Oh, we do? Parsons: Yes. Perreault: Okay. Oh, I -- Parsons: They are in the audience. Perreault: They are present. Parsons: Yes, they are present. Perreault: Okay. Great. Thank you. Parsons: Bryce couldn't be present, but we have Greg here. Perreault: All right. Thank you. Parsons: You're welcome. I also mentioned to you that they do have concerns with some of the fencing standards along now the waterways and our code is pretty open. We allow many different varieties of fencing along those waterways and I will let them kind of explain that situation to you. Typically when we have a waterway we like open fencing, so that we don't create an unsafe situation. We want visibility on that waterway or -- so people can't hide and -- hide in those narrow corridors and we have riff-raff happening behind there. So, we limit their fencing to either open vision , which is wrought iron or chain link. It can be a four foot solid fence with either vinyl or wood or, then, a six foot semi privacy fence or we also allow a four foot with semi privacy on top. So, there is four different options that a developer can pick and choose , but I think in discussions with the irrigation district, their preference is to have solid fencing, because they like to go down through those facilities and either use weedkiller to neutralize the weeds or mow the lawn and there are complaints from citizens that weedkiller blew over through their fence and, then, killed their vegetation on their particular property. But they can go more into what their maintenance schedules are if you want to hear from them on that particular issue. Again, this next item is outdoor lighting requirements . Again, that came from our code enforcement division. Just, again, make -- making things more enforceable and along with that we are also improving our graphics. So, the graphic on the top is what we currently have in code and, then, the graph -- the figure below will be something that they have asked to be included. And the same thing with light trespass and that's why those definitions on the first slide -- the first page coincide to represent these graphics, so citizens and code enforcement understand what those terms mean. I don't know if I will go into a lot of these. Again, a lot of these are clean-up. The one thing that I want to point out to the development community and this body is actually the last item . A few years ago typically this body always hears -- we have a conditional use permit come to you. A commercial use up against a residential use, our code requires a buffer between a commercial use and a residential use. It's 25 feet. Well, the way the current code is structured the only way to reduce that buffer is through the public hearing proces s, but Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 93 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 91 of 118 it's done by the City Council, not this body. So, we have seen on numerous -- on numerous occasions we have seen where our conditional use permits have been appealed up to City Council, so the applicant could take advantage of the City Council to reduce that -- that waive -- that buffer waiver -- reduce that buffer and what we have done here is if -- whether it's a staff level approval, whether it's your -- your purview, the applicant has the ability to get it done either by the director 's approval, Commission's approval and/or the City Council approval. So, giving them greater flexibility, depending on which application process they are going through with us. We recognize we don't want to take up City Council's time to reduce a bunch of buffers, when we can do that administratively, if we don't have a lot of opposition. Again, parking standards. Code enforcement. This is one -- again, this next slide here has to deal with parking. We have -- we have since received some new information on that this evening from the developer and they want to speak to you about adding an age restricted component -- parking component back into code. We took it out, but the one thing that we have changed here -- and I think we have -- and I appreciate the comments from our stakeholders -- is actually reducing parking for two bedroom homes is what's proposed this evening and that really came from the suggestion from the development community and the reason why is as we know homes -- real estate prices -- things are getting more and more expensive out there and we need to have -- and going through this Comprehensive Plan process we realize we need to have more affordable housing within our community and one way to do that is to have smaller homes and not have -- and maybe reduce the parking, so you can get more of in-fill projects and not require four parking stalls for a two bedroom home. A one car garage and one parking stall might be adequate for a two bedroom home and that's one -- again, that's one of the changes we are proposing and, then, again, the developer will follow up on some of the age restricted. We received this, again, late -- 5:00 o'clock. Chris added it to the packet this evening, but it came in late, so I apologize that that -- you didn't have a chance, probably, to read that one either, but -- but his justification of why we need to have an age restricted parking ratio and -- is provided in this handout. The next item has to deal with the sign code and so we are just adding some additional figures. We have a new interchange in the City of Meridian so we want to make clear to the development community and sign code applicants that when you're adjacent to this -- to a freeway or interchange there is -- you have options for taller signs for visibility. So, this is the new figure that we are proposing. Next item is -- I might skip over this and spend some time on this particular one, but this is the one where we have had a lot of discussions with the UDC focus group on what we are doing and what changes we are proposing. Next item is the variance process. So, this is something that we worked with the legal department. We realized we may be in violation with some requirements in the state statute. We worked with legal, so now we are taking out the requirement for a variance for access to state highways. It will just be more like a Council waiver, like we would on an arterial collector roadway. The applicant includes that in their request. It comes to this body for a recommendation, then, moves onto City Council. One of the new specific use items that we have added at this time is indoor shooting ranges. We have only one in our community, but it's created a lot of issues for our code enforcement division with the noise and odors and so we thought that was appropriate to not only limit those in certain districts, but also have -- call out specific use standards for those particular uses and, then, in my earlier presentation -- portion of the presentation I was talking about Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 94 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 92 of 118 parking and this is where we had that -- we met with fire department and many other stakeholders and we realized that these multi-tenant buildings or these restaurants really require a higher parking demand than what we have currently. For any commercial zone in the city we only require one parking stall for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. But restaurants we want to change that number to one for 250. So, cut that in half, you need more parking for a restaurant use period. And, then, anytime a tenant space comes in and it changes from an office or retail use to a restaurant, they are going to have to provide us -- go through a change of use with us and demonstrate that they can meet that new parking calc or we will not approve a permit. Another notable change on this particular page is our fee waiver request. So, I don't know if -- the Commission doesn't hear this, but our City Council does and so if there is a hardship, the applicant -- or in our current code, if you can demonstrate a hardship you could ask for a fee waiver. Council has requested that this be removed and that we no longer would allow fee waivers for applications. Everyone is going to have to pay their way as they go through our public hearing process. And number -- the last item, again, is removing the requirement for access to state highway from our variances. Next item is a clean up. I won't spend a lot of time on that. So, let me go back to the open space, because this is -- again, I will spend some time on the irrigation district. Caleb will share some of those changes with you as I wrap up my presentation, but this is the one that I want to spend some time on and this is probably, again, Jon Wardle from Brighton gave you some input on that as well and, really, in my staff report I alluded to you that the heartburn really comes down to -- we are not -- we are finding common ground and finding consensus in removing landscape buffers from qualified open space calcs. Over the years we have heard our Commission, we have heard our Council say they want to -- they want more open space. We want higher quality development. And so we -- staff -- as staff we know we need to change this section of code. We know it -- it needs to be modernized to fit our community. We are rapidly growing. To be honest with you, we just haven't had the resources to do that and so we keep taking these interim approaches and making minor changes. On the more recent one is to give the developers some flexibility we amended our alternat ive compliance section to allow open space and amenities to count toward -- you can -- if you did something equal to or better than you could modify the open space requirements, you could reduce open space if you had a large club house or an indoor pool or something to that effect. If your amenity package was greater than what code required, we would allow you to reduce open space. No one's really taken it -- I think there is only one or two developers that have taken advantage of that process. It hasn't worked as well as we had thought. It was a good solution at the time, but it hasn't worked out very well. So, Council said, okay, let's look at open space. We heard it from you, what can we do, and so staff sat down and said we didn't want -- we thought ten percent was a good number for open space of developments. What we were struggling with is why are we allowing landscape buffers to count towards open space when they -- they added street beautification, but they don't allow people to recreate. No one's going to allow their kids to play in the 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road. Why are we -- why are we allowing it to count? So, what changes can we put into place now that has little impact, but still keep -- maintains the integrity of the code and so what I was tasked with doing is I went through code, I looked at our landscape ordinance and currently any commercial development has to put in a landscape buffer along the street . That's required. If you go Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 95 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 93 of 118 to our schedule of use table in Chapter 2 for residential developments along arterials we already defined you have to do a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. We already have how it needs to be planted and landscaped in 3.B of our landscape ordinance. So, why are we counting it? We already have a section of code that says you have to do those things , why are we allowing this to count towards qualified open space when you can't use it . It really comes down to that term usable for staff and we realize the code is a little bit ambiguous, so what we tried to do is say, okay, let's take out the -- what would happen if we took out that requirement. So, currently in code landscape buffers along the arterial, the developer gets to count 50 percent of the buffer. You don't get to count all of it, just a portion of it. Code also allows you to -- to count a parkway along an arterial. So, a parkway is defined between the curb and the sidewalk. No one's taking advantage of that -- that change, so why are we counting it. So, I propose to remove that. And, then, we get to collector roadways. Well, we have a master street map and we work with ACHD and we have these designations for all these collectors throughout the city that code requires a 20 foot buffer along the -- the collector roadway. Why are we allowing, again, a street buffer to count as open space -- qualified open space. But what we did here in this particular segment is we allowed those buffers to count in their entirety if they had a multi-use pathway. If the collector roadway lead -- directed you to some interior open space within the development and I have some exhibits for you this evening to look at as what the intent of that code change is. We try to provide you with some graphics, so you can kind of conceptually -- conceptually see what we are talking about with that code change. And, then, again, we don't allow the parkways to count along the collectors , we only allow parkways to be counted along local streets and, then, also we realized that a lot of -- you guys don't get in the weeds of a lot of times, but a lot of -- a lot of developers have to do open detention ponds within subdivisions for storm drainage and a lot of times they are kind of an attractive nuisance. They are unattractiveness, they don't have sand in them, there is no -- there is no real purpose, you can't use them, so we wanted to further define that and so we -- we feel like we have come up with a good compromise. We have heard our partners, they don't like it. Again, they -- they want us to wait and I think it's -- I agree with them, we need to make changes and we need to look at this comprehensively at some point, but right now we feel comfortable in what we are doing here, that it shouldn't negatively affect anything. I have also went and looked at some previous entitlements that we have had on the books to see how these -- this code change would affect that and, particularly, I tried to look at projects that had a lot of street frontage on them, whether they were on a corner property where they had a quarter mile of linear feet of street frontage and how would that impact their development. So, I -- I crunched some quick numbers this afternoon and I looked at one particular project and -- looked at it. They had frontages on two arterials and they got to count half of that arterial buffer and it was approximately 26,000 square feet is what they got to count towards qualified open space. So, I looked at their internal open space and calculated what they would have if they removed that from their equation and I would mention to you they -- they would have lost lots. They would have lost -- they would have had to provide approximately .4 -- almost half an acre more open space internally to the development if they weren't allowed to count that landscape buffer. That was the number that -- that I came up with. In the development community I can see that four lots as -- as significant. That's -- they are going to -- they are going to have their numbers -- they are crunching Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 96 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 94 of 118 their numbers. But in the interim we could have got more open space and I think that particular project we were pushing for more open space . We wanted more usable open space. I would also mention to this body, even if we don't move forward with these changes as we talked about, with annexations you can require more. If you don't feel ten percent is enough, you can -- you can require more open space. You can require more amenities. So, don't ever lose sight of that. But, anyways, I will let -- I know we will probably have some testimony on this, but I did want to just close down this table real quick and pull up those exhibits to show you what we were talking about when we would allow an arterial buffer and/or a collector road to count as qualified open space and I have that in -- in the presentation. And these, again, are very quick sketches. So, the example on the left-hand side would be an example where we wouldn't count a collector roadway, it doesn't go anywhere. It's just a typical buffer. The example on the right is when you can see here you have the collector roadway and it's going into open space. It's leading the pedestrian or the residents to a qualified open space. So, in that particular case that entire collector road would count as qualified open space for the development , because it went somewhere. And, then, again, if this buffer along the arterial had a multi-use pathway in it for the master pathways plan, we would count that in its entirety. So, it's give and take. If you have some kind of amenity there or it leads you to some amenity it counts. It's just going to be a strict buffer. I know some of the discussions that we have had with the UDC focus group it's their concern that if you don't require it as part of -- allow it to count as qualified open space you may just get bland arterial -- you might just get bland street buffers. People are going to come in and do the bare minimum. That's a risky run. They are going to do trees and lawn and just ugly fencing and you 're going to be stuck with what you get. But, again, through the annexation process, if you look at the landscape ordinance, code does say that the buffer should be planted with a mix of plantings. So, it should have trees, shrubs, planter beds to try to limit lawns where you can. So, think through this -- through staff's review of applications we could require equal to or what we are getting now. So, I don't see that as being an impediment moving forward with these particular changes, but, again, that's some of the concern that we heard. And, then, also cost -- the cost of maintaining -- maintaining these open spaces is something we have to think about as a city as we grow if we require more and more open space and they have to provide ten percent internally and the buffer is on the external, they are actually providing more than ten percent, because now you can't count that buffer. So, it's kind of a default where you -- you are actually requiring more open space, but you're not and I think that was some of the concern that we heard. We -- I told you we want affordability, we need to have a diverse housing product within our community, and if we keep adding more and more open space there is a possibility that there could be a detriment in the future. So, anyways, that's what I had for you. Caleb, if you wouldn't mind maybe going over some of those other changes for -- to let me -- allow me to read into the record some of the changes to UDC 3-A-6, see if the irrigation district's amenable to that change or how do you want to handle that? Hood: Sure. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, maybe before I do that with taking some of the -- the recent public testimony we had written submitted, there is a lot here. You had one change on your last application. Certainly we don't have the time to spend on each one of these and if you are -- so, I guess what I'm saying is if you're not Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 97 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 95 of 118 comfortable with any one of these or two of these or whichever ones , what I would request -- Bill kind of alluded to it and stated it. A lot of this is clean up that we would like to move forward. If there is some of these more controversial ones that you aren't -- you don't think we will get there tonight, my request would be pull them out and move the rest on that you are comfortable with and we will -- we will work some more on those things and bring them back at a later date. So, I don't want to get too terribly bogged down -- spend as much time as you want or need. I guess my real -- my real request is whatever you're comfortable moving forward, please, move something forward. There are some things in here that Council is expecting to act on in the near future, so -- anyway, so with that said, this is in regard to the -- Mr. Farris' letter that was submitted earlier and taking some of that -- their comments or requests under advisement. So, I'm on page four of Bill's table. It's Section 11-3A-6B2 and 3. It's not verbatim the way that he proposes we amend the code, but it's real real similar. So, what -- what I would propose for that section I just referred to -- so, in item two it starts out irrigation ditches, laterals, canal, sloughs -- I will wait for Bill put it up on the screen, too. So, page four. Yeah. So, under two there, B-2 in the third column at the end of that where it says 11 -1A-1 in red underline and any necessary approvals which may be required from an irrigation or drainage entity are obtained. So, it puts that back in and says, you know, yes, we are okay with it, but if other approvals are required from an irrigation or drainage entity, those also need to be approved and that language would go into that section in two and then -- and, then, in 3- A. So, we would actually strike the part that says and a license agreement is executed, that comes out and after preserved it would read the same thing -- and any necessary approvals which may be required from an irrigation or drainage entity are obtained. So, I believe that's -- again, it's not verbatim the way they requested it in their letter, but I believe it gets to the heart. We will let them kind of stew on that and see if that meets their needs or not. But it really just kind of pared back some of the language that they had in there as required by Idaho Code and those types of things. But it's really a lot of the same verbiage. The other thing I would just -- just to supplement Bill's -- and, really, I don't have anything else, but when you -- when you get to the next section, 11-3A-6.3 -- so, it's related. W hat I didn't hear Bill say is -- is the changes here are in underlining and strike through version; right? So, what we are changing with fencing really is not a change, we are just making it clear that sloughs are part of the waterways we are talking about when we are talking about fencing. We can talk about changing the standard if you want, but we aren't proposing to change the standard , we are just proposing to change -- make -- to clarify that a slough is also subject to these standards. So, again, it's up for discussion that this is on the table if you will, but staff is not proposing any changes to the four different options for fencing that Bill mentioned that we have currently had on the books for years now to do, but, again, it is open for conversation and if you want to change, further restrict or require whatever type of fencing goes there, fine. So, I think those are the only -- just kind of couple comments I had or one change that I would ask that be made on the previous section. So, I won't belabor it anymore at this point. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think Caleb hit -- hit the talking points there, so I will just conclude my comments. I really wanted this to be an open forum discussion, if there is something you had questions on any of these we are open up to discussion, but I'm just going to conclude my presentation. I just wanted to make Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 98 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 96 of 118 sure that you were aware of the situation, some of the issues around these particular changes. As Caleb mentioned we got to get this moving forward. Council has been expecting it. I have promised others to get it up here and we have got to get it moving. So, again, if -- if there is something that you want to change or pull out of here, we are open to suggestions and we want to keep this thing moving forward. With that I will just conclude my presentation and stand for any questions. Perreault: Any questions for staff? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Staff, I think you have done a tremendous job going through and cleaning up a lot of this and it -- I know it takes a lot of work. I think from my perspective this is a lot easier, because it's gone through a committee process. So, it's a lot easier, because you have had more voices involved in the process of creating these. I had fou r small notes that I found when I looked through it and I don't know whether you want me to cover those now or if it's better to wait until after we get public testimony, but I -- I don't think any of them were major for me. Perreault: Yeah, go ahead. Holland: So, one that's just a really small spelling question, but 11-3A-20 where it says traveling sleeping quarters -- Perreault: Can you state the page? Holland: Sorry. That was page ten. Perreault: Okay. Holland: This is just a really small grammatical thing, but the word traveling -- the U.S. version versus the British version of how you spell traveling, that was just a comment I had that most U.S. spelling has just one L, not two L's. But that's just a comment for suggestion, not a -- not a major change. The only comment that I had on that specific section, though, was about the mobile tiny houses. The way I read this makes it sound like mobile tiny houses would only be allowed in a recreational -- approved recreational vehicle park and so that was a question is if someone ever came forward with an R -40 type application and wanted to do a tiny home village, because that's kind of a new trend, would they be only allowed to do it in the recreational village in our code or would they be able to look at it for an R-40 type purpose? That was one question I had. Perreault: Can I speak to that? I think that the difference is if they are mobile or not maybe. Is that the case? Like could they do -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 99 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 97 of 118 Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, this is for those -- those tiny homes that are built on the utility trailers and they are licensed and they tow behind a vehicle. Holland: That answered my question. Parsons: Code has been getting a lot of comments and -- you can see the commentary there. I cut his -- I cut code's commentary in there word for -- word for word verbatim, but they just wanted to button that up to make it clear that , no, you can't do that, it's got to be an RV park and an RV park is a conditional use in the R-40 zone. So, they could still do it, they just have to come back before this body and go through the process. Holland: Thank you. That answered my question on that one. My second one I had was 11-4 where we talked about shooting ranges and, again, just a really quick clarification, suggestion for that section. It says that you can't put a shooting range within 300 feet of a property. Well, let me get back to the right spot. Sorry. Seventeen. It says should not be allowed within 300 feet of residential use or district, daycare center, education institution, et cetera. It might be nice to say whether that 300 feet is within the property line of another facility or whether it's within the residential -- or within the actual structure. Because I know that I have seen that challenge come up before where that 300 feet line draws. So, that would just be a suggestion that maybe we specify whether it's the property line of another residential use or district or if it's the physical structure. So , just a quick suggestion there. And, then, the only other comment I had was on 11-5A/8B, which is on that same page under fees. I know economic development -- sometimes cities can use waivers of fees as an incentive tool for -- for commercial developments. If you take it out of the code ability to do it here, I don't know if there is ever a chance that -- you know, for economic development purposes if there is ever a company that wants to request a fee waiver as part of an incentive package, that was my only other thought for you. Hood: So, Madam Chair, if I can just address that last one first. So, this is only in respect to planning department fees, so our processing fees. So, it would restrict us if we ever wanted to do that. But there is an equity issue there that I don't think we would ever lose that as a tool to recruit or attract a business or anything like that. Without going into too much of the history, we don't have any findings for this. We don't have any justification to say why you should or should not waive fees, it's -- it takes us the same amount of time whether you're a nonprofit or for profit or a millionaire or broke, it's the same amount of time, you should be charged the same fee and so that's really the reason. But, yes, we would lose that ability. We have not just quite frankly never used planning fees to do what you are talking about. Sometimes there have been some deferral of other fees or offsetting of some other costs and fees, but this is -- for our purposes of processing applications we have never to my knowledge ever used it that way and this would just make it clear that you can't. Holland: And the only reason I brought it up was because I know in the comp plan committee we have talked about creating for the City of Meridian some incentive policies in the future. So, that's the only reason I brought it up as a suggestion, but none of those Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 100 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 98 of 118 were deal breakers for me, they were just comments I had as I read through it, so -- that's all I have got on my list. Perreault: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Do we have public testimony? Johnson: We do, Madam Chair. First is Will Patterson. Perreault: If you ever pray for patience tonight is the night. Please state your name and address for the record. Patterson: I will be happy to. Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Will Patterson. I live at 4224 South Locust Grove Road here in Meridian. I am a director for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and I am the -- and I represent the Meridian precinct. Hope you can hear me okay. And I am here to speak against the changes in the UDC regarding -- I have it listed as Chapter 3, but I'm just going to refer to it as ditches. I'm a little bit confused as to exactly where this falls within your UDC. It appears these changes will adversely affect Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's ability to effectively and efficiently deliver water to our water users. These changes will affect our operation and maintenance and increase our cost. Safety is also an issue. These changes will create a conflict between the city, NMID, developers and landowners and we do not agree that these changes shall not result in an adverse impact upon delivery of our services. The City of Meridian and NMID have master agreements which address many of these issues, the master pathway agreement and the master crossing agreement, and I would request that these changes either be rejected or referred to NMID and staff for further review. And that's -- that's the extent of my testimony on this, but I would answer any questions. Perreault: Could you share with us -- I apologize if I missed it -- the specific change. Are you referring to the license agreement change? The license agreement be executed with the irrigation district? Is that what you are specifically referring to or is it a different area of the code? Patterson: Well, I -- I really think that -- and I would like to refer to our water superintendent Greg Curtis, who is our expert within this, but I'm concerned about the changes and, really, specifically, we would like to sit down with staff and go through these one by one -- Perreault: Okay. Patterson: -- and discuss them with them. Some -- most of them we have concerns with and -- I mean if you would like I can just go line by line and item by item right now, but I'm not prepared to do that. Perreault: No, I don't think we need you to do that. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 101 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 99 of 118 Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: There is two sections that they propose. Is it both sections that you had -- you wanted to talk through, the one that's focused on fencing, which is the 11-3A-6C3 and the 11-3A-6B2 and 3? Patterson: It's 11-3A-6B2 and 3, ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage courses. Okay. I mean we are concerned that -- that we are going to limit tiling and piping of our ditches. I mean is that what you -- you want me to go through this like in that manner? I will be glad to. Holland: I don't think we necessarily need to go through the whole thing right now , but was it just that one section that you're concerned about? Patterson: Well, yes, it would be -- I mean those are the sections we have we are dealing with, 11-3A-6B2 and 3 and then -- I don't have the other section. The reference to fences, but that's an issue also. Perreault: So, piping and fencing, both sections? Patterson: Yes. Perreault: Both sections for piping and fencing? Patterson: Yes. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Johnson: Madam Chair, Greg Curtis also signed in. Curtis: Madam Commissioner -- Chairman -- Perreault: That's okay. Curtis: -- and commissioners. It's late. Been up a long time. My name is Greg Curtis, I'm district water superintendent for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. My office is at 5525 East Greenhurst Road in Nampa. As you are well -- well aware, probably, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District delivers water to 69,000 acres, not just in the City of Meridian, and so when we see changes in development codes for Boise or Nampa or Meridian or Caldwell or Kuna, because we have lands in each one of those cities, we have to realize it has an effect on somebody downstream. I want to admit to you I have a really good working relationship with Bill and Caleb. We talk probably more than you will ever know. I also talk with your members of the parks and rec association and the staff on hand for Meridian for that as well. As Director Patterson alluded to, we have a master pathway agreement, we have a master crossing agreement that we worked out a lot of these things. I think what we have taken most exception with -- and these are not changes, but Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 102 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 100 of 118 they have been in this code for a while. Some people are not aware that they was in this code. I was. When I got the notification of the changes, there was one key paragraph in here that appeared to be stricken. It was always my understanding that ditches of certain size, 48 inches or -- if they could be tiled and 48 inches or smaller, that the city was in support of that. I seen that going away. It looked like we was trying to make it to where an applicant would have to get a variance to have anything titled. We take exception with that. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District got title transferred to all these facilities you are talking about in 2001. We deliver irrigation water out of all these facilities , whether you call them a slough, what you call them. I have had lots of conversations with Bill on projects when somebody proposes to tile a facility and that in the Unified Development Code it's saying that that shouldn't happen. It creates a conflict that drives a wedge between us and a developer. A lot of good things have happened for the City of Meridian when things have been tiled. Kleiner Park is a perfect example. Two of our facilities go right through the center of the park. If they were not tiled you would have two facilities with two maintenance roads with enough area for our excavator to work and do all the maintenance that's required if it remains open. You have got a new high school, Owyhee High School coming in. Our Sky Pilot Drain runs right through it. There is going to be a nice baseball field and a -- and a softball field going right through where the Sky Pilot Drain is. What we take exception to -- and I will just cut to the chase. We need to have more say in these facilities, not only from an irrigation district standpoint, but there is also a lot of times a lateral water users association that should have some comment on what's in here. What Bill and Caleb proposed, you got really close with me. I have a board of directors I have to answer to and there is other people involved. There is other irrigation districts, users associations, but what they mentioned for me -- what they mentioned in the tiling of the -- of the facilities needs to carry over to the fencing. You will find one irrigation district that prefers a different style of fence over another. As Bill mentioned, we get lots of calls for maintenance along our facilities now that development has moved in. When it was farm ground the farmers helped us take care of these facilities and weed control. They are gone. Now, everybody expects somebody else to do it. We do it as a courtesy. But we are very limited on staff and so if there is a solid fence, like I have heard Settlers Irrigation District admit, you can spray up against it, get really close, but if it's a chain link fence, which we tend to prefer, you got to hold back. It's a trade off. But, you know, the districts or the operating entity of these facilities needs to have a say and that's -- that's what I'm here to state. Read Mr. Farris' letter. It's a very good letter. We -- we require, by Idaho state statute that if somebody is going to enter into our easement, encroach, they have to have written permission. We do that in the form of a license agreement in the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. So, I -- I appreciated Bill's attempt, but where he added at the end, it does nothing for us and we are not tiling if we are not encroaching, there is no need for a license agreement. But also I want you to consider safety. I have been out on several occasions where a body has been pulled from a facility. There is reasons we came to terms on our master pathway agreement. We wanted to make sure that we limit the access to drownings. There is nothing worse than being on site on a drowning. And so like I said, I have worked with the city since I have took this position nine years ago. Hopefully it will continue. I know the irrigation district that I work for and I represent they want to work -- just let's work on this, so we get more input, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 103 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 101 of 118 because the way this originally read there was no discussion about the irrigation district at all. Perreault: Thank you very much. And let me say when -- when the irrigation district has written in and sent letters regarding any particular application, it is uploaded for us to read prior to the hearing and we do that. So, I wanted to let you know that -- that on each application we very much welcome your comments. They are helpful. So, please -- please keep doing it. Curtis: Thank you. Perreault: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. There is no one else? Okay. Would someone else like to testify? Anyone else in the room? McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I know I have talked a lot tonight. I will be short and sweet. I just want to say that -- that I have read these proposed changes and I have some significant concerns also. We -- I have worked a lot with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District, Boise Project Board of Control. Each one of those entities has different requirements and different concerns. Anytime I read language where it says that we shall leave irrigation canals open, when we have the ability -- or there is a necessity to pipe it, we need to have the flexibility to do what the districts are asking us to do. You have a section here it talks about if you want to make it a water amenity. Well, what you don't understand is the water amenity -- we have to take a standard irrigation ditch that's designed to carry water at a certain speed, capacity, and we have to flatten out the bottom, we have got to slope the sides, which, then, it decreases the depth of the water, it also increases the evaporative rate -- evaporative rate. The percolation. It increases the temperature of the water, which is also an issue for discharge into the Boise River. They say the temperature of the river is rising, which is bad for fish, which causes moss in our ditches and other problems. So, I mean the -- the picture of the irrigation ditches is pretty complex and I would recommend that a lot of time be spent between the districts and the staff and the development community, making sure that this language will work for everybody, because what's -- the worst thing that can happen is have an ordinance that puts us in a box and, then, we have the district say we don't care that Meridian is telling you you got to leave it open, you have to pipe it and we have had ditches where we had to pipe them, because they kept blowing out and they have been this way for years and it wasn't an issue when you just had a pasture next door. I had this an Eagle. But when I was putting some houses next to it, they said you're going to have to pipe it, it blows out too -- too much. It's unstable. So, there is just -- I mean a lot of unique circumstances we deal with and we have to rely on these irrigation districts and their expertise and I just don't think this code, the way it's written, is -- is going to hit the mark. It's going to cause a lot of problems and I like the code the way it is. You -- if you have a ditch you pipe it, unless you get a waiver and the district agrees. So, thank you. Please take that into consideration. And the fencing. I have been caught between the fencing problems, too. Thank you. Perreault: Anyone else? Please come forward. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 104 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 102 of 118 J.Johnson: My name is Jeanette Johnson. I'm with Irrigation Consulting Services and I live at 7905 Colt Drive in Boise, Idaho. 83709. I have been in the irrigation industry for 38 years and what they are proposing is to make the waterways a scenic highway. We advocate on a daily basis that the waterways of the irrigation system is a very very dangerous place. There is commercials. We have children that drown every year in irrigation ditches. And they are proposing to make this a scenic byway. They are not a scenic byway, they are not something to walk by and admire in 99 percent of the places. They are a very dangerous thing to be near. They are fast moving. They are ever changing. And that's not what they are for. They are to carry water to irrigate. They are large. Very few of them are small. You get some that might be a few inches, but a toddler that's been taught -- because people in this area no longer know what irrigation is about. Very very few of them do. I deal with them every day. I do hundreds of thousands of pieces of property that I deal with people every day. They don't understand irrigation. They don't understand that it's not to get in and play in. So , piping these ditches is essential and I can understand that, because I'm the one that deals with the individuals in those subdivisions every single day. I get hundreds and hundreds of calls. I am out there on that ditch every day. I am with my ditch riders. And this is not something that we want. They need to be piped and that's why the developers are behind us in this. Thank you. I appreciate it. Perreault: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak? Please come forward. J.Wardle: Good evening, Commission. For the record my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 2929 West Navigator in Meridian. 83642. I apologize for the late submission to you tonight. Candidly, the last two weeks we have been moving and so access and really working has not been on the top of my list, but I finally got a few moments today to kind of go through a few of these items. There are -- there are a lot of good things in this update and these are conversations we have had with staff for some time, as Bill indicated. Since June of last year this update has been in process and so I don't want to diminish that by any means. In my letter to you -- and I don't know if -- if you are seeing that. I know it's -- it's uploaded electronically. I can give you a hard copy if you want. But I just wanted to touch on two of the three issues. One of the issues is the common driveways. I know there is a mechanism that a common driveway on a private st reet system can be allowed through alternative compliance through design. We had one case with our project in North Paramount called Cadence where we actually eliminated a common driveway and stuck in an alley, but there was one other place where we needed to do a common driveway and that was allowed through alternative compliance. I just wanted the Commission to look at that, to really analyze to determine if we should just preclude them, because it's a private street. Private streets have very specific standards as well, just like a public street. There are caps on what -- how many homes can access a common driveway. So, for us, from the development community, at least myself in particular, don't see really any distinction between a private street and public street. So, I will let that one kind of be as it is. The second one was related to parking. So , we did spend quite a bit of time with staff looking at this. There was a change in there, which we are supportive of on one and two bedrooms and just requiring a single parking stall that's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 105 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 103 of 118 enclosed. The bigger issue for us comes to age restricted. In one of the previous drafts there was a definition about age restricted. I think that hit the cutting floor. I don't think it's in this anymore. But there was a previous version that talked about what that is, which is a 55 plus. We are doing a lot with this right now and I know there is a lot of opinions about -- about the need for it and I can tell you there is a strong need in our community for this and we are seeing that and we are trying to respond to it. But there is also a lot of research regarding parking and that demographic. I have included in here that our concern is if it's not defined, then, it falls under one of two categories. It's multi-family or it's single family and those parking requirements are much higher than what -- what really the demand is for age restricted. Case in point. The project that we approved for -- got approved recently at The Village, which was a multi-level project, if we met the multi- family standards it would be 1.7 or almost 300 parking stalls. The industry standard is between one and 1.3. We parked it 1.26 which was 209. The -- the information I have given you tonight actually says the demand is much lower than that, but we need to be realistic that, you know, people have guests, they may have two cars, but we are finding in our Cadence project right now that the average buyer is 75 years old and they are single. That's one car. And if there is two people in the home that's still usually about one car in these two car garages. So, our recommendation there is that we add back the definition for age restricted and, then, we also put a line item in there that would be, as I noted in here, would be one parking space per dwelling unit if it's one bedroom and if it's more than one bedroom, then, it would be 1.3 and those should be the numbers that would be used and those are aligned with the national -- the national studies that are out there. I know I'm out of time and -- and this is probably a good place to stop, because the discussion on common and open space is actually fairly complex. I know we are talking about laterals, but the question about buffers is also significant. I know that we are trying to approach a single part of this topic or of the section , but I want to go back to the very first description of the common open space and site amenity requirements under purpose. The regulations of this article are intended to provide for common open space and site amenities in residential districts that improve the livability of residential neighborhoods, buffer the street edge and protect natural amenities. The city's already said that buffering the street edge is really important. I agree. I mean we -- we want to have nice neighborhoods, we want to make sure that we have nice buffers along these . I would almost take a contrarian view. We know the buffers are required and we don't disagree with that. I say we pull them out of the calculation and reduce the overall open space required, not to give something back to the development community, but we say do we want the buffers, but let's focus our open space internal to these projects, which is of a higher quality, not just the quantity. I think that's kind of the rub that part of this is. I think we should also look at the percentages of open space, depending on the size of the lots. For example, if a lot is 12,000 square feet or greater, do they need to have ten percent open space in that community? I think in a lot of those cases those larger lots are going to have amenities that are specific to them, like a swimming pool or maybe some outdoor spaces and things like that. There needs to be not just a -- and I have heard this said and I'm not trying to beat this horse -- we don't want to bandaid this. I think that there are some very good opportunities -- and it doesn't need to take -- we don't need to wait till the comp plan is done. I think we are willing to put our time and effort into this and come back to you with an overall proposal , but we need to look at this overall Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 106 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 104 of 118 section and address quality open space, not just quantity. Some of the questions are things that I would like for the Commission to consider -- how much of these buffer areas really are contributing to the overall calculation? We should be able to figure out what that is and do a calculation and maybe that's subtract ed out and that becomes the baseline. Should common open space requirements be reduced? How much common space is really needed by the size of a lots? I contend that the higher the density, the more open space and quality open space is needed. I don't dispute that at all. When you have small lots people need that third place to go. They have got home, they have got work, if they don't have a lot of space on their lot, they need someplace else they can go. The larger your lot that's not as important. It doesn't make sense to have uniform percentage of open space across all lot sizes and I would say probably not. And, then, finally, this one -- we have talked about this a lot. Does it make sense for a picnic shelter and picnic table to count the same as an amenity as a clubhouse with an indoor swimming pool. But if I go to the code and I'm trying to compare those, those are both allowed and they would be equal. I would say that they aren't equal. There are large investments being made and if these investments are being made we need to look at opportun ities and a lot of this can be addressed by alternative compliance, but we are dealing with a black and white code right now. People go to this and say what is and what isn't and sometimes creative design requires alternative compliance, but I would -- I think we would be remiss to come back every single time to either go to staff or come to you and ask for something when we can do a wholesale change. Again, those are just suggestions. I think they are things that we need to kind of vet through the whole process and not just look at Section B here, we need to look at this entire article. And I stand for any questions and I know the hour is very late. Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. I do have a question for you. So, you know, unfortunately, we -- we get applications that meet the minimum amount of amenities that are required and oftentimes those amenities are not of high quality and in my experience on the commission so far I would say probably at least half of the developments that I have seen -- it's gotten better. It is getting better, let me tell you that. The applications that we have seen come before us over the last year are significantly better than the ones that we were seeing even two or three years ago , because I think that developers are -- are really understanding that need for the higher quality amenities because of the density that's coming in. But -- well, first of all, I want to -- I wanted you to clarify what you mean by -- by higher quality of amenities. Can you give us some examples, I guess, of what you have in mind and -- so that we are not -- I agree we shouldn't be guessing. J.Wardle: So, I can talk about what we have done. We -- we often put in pathways -- and I know we can get counted -- we get credit for that, but we have gone in and put in pathways that don't meet the city's -- they don't comply with maybe your pathway plan. Case in point. Century Farm. We created an eight foot sidewalk all the way from Eagle Road all the way back to Hillsdale, because we felt like that was the right thing to do. Now, I know under the changes that are proposed today we would get credit for that , because it's going someplace, which is good, but I think it's those elements where we start making better connections internally, not just isolated amenities maybe off to the side, but we look at them as a whole. I think the re are -- there are needs for better Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 107 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 105 of 118 gathering spaces, both conditioned and unconditioned spaces, not just a bench to sit someplace. We could probably go through and quantify this. I think part of it is value in terms of total cost. I don't want to go back to this , but we -- for 193 homes we put in a two and a half million dollar clubhouse and an indoor swimming pool, because we felt like that met the need for the demographic. That community also we ended up with -- when you look at all of our buffers and all of our open space, it was nearly 28 percent common area. So, it was an exponential amount as compared to what the code is , because we made a decision to do that. But I think it's not necessarily saying you need ten percent and you meet it, it may be that you have put in six percent open space, but what you put in that space is much better than just having the ten percent which is grass. One of the other things that I'm concerned about is if -- if we hold to a total percentage and we are no longer allowed to count the buffers -- let's say I don't have a place where my sidewalks are going to terminate into on a collector, I still have to put that in; right? I still have to qualify -- have that qualified open space, so I'm going to attach my sidewalk on a large collector road, because I no longer get to count the buffer and I'm going to put that same cost into someplace else. These buffers aren't nece ssarily just for the benefit of those residents, there is a greater benefit for the community as a whole. So, that's another example of, you know, removing or displacing the cost or putting the cost someplace else. I can almost guarantee you that that will happen, that sidewalks will get detached from some of these corridors that otherwise we could count. Perreault: Thank you. Are there any additional questions for Mr. Wardle? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: So, the two items that you would like to see more attention given to are 11- 3C-6 for parking and 11-3G-3B for open space? J.Wardle: That is correct. McCarvel: Those are the only two. Okay. Perreault: And on that note with the parking you are -- you are requesting that the age restricted -- the age restriction be defined and also that it's not removed from the code and that there are some changes to the number of required parking spaces for the bedroom -- J.Wardle: Correct. Perreault: -- correlation. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Was that everything? J.Wardle: It is. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 108 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 106 of 118 Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview. I will follow Jon, because he will say it better than I and two of my items was the common driveways. I think Jon failed to mention that at the end of -- end of the items, but the common driveway is able to come off the private streets. That being a requirement -- or being able to be coming off the private streets. The private streets, as Bill indicated, still have a private street application that comes in. So , if there is ever a project that doesn't deem suitable for the City of Meridian to be private streets, you will never get to a common drive situation, because the street application would be denied. So, to have a belt and, then, it suspendered is not necessarily to make sense for the common drives. You have the protection of the private streets. The other item was the open space . I am -- Jon said it very well as far as there is -- not everything's usable. Passive. There is -- there is lots of reasons to spend money on these buffers and collectors -- on collectors and arterials. We drive by numerous neighbor -- I will call them subdivisions, because I don't like them on the main arterials of a Locust Grove or somewhere else that get the minimal effort put into it. You will see more of that. In fact, you will see half of what you're seeing. They will meet code and -- and I -- and I think it was -- you know, Bill mentioned a little bit, but, then, you have a choice and we have all been on boards where the first thing that goes is fertilizer, probably that's a tie with pruning and, then, shrub maintenance all disappears when the budget gets thin. So, to continue to increase open space, yes, that's a burden in expenses to the developer. They are -- we are going to shift our money around to what we can afford. At the end of the day we still are producing a home in Meridian , Idaho, that will produce X. What -- what our point was with the open space is, you know, this didn't get, Commissioner Holland, a UDC group effort put into it. It never made it in -- you know, our last meeting in June we have had lots of individual meeting s and lots of discussions with Bill and Caleb. They have worked their tail off on this and that is not my point, everybody has. Not as much as those two have, but -- but the landscape never made it to the group and we don't believe it's an open space issue. I'm with Jon, it is an open space and an amenity issue. The project tonight that was deferred because ACHD wasn't ready of mine, all of our products that's in that seven homes per acre type density, we put in a minimum of five amenities and you will notice that one amenity is required . When you start getting densities of six and seven units it is not necessarily about the open space. We have to have our park area, but you don't need a soccer park, especially when we are less than a four minute drive to Kleiner Park. But the amenities will far and exceed what code requires and we believe other six and seven homes per acre should have a different amenity requirement than three homes per acre with the 12 ,000 square foot lots. But those have to be evaluated together. You can't -- and I will use the word bandaid and Bill has used to word bandaid. You can't bandaid and attempt of trying to get the buffer pulled out for now while we work on other things. The open space calculation code -- and we will all admit it -- is broken. You cannot have one -- more than two people evaluate how to calculate open space the same with the way the current code is written. The entire code needs a lot of effort and that isn't a three month fix. I bet you it's an eight month UDC group. Again, probably needs to follow the Comprehensive Plan that we are all working on, because it kind of follows suit to the goals and visions that are currently being created with the comp plan. I am done. There is only the two items. The only thing I would say is -- in fairness this is a little bit unlike the Meridian collaboration effort, the document I review -- that I was given by Bill when I asked for it April 9 th had 29 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 109 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 107 of 118 modifications in it. The download was not available until yesterday and it had 45 modifications in it and we haven't read them. I don't believe you guys have been able to read them all. If you have kudos to you and your -- your daily employer is probably a little irritated, but this all just came and it keeps coming. Some of them are code. I'm sure all of them are fine. I'm sure some of them are fine. The light code that just showed up , you -- I don't know if you guys have read it. It's a page and a quarter and there is light trespassing. If so many lumen candle feet, which I don't even know what that means, comes over the fence at a certain angle and you have an exhibit in there , is that your code enforcement that's going to come get the lumen out or do I have to hire a light engineer when my two street lights that are too close that are required by city? So, it may be a great code. I don't know. I don't know how to read it. I haven't gone through it all it. You know, it came to us yesterday. So, I would say it doesn't mean everything needs to get thrown out. We definitely have an issue with common drives . But the landscape open space, there is -- there is way too much going on with that and I will -- I will end at that. Perreault: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I have a question. What number is the one on the common driveways? Conger: Common driveways. Anybody with better eyes than me on the small font? McCarvel: Okay. Conger: 11-2A-3B3. McCarvel: B3. Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One clarification question, which I think is what Commissioner McCarvel was asking. Are you asking for the common driveway conversation specific to the R-8 district standards or to any standards? Because I know what's in here for Table 11-2A-6 talks a little bit about the R-8 standards for sizes and, then, there is 11-2A-3B3, which talks about minimum street frontages ensuring common driveways providing access to abutting public street. Which one of those are you? Or both of those? Conger: Well, Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I believe it was in R-15 as well, but it was attached to the private street. So, I'm suggesting anywhere that it's -- you know, discussing common driveways that they are allowable in private or public. You have a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 110 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 108 of 118 street light -- or a street -- private street application that would cover you if it's not, you know, acceptable to the city. Perreault: One question for you with that. So, private streets are permitted to be more narrow than public streets. How does that -- how does that work exactly if you have a common driveway that say has three to four home -- you know, private driveways off of it and they exit out onto a narrow private street, is that -- and say that common driveway comes off of the corner? Are you going to create issues there with -- with space and size and -- or not size, but just space and traffic in a -- in a -- say during the peak hours? Do you understand what I'm -- what I'm getting at? Conger: Madam Chair, absolutely. Perreault: Is that going to create a problem with the private drive or is that something that's going to be through the private drive application process? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, no, fair question. But I think, you know, in our private streets -- and typically where we see private streets -- we have done several now -- Brighton has done more than us. It is usually in an age targeted or age restricted development. It's gated. You have a requirement with the private streets to be gated. So, the use of peak hour times and things of that nature in these neighborhoods , they don't have a peak hour -- Perreault: You haven't found that to be the case? Conger: Yeah. No. Perreault: Okay. Conger: And -- and, really, it's not a function of people that go three miles an hour out of their common driveway, it's a function of parking. With the 24 foot wide streets we actually have parking areas that will accommodate that. Perreault: Okay. Conger: So, the common drive isn't an issue, it's just a function of utilizing the balance of those corners of the property. Perreault: Okay. Conger: We can't put a park in the corner, because you can't see it, so -- Perreault: Yeah. Conger: -- better put a house there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 111 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 109 of 118 Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any -- any additional questions? Thank you very much. Conger: Thank you. Perreault: This has all been very very helpful testimony. Appreciate it. Thank you for staying late with us. LaFever: Hello. Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way. Stating the obvious, we all know we are going through a Comprehensive Plan change. I have had the opportunity to work on the steering committee and every opportunity I had to volunteer and go out and hear what the public wants I have taken advantage of. I have been at every volunteer event. Two things are very clear. People are concerned about shrinking open space in their neighborhoods. They want to see more usable spaces in their neighborhood. That was loud and clear. The other thing that people are concerned about -- when you actually talk to them they talk about density, but when you really start talking to them, what they are really concerned about is how close the houses are together. So , I'm very concerned about anything in our code that goes back and disrupts the process going forward and what the people want and that is usable open space and dimensions, not having houses so close together. In addition, we have spent time on the steering committee talking about open space ad nauseum, both Brighton and Devco have been represented on that. So, this isn't coming from left field. We have spent a lot of time talking about this. As far as the area that talks about the variance, which is 11-3H3 where it talks about feasible language, I am extremely opposed to feasible. First of all, what's not -- what's not feasible today could be feasible tomorrow with -- and visibility is not a valid reason to -- to do away with that process and approve a variance. Perreault: I'm sorry. Could you state where that was located again? LaFever: Maybe I got it wrong. It's 11-3H-3. Perreault: 3H? LaFever: H. Perreault: H. LaFever: In addition to that, there needs to be a third party that actually independently verifies that. To have somebody stand up here and just say it's not feasible -- well, if you are going to make an exception for a variance , then, it needs to be backed and actually justified by an engineer or some other person and not just somebody standing in front saying it's not feasible. My copy is different. I had a copy that was forwarded from Bill, so I have ten pages. So, it may not be in there right. It's the one that deals on variances. In addition to that, there is notations in here that changed where the City Council was spelled out in the language and it's now been changed to decision making body. I'm not okay with changing that out. The tables are there and there is certain authorities that I believe need to stay with City Council. There are some issues with delegating those Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 112 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 110 of 118 authorities down -- and those decisions down. It can -- it can impact the public process and the ability for the public to be heard. In addition to that, there has been lots of talking that's came up at one of the other meetings I was at. The staff has been working with the plan -- with the UDC focus group that's been made up of developers. We are at a time where we are 114,000 people and growing. It's time for the -- the residents to be considered a stakeholder or taxpayers. We want our voices to be heard and I think there is a lot of frustration in talking with people that they don't feel like they are being heard and some of these processes that we are working on, when you're working on UDC codes, those tend to get out of whack with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and so when you go back and you talk about open space and you read the Comprehensive Plan, some of the things that we do on the UDCs don't necessarily support what this community envisions. So, I'm very concerned that -- that we -- we go back and look at Meridian as a whole. This is valuable property. We need to be looking at things that don't continue to deteriorate things. So, we are looking at common space. We need to go look at what our neighbors are doing at Eagle and Boise. What are their common space? What are their requirements? Why do we need to lower the bar. The City Council's come back and said we need to stop lowering the bar for open space. You know, ten percent minimum isn't enough. So, you -- I agree with -- with -- with Jon Wardle and Jim Conger, maybe we need to go back through and not bandaid and think about it, but the people are saying they want open space and our other communities alongside of us, Boise and Eagle, our developers can develop in those areas perfectly fine with hi gher standards. It is time for Meridian to go back through and look at the standards, so enough said. Perreault: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Denise, I actually had a question. For the variance section you -- there was -- the last one, what was it that you mentioned regard to the -- the decision making bodies? LaFever: Oh, in the decision making bodies. It stated in there where they have stricken out City Council and put decision making bodies, but the table is not present that goes back through and shows that. There are certain things that you have City Council in that I'm -- I'm opposed to going back through and striking that out. When you're making waivers or you're doing things at a certain level that have impacts, I think our City Council needs to stay in those areas. McCarvel: I think his question what number -- Cassinelli: Where that was at. Just -- was that on the same, on the variance? LaFever: No. I believe that's 11-3A-6B2 and 3-11-3 -- I think that's an A8-9C and 2. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 113 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 111 of 118 Perreault: So, that was the piping section of the irrigation? LaFever: Yeah. Perreault: And what was the second one? And the second one is -- LaFever: 11-3A-6B2 and 3. Perreault: That was the first one that you gave us. LaFever: Oh, I'm sorry. 11-3A-9C2. Perreault: 9C2. Okay. LaFever: Let me see. I can go back and flip through here. I have it. Perreault: That would be the section on landscape buffers. LaFever: This one here was 11-3A -- well, if I can read it. It's getting so late I can hardly see anything anymore. 892 and 3. So, it wasn't on my -- on my page it was page number four and it talked about ditches and laterals. That's one of them. Perreault: Yeah. LaFever: And, then, the decision making body was on landscaping buffers and adjoining uses. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. LaFever: Does that help? Perreault: Yes. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak? All right. Thank you. Does the staff have -- have anymore clarification for us? Okay. We can close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for the 2019 UDC text amendment, H-2019-0049. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 114 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 112 of 118 Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would suggest after what we have been through this evening we take these items that we know are going to need more discussion , because it's not going to be a short discussion, and figure out if -- if there is anything else besides what was brought up that we want to see more discussion on and make a motion on the rest of it , the stuff that we feel can go forward without discussion and the rest and what we feel needs to have discussion pull it out and move it to the next meeting, which has one item on it, where we can discuss it at 7:00 o'clock instead of midnight. Perreault: Do you feel like you have enough information to make decisions on these other options that we have fully discussed or do you think that the staff and -- McCarvel: I guess maybe the question to staff is which items is City Council expecting to see? What is it that we are anxiously trying to move forward? Hood: So, Madam Chair, Commissioners, there is a -- there is a few in here. I don't know that it's worth specifically calling them out. It's none of the ones we have talked about tonight, I will just put it that way, and some of the other cleanup ones. What -- just -- if that's the direction we are going to go, I -- if it's just two weeks and -- and we want to do some things, I'm okay if you want to keep these all together. I just don't want a month or two and continue this out. If it's just a couple of weeks to discuss some of these -- I guess I'm prepared, if you -- and I haven't consulted Bill on all of the potential ones, but a couple three of these that are the higher controversial ones we can just remove them, talk about them, add them back to the to do list with the -- the stakeholder group. They really aren't that critical. I mean the open space one is a big deal. I don't want to mistake that. But business as usual works, too. I mean it's not broken, it's just -- we thought we would raise the bar and this is a way we thought we could raise the bar. If you don't like how we are proposing to raise the bar in the interim level, yeah, pull it out for now and we will just go with -- with how things are, so -- McCarvel: But you're okay with the whole thing just moving forward to May 16th? Hood: Or if you want to continue it all, you know, that -- that's fine, too. I mean some of these, honestly, two weeks we aren't going to probably solve some of those problems. We aren't going to solve open space in two weeks. So, that is -- just -- if I can for one second, you know, Bill's been doing research on this for years at this point and looking at point systems and -- I mean kind of through to the testimony tonight it's not just about ten percent or 12 or 15 percent, we have looked at different ways to score and give credits for more investment and there is a dollar value and, you know, just different ways to do this and we still haven't cracked that nut. We are not going to do it in the next couple weeks. That's got to be vetted through this group. So, again, my -- if there are those things that really are issues, just -- we will just remove them and we will talk about them, we will be back in six months or a year with those changes, you know what I'm saying? So, not -- but there are some slight tweaks for two weeks -- I don't know what two weeks is going to gain us I guess is my point. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 115 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 113 of 118 Perreault: Considering that this was -- this full document is only posted yesterday, do we think it's necessary to have two more weeks, so -- I don't know -- we are not going to send out another notice to the public. So, is the public -- are we -- are we feasibly going to have anybody that's going to come back and testify that might not have read it prior to today? Hood: Well, I just -- so, maybe just quick on that. So, probably not; right? I don't know that for sure. Someone may -- may pick up on it. The changes, though, that are in here are the changes that were noticed for the hearing. Bill put them all in one document . That's the thing that was uploaded. There was -- it was all there previously, it's just been all compiled into one, so we aren't going back and -- here is code enforcement changes, here is planning changes, it's just -- it's the way that the code is ordered. So, sorry, that that didn't happen sooner, but these are the same sections of code that were noticed for change and are part of the application that was submitted six weeks ago or whatever that was. Perreault: Okay. So, you feel like the public has had enough -- Hood: If you don't -- I mean this document hasn't been out there very long. So , if you want to see it all sequentially or you want to give the public a chance to see it all sequentially, yeah, two weeks -- that's fine. And, again, I'm not so concerned about two weeks. It was more -- there is some things in here we can't solve, let's not wait three months or, you know, because there are some expectations here, so -- Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would agree with Commissioner McCarvel's statement earlier that -- I wrote down eight items that came up in discussion tonight from people who had concerns , so I'm okay with moving forward with the other items if we want to call out these ones specifically or just deferring the whole thing and keeping our notes we can go back to the ones that we need to work through, but the main ones we heard concerns about was the -- the ditch and laterals, the open space and the parking requirements. Those are the three main ones. But there were eight different items that we touched on that I want to make sure we do our due diligence and discuss, but I don't think we are all of the capacity to discuss in detail tonight. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I would be willing -- I don't think we are going to get any new public testimony by posting this. I think -- again, I trust staff on some things, but I do think the things that were brought up here tonight are the ones that are the sticking points and I think some of them we are going to be able to discuss through and some, like you said, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 116 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 114 of 118 the open space maybe more TLC from people that -- how does everybody feel about that? I mean -- want to keep it all together until two weeks? I do think sometimes these texting amendment things come in and it is nice to have -- to read it, see it, but, then, hear staff and, then, have some time to think about it. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Olsen: Madam Chair? Oh. Perreault: Yes. Sorry. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I would say -- I would say let's just keep it all together at this point and move it forward for two weeks. I don't know if we want to hear -- you know, normally in a hearing process the applicant gets an opportunity to come back up and -- and -- and comment on -- on the public testimony. I don't -- do we want to have staff essentially do that now or wait for that in two weeks, to have them kind of go over some of those points that were brought up? Keep those thoughts and address -- I do want to hear what they had to say about -- about everything that was brought up. The question is do we want to do that tonight or hold that for two weeks out? Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Well, the -- if we hold this out for two weeks, will there be modifications made based on the testimony that's been received? Hood: So, again, Bill and I haven't talked about it. You just asked the question. But I would say we could come up with some potential changes tonight based on some of the testimony. In fact, I may have some of those written down. There are a couple things, though, that we may not be able to solve and they still will need some discussion and dialogue with -- but we could make some of the changes that we have heard. Kind of to Commissioner Cassinelli's question, do we want to spend anymore time tonight kind of fine tuning those and so we -- we understand your expectations for two weeks. You know, if there is expectations of things you want us to make changes, share them with us now. There is the eight things, right, that were talked about. Is it all eight we are supposed to come up with some change for? Is it half of those? Is it -- I -- you know, you have staff's proposal, although we are willing to -- we have heard some of this and make some additional tweaks, but I don't know if that fully reflects where you want to go or not. And, again, I'm not saying we have to do that now, but any direction you have for us that way would be helpful or just continuing it for two weeks and we will pick it back up from right here. Cassinelli: I think that's -- that sounds the most reasonable. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 117 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 115 of 118 Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think we leave it where it is tonight. Cassinelli: Right. McCarvel: You have heard everything we heard. If you can make some changes that make sense, that would be great, but I think we start up again and we can discuss it at 6:30 or 7:00 in the evening. Perreault: Is it possible for us to identify -- I actually counted ten, but is it possible for us to identify those sections that we know for sure we are going to table, even in two weeks time, and just eliminate those, so that in two weeks we aren't needing to have any discussion about them and just -- Hood: And, Madam Chair, that's a good question, because, again, I don't know if those -- Perreault: Okay. Hood: -- your list is the same as my list. So, if there is -- I have a couple, like, again, the open space stuff I don't think we are going to solve, so that one is -- I'm not going to work on that probably much in the next week or ten days, because -- Perreault: I think it will be wise for us if we come to an agreement on those items to just -- in the motion go ahead and say we know this is going to take longer. I don't -- as far as how that works, we just request the staff to remove those, just because we don't have a time frame. Holland: Madam Chair, one other suggestion. Perreault: Yes. Commissioner Holland. Holland: Perhaps we keep it all together, but in our next hearing we could divide up the ones that we don't think we are going to be able to solve after the next meeting, because, then, we have the opportunity to hear if they have been able to make any progress on some of those, too. And, if not, we can decide to separate it out when we move forward the rest of the -- the pieces. Just a thought. Perreault: Okay. Holland: I would still echo, though -- I think we should ask staff to work on some of these issues that were concerns. Like I think they should work with the irrigation district to see if they can resolve the challenges that they are having with that specific section. I don't know that they are going to come to a conclusion on open space, but certainly Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 118 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 116 of 118 something people asked about and parking was the other big one I heard, but I think we could walk through some suggestions what we want them to work on. Pogue: Madam Chair, is it my understanding that you are going to continue? So, you will have to reopen. Perreault: What's that? Pogue: You will have to reopen. Perreault: Yes. Yes. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I make a motion that we reopen the public hearing for UDC Text Amendment H-2019-0049 for the purpose of continuing the application. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for H-2019- 0049. All those in favor? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: I made the last one. I can read them off if you want me to. Cassinelli: Do we need all those -- we don't need all those numbers in there right now, do we? Perreault: It's entirely up to the Commission whether they want to include them or wait until -- wait for a couple weeks. Hood: Madam Chair, I think we have a pretty good idea. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move to continue File No. H-2019-0049 to the hearing date of May 16th to allow full discussion of items that were brought up tonight and that staff will address major points that were discussed by our public testimony regarding irrigation, parking, common driveways, the variance in the landscape buffers and any attempted open space. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 119 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 117 of 118 Holland: Second. Perreault: One quick question before we vote on that. I won't be present at the next meeting, so would it -- what's the ideal situation to -- for me to provide my thoughts on the numbers that need to be reviewed? Or do I just forego that, since I'm not present? McCarvel: You can submit your -- Perreault: I could submit that -- submit a public -- public written testimony? Okay. I'm happy to do that. Thank you. Okay. So, it has been moved and seconded to -- to continue File No. -- which I already set away. I have got that. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Yes. Cassinelli: Before we vote, just a comment. So, that we can kind of go through this and be a little prepared ourselves, is there -- I mean do we move it -- can we have staff or -- or maybe Chris send out those specific item numbers and we can look out -- I think everybody has a good idea, but just so that we could be a little bit more prepared. Do you have the numbers? Perreault: Everyone's item numbers might be different, though. Holland: I will give my list to Chris. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: If that helps. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Thank you. Perreault: Okay. So, it has been moved and seconded to -- to continue Item No. H- 2019-0049 to May 16th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Madam Chair, just real quick. And I realized people are starting to leave, but the way that I think we are going to attack this as staff -- because we don't have time to reconvene a UDC work group, but we know who was here tonight and we have contact information for almost everybody, but I think Mr. Curtis we can get some contact information there, but we can share some of those changes and have a dialogue as appropriate with the people that testified . Again, not guaranteeing we get on the same page a hundred percent of the time with everybody, but share, in addition to the general Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 16, 2019 – Page 120 of 224 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 2, 2019 Page 118 of 118 public, would consult some of the people who have testified here tonight and -- and share with them at least where we are going with some of these changes and understand that a little bit better, so -- Perreault: That would be great. That would be great. Thank you very much. Could I get one more motion this evening? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Perreault: Finally you make a motion. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for May 2nd, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:07 A.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED I Ilcl 14%0K^W DATE APPROVED CHR181OHNSON - INTERIM CITY CLERK eo AUGUST' V ('ity of ��►' �E IDIAN;� W CDAHOIDIAN*,---- �W,IZ, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA W481 V• Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of April 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Approve M inutes of April 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 4/23/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 4 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2019 Page 75 of 75 Holland: I move we close the public hearing for -- I don't remember the date -- April 18th of 2019. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: Does that mean adjournment? Holland: Adjourn. Sorry. Getting to late. Cassinelli: Second. Holland: I move we adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Perreault: I apologize. Prior to us voting, let me clarify when I was stating the vote for the last application I had stated that the date was April 4th. It is April 18th. So, just give that clarification. Okay. So, all those in favor of closing the public hearing. Fitzgerald: Do we also adjourn? Perreault: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we can adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:48 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) PROVED ,JSS A ERREAULT - CHAI Go ° AbDATE APPROVED ATT T: W E IDIgIV� 4 X0,4"0 h ' Jo - rim CITY ER AL �' Changes to Agenda: • Item #4D: Delano Sub — CPAM, AZ, PP (H-2019-0027) — Applicant requests continuance in order to get ACHD's report Item #4A: Grace Child Care (H-2019-0044) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.13 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 4374 N. Heritage View Ave. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR subdivision, zoned R-8 South: SFR, zoned R-8 East: Future SFR, currently zoned R-8 and L-0 but recently approved to be rezoned to R-15 West: SFR subdivision, zoned R-8 History: Included as a lot in Razzberry Crossing Subdivision in 2004 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: Request for a conditional use permit to operate a group daycare to care for up to 12 children as required in the R-8 zoning district. The applicant wishes to move their existing daycare operation from Boise to Meridian and proposes to do so from their existing residence. Proposed hours of operation are 6 AM -11 PM, and the ages of children will range from 1 day to 11 years old. The daycare will employ 2 people, and the applicant plans to provide transportation for a majority of the children, which will alleviate the need for extra parking and will decrease the number of trips for drop-off and pick-up of children. There are 2 parking spaces available in the driveway as well as on -street parking, he applicant shall communicate designated parking areas and loading areas for any individuals that choose to drive their children rather than utilize their service. Written Testimony: Garrett Fastabend — concerned with the added traffic and congestion related to application, states there is an existing daycare nearby that has caused parking and congestion issues related to customers as well as employees. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the conditions in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0044, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 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-2019-0044, as presented during the hearing on May 2, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0044 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4B: Wagner Farms (H-2019.0035) Application(s): ➢ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM) ➢ Annexation Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.46 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 3240 W. Chinden Blvd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR in Ada County Sub. South: W. Chinden Blvd/SH-20/26 and future commercial (Costco), zoned C -G East: N. Ten Mile Rd (arterial) and SFR sub zoned R-8 West: Future SFR, zoned R-15 History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) Summary of Request: Request to change the future land use map for this parcel from LDR to Commercial to allow for the existing produce market to expand and to add a convenience store with fuel station; contingent upon approval of that request, the applicant requests to annex the subject parcel with a C -C zoning designation. Wagner Farms has been in operation since 1982 in this location and had been considering moving to another site to expand its operations. They were inundated with requests from surrounding residents and customers to keep the business open and have since decided to pursue growing in their current location. A petition with over 450 signatures in support of Wagner Farm remaining in its proposed location was submitted with this application. The applicant is proposing one full access point via W. Chinden Blvd. and has coordinated with ITD to align that entrance with Ten Mile Rd. to the south. A 35 -foot landscape buffer is required along Chinden, the applicant is proposing to construct a portion of the City's 10 - foot multi -use pathway adjacent to Chinden Blvd. Staff is recommending a micropathway to the residential subdivision to the east and SpurWing Golf Course to the west be added to increase pedestrian connectivity. Proposed hours of operation for the market, convenience store and fuel station are 6 AM -11 PM, fuel pumps are not proposed to be operational outside those hours. A 25 -foot landscape buffer is required to the residential use to the north, the applicant also plans to install a 6 or 8 -foot masonry wall to adjacent to that property to mitigate any activity related to the proposed use. The submitted concept plan generally complies with City Code, however a thorough review of the site and landscape plan and elevations will be completed with the CZC and DES application. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the facility and will maintain a country barn feel which will help to maintain the historic character of the area. Written Testimony: No written testimony. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions in the staff report — Staff feels the proposed project supports goals within the comprehensive plan, is widely supported by the surrounding community and will preserve the historic ambiance and character of the area. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0035, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 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-2019- 0035, as presented during the hearing on May 2, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0035 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: Bainbridge Southeast (H-2019.0042) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.25 acres of land, zoned R-8, located on the west side of N. Ten Mile Rd. approximately % mile south of W. Chinden Blvd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Rural residential, zoned RUT in Ada County West: SFR (Bainbridge), zoned R-8 South: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned L-0 East: Ten Mile Rd. and a City Park, zoned R-4 History: This property was annexed and included in the preliminary plat for Bainbridge Subdivision. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 21 SFR building lots and 1 common lot on 5.25 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. A minimum 10% qualified open space & (1) site amenity is required to be provided based on the area of the site. The applicant proposes 11.43% (0.60 of an acre) qualified open space consisting of parkways along internal local streets and a common area in excess of 50' x 100' in area. The applicant requests the extra amenities provided with the larger Bainbridge Sub consisting of a 2nd community swimming pool and playground in Phase 9 abutting this site to the west, are allowed to count toward the site amenity required with this development. Because this subdivision will be included in the HOA for the larger Bainbridge Subdivision and will have access to the same common areas & site amenities, Staff is amenable to this request. Additionally, the site amenities required for this 5.25 acre portion of the site were already provided with previous phases of development; no amenities were proposed in this phase. A 20' wide gravity irrigation easement exists along the southern boundary of the site within adjacent proposed building lots. The Council previously approved this easement to be located within the adjacent building lots rather than in a common lot. Staff recommends that approval carry over to this preliminary plat. Concept building elevations were submitted for the proposed SFR dwellings as shown consistent with those constructed in previous phases of Bainbridge Subdivision. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0042, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 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-2019- 0042, as presented during the hearing on May 2, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0042 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4F: Residential Self -Service Storage Facility (H-2019-0034) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for a UDC Text Amendment to allow for a Residential Storage Facility within R-15 and R-40 zones with a conditional use permit. A definition of a residential storage facility has been provided along with provisions under the Specific Use Standards of the UDC. The intent of the proposed code change is to create a third type of storage facility that is smaller and integrated into residential neighborhoods, setting standards for landscaping and architectural requirements that provide compatibility and a complementary use to existing or proposed neighborhoods. The current UDC provisions allow for self-service and outside storage facilities within the residential zones only as an accessory use to a principally permitted use. If it is proposed to be a stand-alone commercial storage facility it requires procurement of a CUP in the C -C and C -G zones but is a principally permitted use in the I -L zoning district. Therefore, any storage facility approved under the accessory use provision is restricted to providing storage service only for the residents associated with the primary residential use. The applicant believes this creates a problem for the storage facility management to screen and police their potential lessors. If someone vacates the residence or apartment within the principally permitted development but continues to lease a storage unit, this creates an issue. The other concern is that high vacancy rates at a facility cannot be remedied with allowing renters from outside the development. From a business perspective, this creates a situation that could be detrimental to the cash flow and success of an accessory storage facility. These were the primary concerns discussed with the recently approved project known as Elevate Storage which has necessitated the requested text amendment. The only avenue to remediate this situation under the current UDC is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property. Staff is supportive of the requested changes with addition modifications proposed by staff. Written Testimony: Becky McKay in agreement with staffs recommended changes Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0034, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 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-2019- 0034, as presented during the hearing on May 2, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0034 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4G: 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019.0049) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Summary of Request: In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5, the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code (UDC). For purposes of this application, both the Planning Division and the Code Enforcement Division have work closely to compile a host of changes and combine them into one application. The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections and the addition of new provisions that pertain to the following: • Chapter 1: Notification of violations and definitions; • Chapter 2: Residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables; • Chapter 3: Ditches, laterals, canals and drainage courses, outdoor lighting, outdoor storage, traveling sleeping quarters, landscape standards, parking standards, qualified open space and variance processing; • Chapter 4: Specific use standards for educational institutions, indoor shooting range, multi -family development and restaurant; • Chapter 5: Public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance; • And other miscellaneous sections to improve the administration of the code. All of the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are attached as separate exhibits. Commentary has been provided for each of the respective code changes and new additions that are proposed. Staff has highlighted the requested Code Enforcement changes in light gray to delineate their recommended changes. These recommendations are made in hopes of eliminating confusion for the public, addressing common issues, eliminating loopholes and making the existing codes enforceable. The changes being proposed by the Code Enforcement Division were not shared with the UDC Focus Group or the BCA as they do not directly impact development per se. These changes were vetted separately with City Council and fully endorsed. Staff has shared the proposed Planning's Division changes with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA. Several members of the UDC Focus Group have expressed concerns with the open space changes (specifically removal of the street buffers from counting towards qualified open space) and believe they should be deferred until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. At this time staff has not modified the document based on earlier conversations. Further, staff has not received any other recommendations to modify the current proposal. A separate memo prepared by staff was sent to the BCA addressing some of these concerns. The Commission should determine if it is in the City's best interest to delay amending the open space standards until the Plan is adopted. In addition, the both NMID and SID shared their concerns with the City encouraging waterways to remain open and integrated with developments. Primary concerns were safety and maintenance. After discussing the issues with them, staff has modified UDC 11.3A-6 to include a requirement that the applicant execute a license agreement for the irrigation districts if a waterway is to remain open and public safety can be adequately addressed. Overall most of the proposed changes are supported by our Community partners. In summary, staff believes the changes proposed with this application will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. Written Testimony: Bryce Farris Legal Counsel for NMID and SID - Changes to UDC 11-3A-6. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0049, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 2, 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-2019- 0049, as presented during the hearing on May 2, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0049 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reasons) for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 2, 2019 CPAM RequestCurrent Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Map Proposed by Applicant:Recommended by Staff: 11 -1A-1: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: Add new term: STORAGE FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL: Any real property designed and used for renting or leasing individual storage spaces incidental to residential property or dwelling units, to which the occupants thereof have access for storing or removing personal property. 11-4-3-TBD: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL A. The facility is encouraged to accompany or be a component of a single-family or multi-family residential development with a conditional use permit within an R-15 or R-40 zone. B. The size of the storage facility shall be less than 8 acres. C. The location of the facility may be located along an arterial roadway as a buffer to a residential development, but shall not take direct access from an arterial. Access to the facility shall be from a internal collector or local street only. D. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o’clock (6:00) a.m. to ten o’clock (10:00) p.m. E. The use shall be limited to individual storage compartments which shall be used for residential related personal property including vehicles. F. Storage units shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a residential storage facility is specifically prohibited. G. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’). H. The storage facility shall be fully enclosed and screened from public view. I. A minimum twenty-foot (20’) wide landscape buffer shall be provided along a collector or local road and a twenty-five-foot (25’) wide buffer adjacent to residential development or an arterial and thirty-five-foot (35’) adjoining an entryway corridor. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C and 11-3B-9C of this title. J. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes approved by the Meridian Fire Department. K.No outside storage area shall be allowed. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. L.Buildings shall be designed Design the building facades to express complement the architectural character of the residential area. The building design shall comply with the TND design standards set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. M.Any parking lot associated with the leasing office shall comply with the standards in Section 11 - 3C-5, “Parking Standards for All Other Uses Not Specified,” of this title.Signage for the facility shall comply with Section 11-3D-8BC, “Residential Signs in Residential Districts,” of this title. N.On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Chapter 3, Article E, “Temporary Use Requirements,” of this title. O.If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11 -3A-16, “Self-Service Uses,” of this title shall also apply. P.No storage of fuel or hazardous materials shall be allowed .(Ord 13-1555, 5-14-2013) Q.The site shall not be used as a “vehicle wrecking or junk yard” as herein defined in Section 11 - 1A-1. C /rE IDIZ IAN*,----- I DAJ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA IFIVA"Imm Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0044 Item Title: Public Hearing for Grace Child Care By Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara Located at 4374 N. Heritage Avenue Request: For a Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare (up to 12 Children) on 0.13 of an acre of land in the R-8 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 Grace C hild C are (H-2019-0044) by Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara, L ocated at 4374 N. Heritage 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 - R evised S taff Report 4/30/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 80 of 248 5/2/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 5/2/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-A Project Name: Grace Child Care Project No.: H-2019-0044 Active: Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://i nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=226 1/1 I Wish To Sign In Signature Name Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral Testify Date/Time Meridian ID 5/2/2019 Fastabend 1397 East Star Drive X X 83646 6:06:07 PM 4499 n heritage 5/2/2019 Siegfried sendig Meridian X X woods way 6:07:56 PM Leigh & Dustin Meridian Idaho 5/2/2019 1405 e red rock st X X Daniels 83646 6:08:00 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://i nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=226 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 5/2/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0044 Grace Child Care LOCATION: 4374 N. Heritage View Ave., in the NE ¼ of Section 31, Township 4N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests a conditional use permit (CUP) for a group daycare for up to 12 children on 0.13 of an acre of land in the R-8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 0.13 Future Land Use Designation MDR Existing Land Use Single-family home Current Zoning R-8 Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: March 3, 2019; 8 attendees History (previous approvals) N/A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 81 of 248 Page 2 B. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicants/Owners: Ruta Ruzoreza & Godefroid Ntawuyamara 4374 N. Heritage View Meridian, ID 83646 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 82 of 248 Page 3 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/12/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/9/2019 Radius notification published on 4/22/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a conditional use permit to operate a group daycare facility for up to 12 children, in a 2,061 square foot home in an R-8 zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2A- 2. The UDC allows for up to 6 children in a family daycare with an accessory use permit in the R-8 zoning district; up to12 children are allowed in a group daycare but require conditional use permit approval in the R-8 zoning district. One of the main reasons for this requirement is the increased number of vehicle trips for the group daycare. There are specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 that apply to daycare facilities in which the applicant shall comply (see below). The applicant previously operated a daycare approved for the care of up to 6 children in Boise City and proposes to expand that existing business at their new residence in Meridian. The applicant proposes to care for children aged one (1) day to 14 years old and will operate from 6 AM-11 PM. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The proposed development promotes the following action items contained in the Comprehensive Plan:  “Plan for and encourage services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) Since the proposed group daycare is located within a large residential subdivision, the proposed facility will be within walking distance of a large number of residences. This application would allow for up to 12 children at one time, providing a service to surrounding neighbors. B. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Specific Use Standards: 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 83 of 248 Page 4 The applicant proposes to care for up to 12 children at any one time and therefore is classified as a group daycare in accord with UDC 11-1A-1. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The home is located within the Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, on the corner of E. Star Dr. and N. Heritage View Ave. and has a two car garage and a concrete parking pad in front of the garage that fronts on Heritage View Ave. The garage will accommodate parking for the owner of the residence and will not be allowed for customer use. The dedicated discharge area is provided along the west side of the site; customers shall utilize the parking pad in front of the house or on-street parking when needed. The applicant plans to provide a pick-up and drop-off service for the majority of anticipated students. However, to guarantee safe discharge and pick-up, the applicant shall communicate where children are to be dropped off and picked up. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. A maximum number of 12 children are allowed to be cared for at one time. The proposed hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, Monday-Sunday. The specific use standards allow the facility to operate between the hours of 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, unless otherwise restricted by the Commission. 4. Upon tentative approval of the application by the Director or commission for a daycare center facility, 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 the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The applicant shall submit a copy of the background check and complete an inspection with the Fire Department prior to operating the daycare. 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 applicant proposes to operate the facility between the hours 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. 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-6C 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 standard is not applicable to this application. However, a neighborhood meeting was held for the subject CUP application in accord with the standards in UDC 11- 5A-6C. Notice was provided to property owners within 300-feet of the subject property. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 84 of 248 Page 5 The applicant shall not provide care for more than 12 children at any one time. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') non- scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The backyard to the home is enclosed with 6-foot privacy fencing, in accord with UDC standards. The applicant is not proposing to include outdoor play equipment at this time; however, these standard shall be observed, should they decide to install playground equipment for clients to utilize. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. The applicant is not proposing outdoor play equipment at this time. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. The applicant is not proposing outdoor play equipment at this time. C. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district apply to this site. The current residence is in compliance with these standards; the proposed daycare will not impact dimensional standards. D. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family dwellings in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. A two-car garage and space for two cars in front of the house on a parking pad currently exist at the residence. NOTE: The City has adopted a local amendment to the international building code (IBC) that does not require a change in occupancy of the home if it is to operate as a daycare facilities for twelve or fewer children. Because the occupancy of the home is not changing from residential to non-residential, the parking for non-residential uses does not apply. Since the arrival of children will likely be staggered and the applicants are planning to provide transportation for a majority of the children, the provided parking on site and along W. Torana Dr. should be sufficient. E. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The backyard to the home is enclosed with 6-foot privacy fencing, in accord with specific use standards for daycare facilities in UDC 11-4-3-9. F. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) A CZC application is typically required to be submitted to the Planning Division for staff level review and approval of the proposed use as set forth in UDC 11-5B-1B after the conditional use permit is approved by the Commission to ensure the applicant complies with the aforementioned specific use standards. However, because staff has already determined that the applicant is in compliance with those standards, a CZC is not required to be submitted. Once the findings are approved for the subject CUP application, the applicant is allowed to commence the approved use. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 85 of 248 Page 6 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 86 of 248 Page 7 VII. EXHIBITS A. Floor Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 87 of 248 Page 8 B. Aerial View Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 88 of 248 Page 9 C. Front View of Home and Parking Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 89 of 248 Page 10 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by Title 39, Chapter 11, Idaho Code, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 2. The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for daycare facilities. 3. The applicant shall have a maximum of 24 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a time extension shall be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F prior to expiration. If a time extension is not requested or granted and the CUP expires, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 4. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 5. The number of children cared for shall not exceed 12 children at any one time. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Public works has no issues with this application. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. All daycares must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State Fire Marshal as set forth in Idaho Statute Title 39-1109. Prior to scheduling an inspection, the applicant must pay a fee of $20 for the cost of the inspection. The applicant has committed to scheduling an inspection with the Fire Department. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comment. E. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) 1. CDHD will require plans be submitted for plan review for any child care center. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 90 of 248 Page 11 IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-8 district (see Analysis, Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of MDR and is listed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-8 zoning district. Further, staff finds the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed group daycare will contribute to the variety of services and childcare opportunities available to the surrounding neighborhoods. 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 if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed group daycare should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently provided to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Republic Services and ACHD in Exhibit VIII. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 91 of 248 C IDIAN*,----- �VlEZDAHO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WITIAPAWIlLe Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0035 Item Title: Public Hearing for Wagner Farms By PD Larson and Co., Located at 3240 W. Chinden Blvd. Request: For an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designations on 2.46 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Commercial; and, For an Annexation and Zoning of 2.46 acres of land from the RUT (Rural to Urban Transit) zoning district to a C -C (Community Business) zoning district for future addition of a convenience store and fuel sales facility to the existing farmers market. Meeting Notes: in 4 C-Omffuj I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Wagner F arms (H-2019-0035) by P D L arson & C o., L ocated 3240 W. C hinden B lvd. 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 4/29/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 92 of 248 5/2/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 5/2/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Wagner Farms Project No.: H-2019-0035 Active: *#* There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://i nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=227 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 5/2/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0035 Wagner Farms LOCATION: 3240 W. Chinden Blvd., in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 22, Township 4N., Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 2.46 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Commercial; and Annexation and zoning of 2.46 acres of land from the RUT (Rural to Urban Transition) zoning district to a C-C (Community Business) zoning district for the future addition of a convenience store and fuel sales facility to the existing farmers market. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 2.46 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (LDR) Existing Land Use Produce market (Wagner Farms) Proposed Land Use(s) Expansion of produce market and convenience store with fuel sales facility Current Zoning RUT Proposed Zoning C-C Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 8/1/2018; 19 attendees History (previous approvals) N/A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 93 of 248 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Not in ACHD ROW; no comment  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access proposed via W. Chinden Blvd. (State Hwy) Traffic Level of Service Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers No existing sidewalk; applicant proposes to install a 10-foot multi-use pathway along W. Chinden Blvd. Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station +/- 1.3 miles from Fire Station No. 5  Fire Response Time 3 minutes (under ideal conditions)  Resource Reliability 77% (does not meet target goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 3=commercial  Accessibility Project meets all required road widths and turnarounds.  Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device. In the event of a hazmat event, mutual aid will be required.  Water Supply 1500 gal./minute for 2 hours required  Other Resources Police Service  Distance to Police Station 7.5 miles  Police Response Time 6 minutes (2 minutes higher than average response time in Meridian)  Calls for Service Between 1/1/2018-12/31/2018 PD responded to 100 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.  % of calls for service split by priority See PD comments in Section VIII. D  Accessibility No issues with proposed access.  Specialty/resource needs None  Crimes 20  Crashes 9  Other Reports The applicant shall make every attempt to mitigate sound, odor, light trespass and litter to surrounding nei ghborhoods. MPD would like to see pathway/sidewalks to connect with surrounding neighborhoods and SpurWing Golf Course. Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0-feet  Sewer Shed North Black Cat Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See Application Information  WRRF Declining Balance 13.66  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Water  Impacts/Concerns This proposed development is within Suez Water’s service area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 94 of 248 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: PD Larson & Co. 855 S. Calhoun Place Star, ID 83669 B. Owner: Rod and Debra Wagner 3240 W. Chinden Blvd. Meridian, ID 83646 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 95 of 248 Page 4 C. Representative: Becky McKay Engineering Solutions, LLP. 1029 N. Rosario St. #100 Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/12/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/9/2019 Radius notification published on 4/18/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM) to change the land use designation on 2.46 acres of land from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial; and, Annexation & Zoning of 2.46 acres of land from RUT to the C-C zoning district. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the south and east, 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. A. Future Land Use Map Designation (CPAM) (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Current Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) – LDR designated areas allow for the development of single-family homes on large lots where urban services are provided. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of three (3) dwelling units or less per acre. The site is currently zoned RUT in Ada County and operates as the Wagner Farms produce market. Proposed Land Use Designation: Commercial - The intent of the commercial designation 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. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone. The applicant is proposing a comprehensive plan map amendment to change the land use designation from LDR to Commercial to allow for an expansion of the existing produce market use and the construction of a convenience store and fuel sales facility. Wagner Farms has been in operation since 1982 and has been a well -utilized and valued market throughout its existence. The surrounding area has grown considerably since its establishment and the market has become even more of a neighborhood amenity to many of the residents in the area. Recognizing the growth in the area, the Wagners had planned to sell the property and were inundated with requests from customers and residents in the area to keep their business open. The Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 96 of 248 Page 5 Wagners decided to stay at their current location and wish to expand in a manner that will not only be consistent with the history of the area but will complement the current character of the area. Further, an expansion of the site will support Comprehensive Plan Goal 3.05.02, “Maintain integrity of neighborhoods to preserve values and ambiance of areas”. Wagner Farms has been a staple in the area and will continue to be such with the proposed expansion. The proposed facility will continue to serve surrounding residential neighborhoods and will provide a variety of fresh and local food items as well as the opportunity to fuel vehicles when needed. There is resounding support from the surrounding community for the subject application, over 450 residents in the area signed a petition in support of the proposed expansion. Staff is of the opinion that the requested annexation with the C-C zoning district and proposed development is consistent with the proposed Commercial FLUM designation for this site and is appropriate for this site. The proposed development supports various Comprehensive Plan goals, will maintain historic character to preserve a part of Meridian’s roots, and is widely supported by the surrounding community. B. 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) Provision of services within walking and biking distance of several neighborhoods north of W. Chinden Blvd. will allow residents to access food and necessary items without requiring use of a vehicle. Added pedestrian micropathways, as recommended by staff, will increase the walkability of surrounding communities with the proposed development.  “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) Services to this area are available and can be reasonably provided since the MFD and MPD are already servicing the area.  “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) The proposed development includes pedestrian connectivity along W. Chinden Blvd. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan, however, an opportunity to connect surrounding residences and the golf course to the east is possible. Additional micropathways to the east and west would increase pedestrian connection and would aid in creating a neighborhood amenity, making it even more consistent with City Code.  “Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses (e.g., landscaping, fences, etc.) (3.05.02A) The applicant has made a concerted effort to maintain the “farm feel” of the original Wagner Farms property through the design of the building, landscaping and planned operations. Additionally, in an effort to maintain compatibility with surrounding uses, the applicant is working with the resident to the north of the subject site to install fencing to mitigate any impact accompanying the planned expansion.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) This site is intended to be utilized as a neighborhood market and convenience store for surrounding neighborhoods and the adjacent golf course. Since the site is adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd. and the entrance will align with the Ten Mile Rd. intersection improvements, it will provide a convenient option for commuters to stop in and purchase items on their way to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 97 of 248 Page 6 and from work. The expansion of Wagner Farms may also provide additional employment and shopping opportunities to surrounding residents and could alleviate the necessity to drive a vehicle to find such services. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The site has been utilized as a produce market with associated out-buildings since 1982; there are also two (2) existing residences on the site. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing homes and produce barn to accommodate the proposed convenience store and produce market. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed produce market and convenience store are classified as a “retail store” and the fuel center a “Fuel Sales Facility” in accord with UDC 11-1A-1. If the CPAM request is approved, all aforementioned uses are listed as principal permitted uses in the C-C district per UDC Table 11- 2B-2. Hours of operation within the C-C zoning district are 6 AM-11 PM; the applicant is proposing to operate the market, convenience store and fuel facility within those hours of operation, fuel pumps will not be operable outside of business hours. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-20, Fuel Sales Facility. A. General standards: 1. When allowed as an accessory use, gasoline or diesel fuel sales facilities shall not occupy more than twenty five percent (25%) of the subject property. The proposed fuel sales facility will not encompass more than 25% of the overall site. The applicant has also integrated fuel pump canopies into the design of the building and relocated pumps to the east of the site to mitigate any related noise or visual nuisance to surrounding neighbors. 2. The total height of any overhead canopy or weather protection device shall not exceed twenty feet (20'). The applicant’s design is in compliance with this requirement; height and dimensions shall be further specified with the CZC and DES application. 3. Vehicle stacking lanes shall be available on the property but outside the fueling areas. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right- of-way by patrons. Such stacking lanes shall be separate from areas required for access and parking. The stacking lanes shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any abutting residential districts. Vehicle stacking lanes have been provided approximately 120-feet from the access point to W. Chinden Blvd. A 29-foot drive aisle has been provided to the east of fuel pumps to allow traffic to bypass fuel pumps if occupied. Staff recommends the applicant consider installing wayfinding and directional signage to increase effective circulation and to alleviate potential stacking and obstruction of the main entrance. 4. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with section 11-3A-16 of this title shall also apply. The use will not be operational outside of normal business hours (6 AM-11 PM), so will not be unattended. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): This development is subject to the C-C zoning district dimensional standards in UDC Table 11- 2B-3. The applicant is proposing a 25-foot landscape buffer to the adjacent residential use to the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 98 of 248 Page 7 north and is coordinating with the homeowner to install a wall to further mitigate related noise and/or light. G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): The subject site currently has two (2) access points to W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26; the applicant is proposing to close the westerly access point to provide one (1) access to the site. The applicant coordinated with ITD in realigning the easterly access point when the Ten Mile Rd. intersection improvements and signal were installed to align with the future outside turn lane at Ten Mile Rd. Part of the proposed access is to be constructed on the adjacent property to the east. The applicant shall submit written documentation from the adjacent property owner stating agreement to allow construction of the driveway as shown. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B per the dimensions shown in Table 11-3C-5. In commercial districts, a minimum of one (1) vehicle space is required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Bicycle parking is also required to be provided at one space for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on the overall square footage of the structures proposed (i.e. 12,459 square feet), a minimum of 25 vehicle spaces and one (1) bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided. A total of 61 vehicle spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. The site plan does not include bicycle parking and shall be modified to comply with the aforementioned standards with CZC and DES application submittal. I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system (sidewalk) exists along the southern boundary of this site adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. A detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement and pedestrian lighting and landscaping is required to be provided within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3. The applicant has located the 10-foot multi- use pathway at the northern part of the required 30-foot ITD easement. The proposed landscape plan is deficient one (1) perimeter tree along W. Chinden Blvd., the landscape plan submitted with the CZC and DES application shall be modified to comply with the aforementioned standards. In accord with Comprehensive Plan Action Item #3.07.02C and in an effort to increase pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent subdivisions to the west and to the SpurWing golf course to the east, staff recommends the applicant provide two (2) additional micropathways. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 99 of 248 Page 8 J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. Street buffers are required to be provided along all streets as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along both US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. an entryway corridors. The applicant has provided a 38- foot landscape buffer including the City’s 10-foot multi-use pathway. Per UDC-3B-7C-3.b, the applicant shall provide one (1) tree per 35 linear feet; the proposed landscape plan is short one (1) tree along the southern perimeter of the site. The landscape plan shall be modified to reflect these standards. A 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required to be provided with development on the C-C zoned properties in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The concept plan depicts a buffer with landscaping between the subject site and the residential use to the north of the site. The applicant is working with the property owner to the north to determine height and location of fencing to further buffer the commercial use. The buffers should facilitate pedestrian access from the residential to the commercial development in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. Parking lot landscaping will be required internally within the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C with development. The front plant islands flanking the pathway to the front entrance shall be revised to a minimum 50 square feet and landscaped with one (1) tree in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C-2.a or an alternative compliance request shall be submitted with CZC and DES application. The current site plan depicts the removal of existing trees from the subject site. The submitted site plan does include information regarding mitigation, however, if the applicant has not already done so, they shall contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888-3579 to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site. K. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): A 6- or 8-foot tall masonry screen wall is proposed along the north boundary adjacent to the residential use. The applicant is currently working with the property owner to the north to determine placement, height and material to be used. A detail of proposed masonry wall along with placement shall be submitted with the CZC and DES application. L. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City sewer services is required. Suez Water will supply water. 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. M. Pressurized Irrigation (11-3A-15) An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided within the development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 100 of 248 Page 9 N. 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. O. Structure and Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the produce market and convenience store as shown in Section VII.B. The proposed building is approximately 12,459 square-feet, proposed materials and architectural character is intended to reflect the “country barn” feel of the original building and site. Final design of the structure shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual for commercial districts. Parking lots for properties greater than 2 acres in size should not have more than 50% of the total off-street parking area for the site located between the building façade and the abutting streets; as an alternative, the parking area should be screened by berms, landscaping, walls, architectural elements or a combination of these elements to produce an appropriate buffer adjacent to public spaces and roadways as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.3. Slightly more than 50% of required on- site parking is located between the building and W. Chinden Blvd. However, the applicant is proposing to install trees, shrubs and vegetative groundcover within a 38-foot landscape buffer to mitigate the expanse of paved area. Traffic calming measures should be provided where vehicle circulation is directed in front of the building entries and around the east part of the site where fuel pumps are proposed to be located. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5 feet in width is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s) and be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. P. 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. Plans submitted with these applications should comply with UDC standards and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: The legal description submitted with the annexation application shows the boundaries of the property contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The proposed development supports goals within the Comprehensive Plan, is widely supported by the surrounding community, and by maintaining its original historic character will preserve the ambience and character of the area. If approved, the proposed facility will continue to serve surrounding residential neighborhoods by providing fresh fruit, vegetables and other products and services within walking distance. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed CPAM and AZ applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 101 of 248 Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Existing and Proposed Future Land Use Map Designation Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 102 of 248 Page 11 B. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 103 of 248 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 104 of 248 Page 13 C. Site/Landscape Plan (date: 2/13/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 105 of 248 Page 14 D. Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 106 of 248 Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 107 of 248 Page 16 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A CZC and DES application will not be accepted until the DA has been executed. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the concept plan and building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. 2. All future development of the subject property shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. 3. Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review applications are required to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval of all future buildings/uses on the site, prior to applying for a building permit. 4. The applicant shall comply with the Fuel Sales Facility standards set forth in UDC 11-4- 3-20. 5. The existing homes and produce barn shall be removed upon development of the site. 6. Business hours of operation in the C-C zoning district are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours of operation may be requested through a conditional use permit as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. 7. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. 8. The site/landscape plan submitted with the CZC and DES application shall include the following: a. The applicant shall install wayfinding and directional signage to increase effective circulation and to alleviate potential stacking and obstruction of the main entrance. b. Depict masonry fencing and location proposed along northern boundary adjacent to the residential use. c. Depict micropathways connecting to the west and east. Submit a revised concept plan with CZC and DES application. d. Add one (1) tree within the street landscape buffer adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd. e. Modify site plan to include 1 bike parking space for every 25 vehicle parking spaces. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 108 of 248 Page 17 f. Modify the front planter islands along the pathway to the front entrance to a minimum 50 square feet and landscape with one (1) tree in accord with UDC 11- 3B-8C-2a or submit a request for alternative compliance with the CZC and DES application. g. Provide written documentation regarding construction of the eastern portion of the driveway with the CZC and DES application. h. The applicant shall confirm mitigation requirements with Elroy Huff, the City Arborist prior to removal of any existing trees. 9. The applicant shall submit written documentation from the adjacent property owner stating agreement to allow construction of the driveway as shown. 10. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a public access easement for a multi-use pathway connecting east-west across the project site, north of the SH 20/26 right-of-way, to the Planning Division for Council approval and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14’ wide (10’ pathway + 2’ shoulder each side). Use standard City template for public access easement. Easement checklist must accompany all easement submittals. 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 Applicant shall be required to connect to the existing sanitary sewer system. 1.3 Suez Water will be providing water service to the proposed site. 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. 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 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 109 of 248 Page 18 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 developed 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 prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.11 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. 2.12 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. 2.13 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.14 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.15 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.16 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. 2.17 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 110 of 248 Page 19 2.18 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. 2.19 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. 2.20 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/164169/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/165239/Page1.aspx E. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/165533/Page1.aspx F. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161948/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 111 of 248 Page 20 IX. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map are consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan as detailed in Section VI above. b. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Staff finds that the proposal to modify the Future Land Use Map to allow for commercial uses on this site will be compatible with existing uses in the area and will provide services to surrounding residential uses as W. Chinden Blvd. is expanded and the area continues to grow. c. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan (see Section VII for detailed analysis). d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. e. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Staff finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential and commercial uses. f. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this area of the city. Sewer and water services exist and will be extended to this property. g. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Staff finds the proposed commercial use of this property is consistent with the proposed map amendment, will not significantly impact existing and furture development in this area and provides a logical juxtaposition of uses. h. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Sections V and VI and the subject findings above, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City if the applicant enters into a development agreement to allow for the proposed zoning and future commercial use of the property. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 112 of 248 Page 21 B. 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 2.46 acre property with C-C zoning consistent with the Commercial 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 commercial districts in that it will provide for a neighborhood serving commercial use 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 commercial use should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential uses in the area. 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. Additionally, the Meridian Fire and Police Departments currently serve this area. 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 with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 113 of 248 WAGNER FARMS WAGNER FARMS WAGNER FARMS Northbound Ten M ile at Chinden Wagner Farms Legend 10 ft ©2018 Google ©2019 Google Southbound Ten M ile at Ch inden Wagner Farm s Legend 9.68 ft ➤©2018 Google ©2019 Google Eastbound Chinden at Ten M ile Wagner Farms Legend 6.33 ft ©2018 Google ©2019 Google rUTUBE l.UMM AU.IU. SUBDMSIO N rUTUBE l.UMM AU.IU. SUBDMSIO N CjQ/rE IDIZ IAN!�- �J PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Agenda Item Number: 4 C Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0042 Item Title: Public Hearing for Bainbridge Southeast By Brighton Investments, LLC, Located on the West Side of N. Ten Mile Rd. Appoximately 1/2 mile South of W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 Request: For a Preliminary Plat Consisting of 21 building lots and 7 common lots on 5.25 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Meeting Notes: j e I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for B ainbridge Southeast (H-2019-0042) by B righton Investments, L L C , Located on the West side of N. Ten M ile Rd., Approximately 1/2 mile South of W. Chinden Blvd./S H-20/26 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 4/29/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 114 of 248 5/2/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 5/2/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Bainbridge Southeast Project No.: H-2019-0042 Active: � There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://i nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=228 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: May 2, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0042 Bainbridge Southeast LOCATION: West side of N. Ten Mile Rd., approximately ½ mile south of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat consisting of 21 building lots and 7 common lots on 5.25 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Bainbridge Southeast Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 5.25 Future Land Use Designation MDR (3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential (SFR) Current Zoning R-8 Proposed Zoning NA Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 21 building/7 common Phasing plan (# of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units (type of units) 21 SFR units Density (gross & net) 4.0 gross/6.84 net Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 0.60 of an acre (11.43%) Amenities None in this phase Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 115 of 248 Page 2 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) NA Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: January 16, 2018; 11 attendees History (previous approvals) AZ-05-001 (DA #109061598); PP-05-002; CUP-05-002 (PD); PP-13-011; H-2016-0115 (MI- McMullen Lateral easement) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 116 of 248 Page 3 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 2.1 miles from Fire Station #2  Fire Response Time 4 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 81% from Fire Station #2 – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification 1 – Current resources would be adequate to supply service to this project  Accessibility Project does not meet all required access, road widths and turnarounds; a turnaround is required that meets those in Appendix D of the 2015 IFC; the knuckle is too small to be used as a turnaround, a minimum radius of 48’ is needed  Special/resource needs An aerial device is not required; the closest truck company is 13 minutes travel time (under ideal conditions) – Fire Dept. can’t meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required (this fire station is 6.1 miles away); in the event of a structure fire, an additional truck company will be required.  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0  Sewer Shed North Black Cat Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application information  WRRF Declining Balance 13.66  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns No concerns, flows already committed. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 1  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality No concerns  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Bainbridge No. 9 infrastructure must be complete and accepted to enable service to this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 117 of 248 Page 4 C. Project Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Brighton Investments, LLC – 12601 W. Explorer Dr., Ste. 200, Boise, ID 83713 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation – 12601 W. Explorer Dr., Ste. 200, Boise, ID 83713 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 118 of 248 Page 5 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/14/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/9/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 4/18/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): This property is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) on the City’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre. Single-family residential detached homes are proposed at a gross density of 4.0 units/acre consistent with the MDR designation. A. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 21 building lots and 7 common lots on 5.25 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Bainbridge Southeast Subdivision. This subdivision will be included in the Homeowner’s Association for the larger Bainbridge Subdivision and will have access to the same common areas and site amenities. The subject property was previously part of the preliminary plat (PP-13-011) for Bainbridge Subdivision and was to be the final phase of development. The reason for submittal of a new preliminary plat is that the number of buildable lots proposed in this phase, in additional to those in previous phases, would have exceeded the total number approved with the preliminary plat making the final plat not in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required by UDC 11-6B-3C. See the Applicant’s narrative for more information. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. 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-6 for the R-8 district. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in one (1) phase. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed for the development via internal local streets to be constructed with Phase 9 of Bainbridge Subdivision. A public stub street is proposed to the adjacent 2.5 acre parcel to the north (Parcel #S0427142323) for future extension and access for that parcel. No access is proposed via N. Ten Mile Rd. Staff recommends the right-of-way for N. Fairborn Ave. is shifted to the east so that it touches Parcel #S0427142323 in a width adequate for the construction of a public street; or, right-of-way is dedicated for a stub street to the out-parcel. This is necessary because Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 119 of 248 Page 6 without a public street connection to Fairborn for the out-parcel, the cul-de-sac length will exceed the maximum of 450’ allowed by UDC 11-6C-3B-4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family detached dwellings as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are proposed with this development. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 17. Detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development in accord with UDC standards except for along S. Double Eagle Ln., the stub street to the north where attached sidewalks are 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 as shown on the landscape plan in accord with UDC standards. Class II trees are proposed within the parkways in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R- 8 district in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide buffer is required along N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street and entryway corridor; a street buffer in excess of UDC standards is proposed. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% (or 0.53 of an acre) qualified open space is required to be provided for the single-family residential portion of the development based on 5.25 acres of land per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.C that depicts 0.60 of an acre (or 11.43%) of qualified open space in excess of UDC standards consisting of parkways along all internal local streets, except for along S. Double Eagle Ln., and common area in excess of 50’ x 100’ in area. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided for the development based on 5.25 acres of land per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The Applicant is not proposing any amenities with this subdivision but requests that the second community pool and playground that was constructed in Phase 9, directly to the west of this site, be allowed to count toward the amenity required with this subdivision. Because this project will be included in the Bainbridge HOA and additional site amenities above the minimum required were provided in Bainbridge Subdivision, Staff is amenable to the Applicant’s request. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): No waterways cross this site. 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. Fencing is not depicted on the landscape plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 120 of 248 Page 7 The developer is required to construct fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots in residential areas to distinguish common from private areas; therefore, the landscape plan should depict fencing accordingly. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. 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. A 20-foot wide gravity irrigation easement is depicted on the plat along the southern boundary of the site. This is for the over-flow coming out of Hero’s Park that conveys irrigation water through and to the Bainbridge property. The Applicant has a water right that is delivered through this overflow and is combined with the McMullen and Harrell Laterals to provide the irrigation water for Bainbridge. The Applicant received Council approval in 2016 for the McMullen Lateral to be located within adjacent building lots rather than in a common lot (H-2016-0115). Staff recommends that approval be honored with this preliminary plat without further application. 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 were submitted for the proposed single-family dwellings as shown in Section VII.D, consistent with those constructed in previous phases of Bainbridge Subdivision. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat per the conditions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 121 of 248 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat (dated: 3/15/19) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 122 of 248 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 123 of 248 Page 10 B. Landscape Plan (date: 3/15/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 124 of 248 Page 11 C. Qualified Open Space Exhibit (dated: 3/27/19) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 125 of 248 Page 12 D. Conceptual Building Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 126 of 248 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 127 of 248 Page 14 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A, shall be revised as follows: a. Shift the right-of-way for N. Fairborn Ave. to the east across Lot 13, Block 30 so that it touches Parcel #S0427142323 in a width adequate for the construction of a public street; or, dedicate right-of-way for a stub street to the out-parcel. 2. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Depict fencing on building lots adjacent to common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A.7. b. Reconfigure the lot/right-of-way configuration per condition #1a above. 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 Applicant shall be required to enter into a Future Installation Agreement and fund one Type 1 streetlights on Ten Mile Road. Contact the Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator for more information. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 128 of 248 Page 15 available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 129 of 248 Page 16 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/165008/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were received E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) No comments were received F. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165339/Page1.aspx http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/PDF/v0ytj055glm4vgynydegsxy1/50/Settlers%20- %20Bainbridge%20Southeast.pdf G. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165348/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 130 of 248 Page 17 H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=165007&dbid=0 I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164960/Page1.aspx J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) A report has not yet been received from ACHD. IX. FINDINGS 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 accommodate 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 substantial 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 131 of 248 W zri O m Q� z z�.. m ZE LL 4 96 91 - Apr I: r - O N • + .•► -moi f � oa W �►� m ~ Z Co O I R f-� Q F"" rrW V I--+ WM W O r1IwJ T UV%jJUR - llvv lm3 0. Z if m xz��Z H°OQO J o i LLj �mwa>_ -- �°?ao i Q V, wooer A ar Auj�wW oC Z r . � H � M _ W W L H o 19 CL WP >J J �_._.. J L W CL i ;. 8T'10 -TT panOJdde---�1---'F�" 6'ON snS 39OR18NIVU 3 o 3 a �I N ` 1'N ONINV3e Jo sis o Z Z m o • m �� I,/z z �l N 1 N I 1 0 ° O w A O 14 L 0 O 1" M IW cs cs a oC 1" W� z a 1 a 1 3 N Z N O co N " z li 1 IN W' V)" 00 001 = a 1 Z z O z £.00S 1 3 = 1 0 ml " Z, 1 u O Jh 1 m .•J° O 3 m I 1 � I ujogjle j 'N 1 o n O tz ".4091 01 � O? ~j O Y ,£0'OZ£ M„45,8£.00S 00 N z'O Z 12,9 u O m • r, • ,00'081 M„45,8£.00S • ow a s 0 8 O Rs u s O a " O goo Q`. 'any 'N xejalej m00 o O y o fu N u 3 J O i m W j m O H r O� 0 00'OL£ 3„45,8£.00Noo Wo ” M o0 ¢1 O N n O M Z °° N Z o] 3 0 0, ao w U 3 'DAV wequanal'N o os 4£1 cn —d3 - Gy 47.10' 60 9Qj �n 41b ti N SII � C 30VId 3NIHSdo21H<, � 0 0 0 �, /rye,• o 0 0 ff � yy F I x _ _ _ 106.90' 66.45' 64.71' T 60.00' T ~ K 46.90' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60 �I G 01 �0 0 0 0 60.00' I a i� m d 4 0 0 0 x z � I - No L6 � rn � 'es •3na w.nols.dod .M y ,,fir n N h 0 r 0 0 (D O r O O 04-0 r 4 O O O 00 tD a} �Lr) O Or u " QOi LO 60.00' 60.00' 1 60.00' 60.00' 70.00' �n 108.35' �/rEDAHO IDIZ IANC -- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MOVANIMM Agenda Item Number: 4 D Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0027 Item Title: Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision By Devco Development, LLC., Located 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E. Jasmine Ln. Request: For a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include 4.10 acres of land which is currently in Boise's area of City Impact into Meridian's area of City Impact with a Mixed Use Regional future land use designation; and, For an Annexation and Zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57) and R-40 (3.64) zoning districts; and, For a Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for multi -family development and 12 common lots. Meeting Notes: 1 ons, �� -� ► y �, 2-o I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for D elano S ubdivision (H-2019-0027) by Devco D evelopment, L L C , L ocated 14120 W. J asmine L n. and 2800 E. J asmine L n. Applicant is Requesting a Continuance C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 4/30/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 132 of 248 Page 1 HEARING DATE: May 2, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0027 Delano Subdivision LOCATION: 2800 & 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comprehensive Plan map amendment to include 4.10 acres of land currently in Boise’s Area of City Impact and planning area in Meridian’s planning area with a Mixed Use – Regional Future Land Use Map designation; Annexation & zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57 acres) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and, Preliminary plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for a 96-unit multi-family development and 12 common lots on 15.21 acres of land in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT 1. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 15.21 Future Land Use Designation MDR (in City of Meridian) & Mixed Use (in City of Boise) Existing Land Use 2 existing homes & accessory structures Proposed Land Use(s) Residential (SFR, attached & detached) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 & R-40 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 85 SFR building/12 common/1 MFR building Phasing plan (# of phases) Yes; 2 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 181 SFR units (18 attached/67 detached SFR, 96 MFR apartments) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 133 of 248 Page 2 2. Community Metrics Density (gross & net) 7.35 (SFR, R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) gross; 11.8 (SFR, R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) net Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) See Analysis, Section V.3 Amenities Shade structure, (2) play structures, benches, pedestrian walkways Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: February 25, 2019; 92 attendees History (previous approvals) None Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes (tentatively scheduled to be heard on May 22, 2019) This project is being heard by the ACHD Commission because of objections from neighbors pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and connectivity to Centrepoint Way Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1.3 miles from Fire Station #3 (can meet the response time requirements)  Fire Response Time 3 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 82% from Fire Station #3 – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification 2 (residential); see comments in Section VIII.C  Accessibility Meets requirements; FD is concerned as there is no visitor parking in the development resulting in people parking in areas that may block access to residences. See additional comments in Section VIII.C.  Special/resource needs Doesn’t require an aerial device  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour (may be less if building is sprinklered)  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 5 miles  Police Response Time 4:30 minutes  Calls for Service 0  Accessibility PD has no issues with proposed access Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 134 of 248 Page 3  Specialty/resourc e needs No additional resources are needed; MPD already services this area.  Crimes 0  Crashes 0 West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Discovery Elementary – 2.8 miles; Heritage Middle School – 3.1 miles; Rocky Mountain High School – 5.5 miles  Capacity of Schools Discovery Elementary 650; Heritage Middle School 1,000; Rocky Mountain High School 1,800  # of Students Enrolled Discovery Elementary 515; Heritage Middle School 1,254; Rocky Mountain High School 2,448  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development 68 Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0-feet  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 181  WRRF Declining Balance 13.66 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A -3, A-4, A- 5, C-1 and D-5. Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in N. Centrepoint Way to the north boundary line. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 135 of 248 Page 4 3. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Norm Cook – 14120 W. Jasmine Ln., Boise, ID 83713 according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in Boise. Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 136 of 248 Page 5 Eddy Bollinger – 2800 E. Jasmine Ln., Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/12/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/9/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 4/22/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT The eastern 4.10 acres of the site located on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way is currently located within Boise’s Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary and within their Comprehensive Plan with a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of General Mixed Use (see https://pds.cityofboise.org/media/151844/bb_chapter_3_06142018.pdf pgs. 3-11 thru 3-16 for more information on this designation) which encompasses the following: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 137 of 248 Page 6 The Applicant proposes to amend the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan to include this parcel in the City’s planning area with a FLUM designation of Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) per Exhibit A in Section VII of this report. The MU-R designation provides for 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. For example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. Staff believes the requested MU-R designation is appropriate due to the adjacent MU-R designated land to the south in the City of Meridian and the General Mixed use designated property to the north and east in the City of Boise; and due to the parcel’s proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major transportation corridor and major arterial intersections (i.e. Ustick/Eagle and McMillan/Eagle). The proposed high density residential development will provide supporting residential uses for the commercial developments along the Eagle Road corridor. A few months ago, the Applicant submitted a request to the City of Boise to modify the boundary of their planning area to accomodate this project being included in Meridian’s planning area and FLUM but later withdrew the request the week the City Council was set to formally consider it. Therefore, the property is still in the Boise’s planning area and AOCI boundary. Staff would be more comfortable with this request if the Applicant had gained approval from the City of Boise to remove this area from their planning area prior to submittal of the subject application. Because the City can provide water and sewer service to this parcel, the land to the west and south is within Meridian’s planning area, and the greater portion of the development area for this project is currently within the City of Meridian’s planning area, it makes sense for the entire property to develop in the City of Meridian. Similarly, there have been other instances (i.e. Movado, Fast Eddy’s) where a development property is split between the City of Meridian and City of Boise where the balance of the property has been annexed into Meridian and developed. For efficient provision of City services, the parcel to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) should also be included in the map amendment. Inclusion of that property would allow City water and sewer services to eventually be extended to the south in N. Centrepoint Way from E. Wainwright Dr. where they currently dead-end (see map below), into a loop system (see Public Work’s condition #1.4 in Section VIII.B). Unimproved right-of-way (ROW) (400’+/-) within the City’s planning area exists from Wainwright to the north boundary of the parcel to the north. If the property to the north which lies in between the subject property and the existing ROW is not included in the City’s planning/service area, this connection will not be possible. See Public Works comments in Section VIII.B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 138 of 248 Page 7 Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the map amendment contingent upon the property to the north also being included per Exhibit A in Section VII; otherwise Staff does not believe it’s in the City’s best interest to approve the proposed map amendment. Note: Denial of the map amendment will also necessitate denial of the Annexation and Zoning request for the (R-40) east parcel as it cannot be annexed without being included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. ANNEXATION & ZONING The applicant requests annexation and zoning of the 11.57 acres west of N. Centrepoint Way with an R-15 zoning district; and the 5 acres east of N. Centrepoint Way with an R-40 zoning district consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations. The eastern portion of the annexation area is considered a Category A annexation. Idaho State Statute 50-222.3(a) states, “Category A: Annexations wherein: (i) All private landowners have consented to annexation. Annexation where all landowners have consented may extend beyond the city area of impact provided that the land is contiguous to the city and that the comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation; . . .” The landowner has consented to this application and the Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include this land in the City of Meridian’s planning area in accord with this statute so the property can be annexed into the City of Meridian. Note: The parcel to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) recommended by Staff to be included in the amendment to the FLUM is not part of the annexation request. Annexation of that parcel would take place upon future redevelopment of that parcel at the property owner’s request. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 139 of 248 Page 8 Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the portion of this site west of N. Centrepoint Way is Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City of Meridian; the portion of the site east of N. Centrepoint Way is currently located in the City of Boise’s Area of City Impact boundary and is designated General Mixed Use. As noted in the previous section, the Applicant proposes to amend the FLUM to include the eastern parcel in the City of Meridian’s planning area with a MU-R FLUM designation. The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre. The MU-R designation allows high density multi-family developments as supporting uses for higher intense commercial uses such as those to the south and east of this site along a major transportation corridor (i.e. Eagle Rd./SH-55) and near arterial intersections (i.e. McMillan/Eagle Rds. & Ustick/Eagle Rds.). Land Use: The proposed land use for this site is single-family residential (SFR) and a future multi-family residential (MFR) development (i.e. apartments). A total of 85 (18 attached and 67 detached) SFR units at a gross density of 7.36 units per acre, and a net density of 11.8 units per acre are proposed; and 96 apartment units are planned to develop in the future at a gross and net density of 27 units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with that desired in the MDR and MU-R designations respectively. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed single-family dwellings (attached & detached) are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district; and the multi-family development is listed as a conditional use in the R-40 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. Concept Plan: The Applicant submitted a concept development plan for the property to the north (Parcel # R4582530100) at Staff’s request to demonstrate how the property could possibly redevelop with the extension of N. Centrepoint Way to the north as planned on the MSM (see Section VII.E). Transportation: The Master Street Map (MSM) depicts a planned north/south commercial collector street through this site from the south boundary to the north boundary eventually connecting to E. Wainwright Dr. for access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. 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 SFR attached and detached homes and MFR apartment units are proposed within this development which will provide ownership and rental options for various income groups in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 140 of 248 Page 9  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the employment and shopping center uses along the Eagle Rd. corridor.  “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 density proposed in the multi-family portion of the development falls within the high density category. The site is located within a mile of Kleiner Memorial Park, a 60-acre City Park, and is in close proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major access thoroughfare.  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) The MSM depicts a north/south collector street through this site; the proposed plan depicts a collector street in accord with the MSM.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) Qualified open space in accord with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 is required.  “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 on the west side of N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street, to the SFR portion of the development; and one (1) access is proposed on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way for the MFR portion of the development.  “Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit development.” (6.02.02H) This site is not currently served by public transportation. However, ValleyConnect 2.0 proposes bus service on Eagle Rd. from the Boise Research Center to downtown Kuna with 20 minute frequencies in the peak hour. The Closest bus stop would be less than ½ mile from this site when that route is operational.  “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) There are no pathway connections to this development from adjacent developments to the north and south other than sidewalks adjacent to public streets. Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on each side of N. Centrepoint Way. 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 MFR development is 27 units per acre which falls within the range desired in mixed use designated areas. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 141 of 248 Page 10 • “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.” The proposed development incorporates a MFR component along with the SFR development and is in close proximity (i.e. 460’) to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. The proposed development will provide housing options for nearby employment centers. • “A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application.” A concept plan was included on the landscape plan for the future MFR development in conjunction with the SFR development currently proposed. • “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 include 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 single-family attached and detached units will provide a transition in density and lot sizes between larger single-family residential lots to the north and the townhomes/multi-family lots to the south. This development does not include any commercial uses; however, the proposed multi-family development on the eastern portion of the site will provide a transition between the proposed single-family attached and detached units and future commercial/mixed uses along Eagle Rd. • “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 apartment units). Within the overall mixed use designated area, which incorporates land on both sides of Eagle Rd./SH55 to the south to Fairview Ave., there are a mix of uses as desired consisting of commercial (retail, restaurants, etc.), office and residential 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 nor have they been developed on the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south. • “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 have been provided in the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south. • “All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians.” Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 142 of 248 Page 11 The proposed development plan shows interconnectivity with the residential neighborhood to the north providing accessibility to the commercial development to the south via N. Centrepoint Way. • “Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code.” The proposed development plan includes a north/south collector street (i.e. N. Centrepoint Way) consistent with the Master Street Map. • “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 comprise 100% of the site. Densities of the SFR and MFR developments are 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 MU-R designated land to the south incorporates a large amount of retail commercial uses. • “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 and R-40 zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations and is appropriate for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north and south; the R-15 area is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI) and the R-40 area is outside of the AOCI 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. 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two (2) existing homes and accessory structures on this site. These structures are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 143 of 248 Page 12 The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-7 for the R-15 and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning districts (see below). The proposed plat complies with these standards. Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): The proposed subdivision is required to be designed and improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 which include but are not limited to streets, driveways, common driveways, easements, and block face. The proposed plan complies with these standards. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases. The first phase will include the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. from the north through the site to N. Centrepoint Way. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)/Streets: Jasmine Lane, a 50-foot wide private street, currently provides access to the lots in Jasmine Acres Subdivision, including the subject properties. The private street is depicted on the Jasmine Acres subdivision plat. Staff is unaware if a separate recorded easement exists for the private street. Where the easement crosses the subject property it should be relinquished; proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 144 of 248 Page 13 One access is proposed on either side of N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street; and from the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. at the north boundary of the site. A stub street (E. Jasmine St.) is proposed to the parcel to the west for access and future extension. Public streets are proposed within the SFR portion of the development with 27-foot wide street sections; private drive aisles will be provided within the MFR portion of the development. Staff recommends N. Centrepoint Way is extended/constructed with the first phase of development from the southern to the northern boundary of the site so that if re- development of the property to the north occurs before the multi-family portion of this site, the connection to Wainwright Dr. can be made and services can be extended as soon as possible. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by ACHD for the proposed development; however, the Applicant did include an informal traffic analysis in their application narrative based on ACHD’s Policy Manual that takes into consideration existing traffic volumes in relation to anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed development and the resulting impacts to Wainwright Dr. & Dashwood Pl. The analysis shows the total trips per day on Wainwright at 41% of total capacity; and on Dashwood at 44% of total capacity resulting in 56-59% under total capacity for these streets, which should not overburden existing roadways systems if these calculations are correct. See application narrative for more information. Many letters of testimony have been received from adjacent residential property owners to the north regarding the amount of traffic that will be generated from the proposed development and routed through their neighborhood. For this reason, it’s imperative that the Centrepoint Way connection to Wainwright occur as soon as possible; thus, the reason for Staff’s recommendation for the property to the north to be included in the amendment to the FLUM and for the construction of Centrepoint to the northern boundary of the annexation area to occur with the first phase of development. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Three (3) 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. Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways on Lot 12, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 19, Block 2 for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the Fire Department. Transition: There are 6 single-story structures with 10 dwelling units/properties proposed along the west boundary of this site adjacent to the 8.2 acre rural residential property to the west, which is currently in Ada County and designated as MDR (3-8 units/acre) on the FLUM. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 145 of 248 Page 14 There are 5.5 existing single-story residential properties to the north that abut this site that are 0.31-0.38 of an acre in size; 10 structures with 15 dwelling units/properties are proposed along the north boundary of the site. The Applicant submitted an exhibit (I) in the narrative of the application that demonstrates the proposed structures and lots in relation to existing homes, shops, parking areas and yards. Because the homes proposed along the north and west boundaries will all be a single-story in height, Staff believes they will have a lesser impact on adjacent neighbors than 2-story homes would have; therefore, Staff is not recommending a greater transition in lot sizes is proposed. However, the Commission and City Council should consider any public testimony provided in determining if fewer lots/structures should be provided along these boundaries as a better transition to existing residential properties. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 1- bedroom units, a minimum of 2 spaces per unit are required with at least one of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. For 2-3 bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces per unit are required with at least 2 of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pads. Because of the proposed reduced 27-foot wide street sections, parking is restricted to one side of the street only. 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 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 (56 spaces) is also available adjacent to common lots within 200’ from any home within the development (see Exhibit H in Section VII). Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): 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. Because interconnectivity is important and especially so in mixed use developments, Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on each side of N. Centrepoint Way. 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 local street abutting common areas 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 Tables 11-2A-7 and 11-2A-8, a 20-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 146 of 248 Page 15 Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Based on the overall development area which consists of 15.21 acres of land, a minimum of 10% (1.52 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 submitted as shown in Section VII.F that depicts 1.33 acres (or 11.5%) of open space for the SFR portion of the development consisting of a half-acre park with amenities, parkways, a micro-path lot, a collector street buffer and a local street buffer. Alternative Compliance is requested to count the local street/land use buffer along the southern boundary of the site toward the qualified open space requirements (see Section 4 below for more information). The qualified open space on the MFR portion of the site east side of Centrepoint Way includes area that does not qualify (i.e. the perimeter buffer along the east boundary) and is below the 10% required of the total land area (i.e. 5 acres). Because that portion of the site is not planned to develop at this time and is conceptual in nature and likely to change, Staff recommends a DA provision is added requiring a minimum 10% qualified open space is provided at the time of development that meets the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B. This requirement is in addition to that required in UDC 11-4-3-27C for MFR developments. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided for this development based on the size of the development (i.e. 15.21 acres). The Applicant proposes a shade structure, children’s play structure, children’s climbing dome, children’s climbing boulders, seating benches, micro-pathways and possibly a swing set as amenities, which exceed UDC standards. Existing Trees: There are many existing trees on this site the Applicant states are being removed by the residential property owner for firewood. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees that are not removed by the property owner in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Nourse Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site and is piped. An easement should be depicted on the plat for the waterway. If the easement is 10 feet or greater, it should be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D. 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. The existing fencing along the north and southwest boundaries of the site is proposed to remain. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west, south and east boundaries of the SFR portion of the site as well as along the north, east and south boundaries of the MFR portion of the site in accord with UDC standards. A 4-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the perimeter of the children’s play area on Lot 1, Block 3. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII-B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 147 of 248 Page 16 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 were submitted for the proposed single-family attached and detached units and multi-family apartment 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. 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. All SFR homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development will be a single-story in height. Because the rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-18 and 51, Block 2 that face N. Centrepoint Way will be highly visible, Staff recommends those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement. Public Testimony: Many letters of testimony have been received on this application, primarily from residential neighbors to the north in Alpine Pointe Subdivision (aka Zebulon Heights). The primary concerns are the intensity of the development (i.e. density is too high); not enough transition in lot sizes to lower larger lots to the north; extension of N. Dashwood Pl. and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from this development and from the developments to the south that will be routed through their subdivision until Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright in a more direct fashion; and safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic. The neighbors have suggested several alternate development plans that would result in less traffic through their neighborhood. See public testimony in the project file for more information. 4. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The applicant requests alternative compliance to UDC 11-3G-3B, as allowed in UDC Table 11- 5B-5, to be allowed to count the area of a local street buffer toward the minimum qualified open space for the development. The qualified open space pertaining to street buffers listed in UDC 11-3G-3B allows the full area of collector street buffers and 50% of arterial street buffers to count toward the minimum required common open space; local street buffers do not count toward the minimum requirements. The Applicant proposes to construct a 29-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the SFR portion of the site with dense landscaping along E. Jasmine St., a local street, to buffer the abutting 3-story apartment structures in Brickyard Subdivision. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 148 of 248 Page 17 In order to grant a request for Alternative Compliance, the Director must determine if the alternative provides an equal or superior means of meeting the intent and purpose of the regulation (see Findings in Section IX.D). The Director has reviewed the request and finds the proposed alternative means for meeting the intended purpose of UDC 11-3G-3 has been met. VI. DECISION 1. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment if the parcel to the north (R4582530100) is also included, the Annexation & Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications with the conditions included in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX. If the parcel to the north (R4582530100) is not included in the map amendment, Staff recommends denial of annexation and zoning request for the eastern parcel (i.e. R-40 zone). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 149 of 248 Page 18 VII. EXHIBITS A. Applicant Proposed & Staff Recommended Future Land Use Maps Proposed by Applicant: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 150 of 248 Page 19 Recommended by Staff: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 151 of 248 Page 20 B. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 152 of 248 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 153 of 248 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 154 of 248 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 155 of 248 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 156 of 248 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 157 of 248 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 158 of 248 Page 27 C. Preliminary Plat (date: 2/18/2019) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 159 of 248 Page 28 D. Landscape Plan (date: 2/20/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 160 of 248 Page 29 E. Possible Conceptual Development Plan for Parcel to the North Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 161 of 248 Page 30 F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit & Site Amenities Note: Only qualified open space depicted in the R-15 zoned area is approved. Not Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 162 of 248 Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 163 of 248 Page 32 G. Conceptual Building Elevations (Single-Family Attached/Detached and Multi-Family Apartments) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 164 of 248 Page 33 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 165 of 248 Page 34 H. Parking Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 166 of 248 Page 35 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. 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. c. Single-family homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development shall be restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer. d. The rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-18 and 51, Block 2 that face N. Centrepoint Way shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. e. 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. f. The construction of N. Centrepoint Way from the southern boundary to the northern boundary of the annexation area shall occur with the first phase of development. g. The Developer shall coordinate with the developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on the west and east sides of N. Centrepoint Way. h. A minimum 10% (0.5 of an acre) qualified open space shall be provided with development of the portion of the site on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way based on the total land area before dedication of right-of-way (i.e. 5 acres) as set forth in UDC 11- 3G-3B. This requirement is in addition to the common open space standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C for multi-family developments. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 167 of 248 Page 36 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict an easement for the Nourse Lateral along the north boundary of the site. If the easement is 10 feet or greater, it shall be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees on the site that are not removed by the residential property owner for fire wood in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. 4. The 50-foot wide private street easement (i.e. Jasmine Lane) shall be relinquished where it crosses the subject property. Proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 5. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit shall 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) shall 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. Provide address signage for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lot 12, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 19, Block 2 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 phase in which they are located. 9. Parking is restricted to only one side of the 27-foot wide street sections; signage shall be installed prohibiting parking on one side of the street to ensure emergency access can be provided. 10. The Director approved the Applicant’s request for Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3G-3 to count the local street buffer along the south side of E. Jasmine St. toward the qualified open space. 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 The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A-3, A-4, A-5, C-1 and D-5. Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in N. Centrepoint Way to the north boundary line. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 168 of 248 Page 37 1.3 Each phase must be modeled to ensure adequate fire flow. 1.4 Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in Boise. If the area being considered for inclusion is to be served by the City of Meridian, the Public Works Department would like to have a completed water main loop north to the existing water main in E. Wainwright Drive. The purpose of this loop is not for flow and pressure reasons, it is to create redundancy and for mitigation of water quality concerns created by dead end mainlines. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 169 of 248 Page 38 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 170 of 248 Page 39 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/164748/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165252/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165379/Page1.aspx F. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165231/Page1.aspx G. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164812/Page1.aspx H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=165010&dbid=0 I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164959/Page1.aspx J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165083/Page1.aspx K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) A report has not yet been received from ACHD; this project is tentatively scheduled before the ACHD Commission on May 22, 2019. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 171 of 248 Page 40 IX. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the proposed map amendment and FLUM designation of MU-R is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the property to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) is also included in the map amendment as detailed in Section V.1 of this report. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Staff finds that the proposal to modify the Future Land Use Map to include a parcel of land that is currently in the City of Boise’s planning area for development in the City, along with the adjacent parcel to the north as recommended, will provide an improved guide to future growth and development of the City. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposed amendment as recommended by Staff is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Staff finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with adjacent existing residential and future commercial uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 7. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Staff finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City if the parcel to the north is also included in the amendment as recommended by Staff in Section V.1. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 172 of 248 Page 41 B. 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 property with R-15 and R-40 zoning consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R designations. If the property to the north of the land proposed to be zoned R-40 is not included in the FLUM amendment, Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (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 medium and high density residential uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential and commercial uses in the area. 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.J that currently show student enrollment is below capacity for the elementary school and over capacity for the middle school and high school. 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. C. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) 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 accommodate the proposed development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 173 of 248 Page 42 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. D. Alternative Compliance (UDC 11-5B-5E) Required Findings: In order to grant approval for an Alternative Compliance application, the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or Staff finds that strict adherence or application of the requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 are feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Staff finds the proposed alternative means of compliance provides an equal means for meeting the requirements in UDC 11-3G-3. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Staff finds the alternative means of complying with UDC 11-3G-3 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties and will actually be a benefit to the public welfare by providing a buffer between the high density and medium density residential uses and 2- and 3-story structures. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 174 of 248 EIDIAN*,----,IZ DAHO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 2, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 E Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0059 Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment By Devco Development, LLC. Request: For a Text Amendment to Change the Naming Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-41 R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R -A, R -B, R -C, R -D and R -E, and Modify other related sections in Chapters 1-3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed Naming Convention. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from November 15, 2018 for Residential District Naming C onvention Text Amendment (H-2018-0059) by D evCo Development L L C Applicant is Requesting Withdraw of Application C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 4/29/2019 Minutes from Previous Planning and Z oning Commission Hearing B ackup Material 4/29/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 175 of 248 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: May, 2, 2019; continued from November 15, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0059 Residential District Naming Convention and R-15 Dimensional Standards Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NOTE: This project was continued so the applicant’s request could be reviewed by members of the UDC Focus Group. Staff distributed these changes along with one’s the City is processing with the subsequent City initiated UDC text amendment application. Staff hasn’t receive any feedback on the proposed changes to the R-15 zoning district from the UDC Focus Group participants. During the November 15, 2018 Commission hearing, the Commission did acknowledge the applicant’s request to withdraw the Residential Naming Convention portion of the text amendment. Staff has updated to the staff report in a strike-through and underline format for the Commission’s consideration on the R-15 dimensional standards only. Request for a text amendment to change the naming convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R- 4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D and R-E, modify other related sections in Chapters 1-3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to coincide with the proposed naming convention AND modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 district for the purpose of specifying certain setbacks along private streets, common driveways, interior side yards and the perimeter of a development with private streets. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: DevCo Development LLC [Phone: (208) 336-5355] III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: April 19, 2019 B. PSA distributed: April 16, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 176 of 248 Page 2 C. Next door posting: April 16, 2019 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval to modify the several sections of the UDC as follows: 1. Proposing to change the map symbol of the R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 zones to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, and R-E zones. Because the request impacts other sections of the UDC, additional modifications are necessary to coincide with the proposed change. 2. Modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 zone (proposed as R-D with the first request) for the purpose of specifying certain setbacks along private streets, common driveways, interior side yards and the perimeter of a development with private streets. The first modification is being requested because the applicant contends the current numerical notation confuses the public which believe it still correlates the number to a maximum density of a particular residential zone. A previous UDC text amendment, approved by City Council, removed the maximum density requirements from Chapter 2 of the UDC. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and the housing types that can be accommodated. The Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document that specifies the density requirements for a property. For the last several years, City staff has contemplated renaming the residential map symbol to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designations. Staff was hoping to have this discussion with the UDC Focus group for additional input and guidance but the applicant didn’t want to wait on the City timeframes for implementing the change. Staff is not supportive of the requested changes to the naming of the districts as proposed by the applicant. Staff is of the opinion that the residential district should be retitled to align more closely with the nomenclature of the zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan as follows:  Low density residential - R-LD  Medium low density residential - R-MLD  Medium density residential - R-MD  Medium high density residential - R-MHD  High density residential - R-HD This naming convention would also be more consistent with the other zoning designations in the UDC; for example Light Industrial District (I-L). If the request is approved, the County Assessor office would be responsible for changing the zoning symbol for over 39,000 parcels that are currently zoned R-2 through R-40 districts. The City has not contacted any of the affected property owners to inform them of the potential for the name change. Further, the City has embarked on the Comprehensive Plan update which complicates the timing for the requested change. Typically, code updates should occur after the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan to ensure alignment between the two (2) documents. Commission should determine if it is the best interest of the City to modify the residential district symbols before the adoption of the new Plan and soliciting further input from Meridian residents. The second request is to add or change the setbacks of the R-15 zone when a property takes access from a private street or common driveway. The applicant believes the changes are necessary to allow for increased flexibility in the housing types to meet market demand. The City has approved several developments for the applicant (East Ridge Estates and Movado Village) in which there have been issues with the complying with the current setbacks of the R-15 setbacks, specifically the 12-foot rear yard. With Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 177 of 248 Page 3 these development approvals, a central common open space and clubhouse are to serve as the primary open space and amenities for these communities. In order to provide some livability to the home on lots were no rear yards may exist, the applicant is proposing that the home provide a minimum of a 120 square foot patio as part of the requested modifications. To support the requested dimensional changes, the applicant has provided exhibits. Staff supports some of the dimensional standard changes that the applicant is proposing, except for the proposal for the 1.5’ setback for the structure from the common driveway. Staff believes the applicant should apply a consistent setback of 3’ to allow for adequate separation of the structure and the common driveway. Additionally, the applicant is proposing zero setbacks but doesn’t indicate whether a zero lot line means an attached structure. Historically, when zero lot lines are depicted on a plat, staff has required the applicant to construct attached homes. Therefore, staff recommends that a footnote be added to the UDC table requiring attached homes to be constructed when a zero lot line is depicted. Further, staff has concerns with how drainage will function on these lots. Currently, the City doesn’t have an adequate grading and drainage ordinance and there has been an increase in the number of citizen complaints on these issues. NOTE: If the proposed setbacks are approved, this will take additional staff time to review plans for conformance of these setbacks with the proposed standards. The applicant was given the option of proceeding forward through the PUD process to request the desired setbacks without amending the dimensional standards of the UDC. Per the Comprehensive Plan, City staff is responsible for ensuring diverse housing in the community and keeping the UDC current with local trends. Below are a few policies that support the applicant’s request.  Amend the Unified Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to ensure a wide variety of housing types can be developed and properly zoned and land is available (3.07.01A)  Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan (7.01.01A) In general, staff is supportive of the overall proposed changes. In the Exhibit Section below, Staff has inserted the applicant’s requested modifications and associated support documents. Because staff is recommending modifications to the applicant’s request, staff has provided a strike-through and underline version of staff’s recommended changes and included additional changes that were inadvertently missed with the applicant’s request. Written Testimony: As of the print date of the staff report, the City has received multiple responses from the public not supporting the proposed changes. Please refer to the public record for the specific comments on the subject application. V. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, modifications in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 178 of 248 Page 4 VI. EXHIBITS A. Applicant’s Proposed UDC Text Amendment Changes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 179 of 248 Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 180 of 248 Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 181 of 248 Page 7 B. Staff’s Recommended UDC Text Changes 11-1A-1 Definition of Terms RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: For the purposes of this title, the term residential district shall include the Low-Density Residential District (R-ALD)(R-2), Medium Low-Density Residential District(R-BMLD) (R-4), Medium-Density Residential District (R-CMD) (R-8), Medium High-Density Residential District(R-DMHD) (R-15), High-Density Residential District(R-EHD) (R-40), and Traditional Neighborhood Residential District (TN-R). 11-2-1: ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED: For the purpose of this title, the incorporated territory of the city of Meridian, Idaho, is divided into the following districts: Districts Map Symbol Residential Low-density residential district R-2 R-ALD Medium low-density residential district R-4 R-BMLD Medium-density residential district R-8 R-CMD Medium high-density residential district R-15 R-DMHD High-density residential district R-40 R-EHD Commercial Neighborhood business district C-N Community business district C-C General retail and service commercial district C-G Limited office district L-O Mixed employment M-E High density employment H-E Industrial Light industrial district I-L Heavy industrial district I-H Traditional neighborhood Old Town O-T Traditional neighborhood center TN-C Traditional neighborhood residential TN-R TABLE 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-ALD R-2 R-BMLD R-4 R-CMD R-8 R-DMHD R-15 R-EHD R-40 Arts, entertainment or recreation facility, outdoors1 - - C C C Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 182 of 248 Page 8 Cemetery1 - C C C C Church or place of religious worship1 - - C C C Civic, social or fraternal organizations1 - - C C C Daycare center1 - C C P P Daycare, family1 - A A A C Daycare, group1 - - C P P Direct sales3 A A A A A Dwelling, secondary1 A A A A A Dwelling, single-family attached - C P P P Dwelling, single-family detached P P P P A/C Dwelling, townhouse - C P P C Dwelling, two-family duplex - C P P C Education institution, private1 - C C C C Education institution, public1 - C C P/C P/C Home, manufactured or mobile subdivision - - C C C Home occupation, accessory use1 A A A A A Laundromat1 - - - A A/C Manufactured home park - - - C - Multi-family development1,2 - - - C C Nursing or residential care facility1 - - C C C Parking facility - - - - C Parks, public and private P P P P P Personal service - - - - A Professional service - - - - A Public, infrastructure C C C C C Public or quasi-public use1 - - C C C Public utility, minor P P P P P Recreational vehicle park - - - - C Restaurant - - - - A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 183 of 248 Page 9 Storage facility, outside1 A A A A A Storage facility, self-service1 A A A A A Vertically integrated residential project1 - - - C C Wireless communication facility1 P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Wireless communication facility, amateur radio antenna1 A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C Notes: 1. Indicates uses that are subject to specific use standards in accord with chapter 4 of this title. 2. Multi-family dwellings may be allowed in the R-BMLD R-4 and R-CMD R-8 Land Use Districts when included in a planned unit development (PUD). 3. Subject to the home occupation, accessory use standards set forth in section 11-4-3-21 of this title 11-2A-3F F. Living Space: Excluding the garage, all detached residential dwelling units in the R-2LD and R-4MLD districts shall meet minimum living space size requirements in accord with sections 11-2A-4 and 11-2A-5 of this article. 11-2A-4: LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-2LD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-2LD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-4 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-2LD DISTRICT R-2LD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 12,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 80 Rear setback (in feet) 15 Interior side setback (in feet) 7.5/story Street setback1 (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 184 of 248 Page 10 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Minimum living area (in square feet) 1,500 Minimum ground floor area for multi-story units (in square feet) 800 11-2A-5: MEDIUM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4MLD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-4MLD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-5 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-4MLD DISTRICT R-4MLD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 8,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 60 Rear setback (in feet) 15 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Street setback1 to front loaded garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 15 Collector 25 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 185 of 248 Page 11 Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Minimum living area (in square feet): Detached 1,400 Attached 800 Minimum ground floor area for multi-story units (in square feet) 800 11-2A-6: MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8MD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-8MD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-6 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-8MD DISTRICT R-8MD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 186 of 248 Page 12 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 11-2A-7: MEDIUM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15MHD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-15MHD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-7 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R- R-15MHD DISTRICT R-15MHD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 2,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 0 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 187 of 248 Page 13 Collector 25 Alley 5 Private Street 20 Common Driveway1 20 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 20 Alley 5 Private Street 10 Common Driveway1,5 1.5’- 3’ Interior side setback (in feet)3,4,5 0 or 3’ Public Street Rear setback (in feet) 12 Private Street Setback (in feet): Rear setback3,4,5 0 or 3’ Exterior boundary of entire development 12’ Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 40 Notes: 1. Measured from back of sidewalk, back of common driveway 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. 3. A public utility, irrigation and drainage easement shall be 3’ wide adjacent to interior lot lines except where occupied by an attached zero lot line structure. 4. A minimum of one hundred and twenty (120) square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose state ments of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11 -5B-5 of this title. 5. Up to 50% of the building face adjacent to a common driveway may be 1.5’from the edge of pavement. 5. Any property line with a zero lot line depicted shall attach the units. 11-2A-8: HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-40HD): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 188 of 248 Page 14 Dimensional standards for development in the R-40HD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-8 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-40HD DISTRICT R-40HD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 1,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 0 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Interior side setback (in feet) 3 Street setback to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 20 Alley 5 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 189 of 248 Page 15 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 60 11-3A-7: FENCES: C. Additional standards in the R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, L-O, O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts: 11-3D-5: SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION SIGNS B. Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for subdivision identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to subdivision identification signs in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-6: MARKETING SIGNS: B. Signs In Residential Districts For Three Or Less Dwelling Units: In addition to the general standards for marketing signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to marketing signs for three (3) or less dwelling units per property in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR- 8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): C. Signs In Residential Districts For Multi-Family Developments: In addition to the general standards for marketing signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to marketing signs for multi- family developments and allowed nonresidential uses in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-7: CONSTRUCTION SIGNS: B. Construction Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for construction signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to construction signs in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-8B and 11-3D-8C B. Business Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for residential districts (R-2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R): 1. In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for residential districts for dwelling and accessory uses (R-2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R): C. Business Signs For Multi-Family Developments And Allowed Nonresidential Uses: In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for multi-family developments and allowed nonresidential uses (R- 2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R), excluding accessory uses: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 190 of 248 Page 16 VII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved with staff’s recommendations in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved with staff’s recommendations in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendments to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 191 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 124 of 144 Fitzgerald: I think you need to make it a requirement. McCarvel: Make it a condition. They can do it if they -- Holland: All right. So, revising my modifications -- I'm not going to read the whole thing again. Modifying that the applicant would work closely with Brighton, ACHD, to establish an agreement before this goes to City Council about the Fox Run access and if that Fox Run access is not available, it would need to come back to Planning and Zoning for further review. And, second, that ACHD would work closely with the applicant on the firehouse access, that they would add traffic calming measures to Bergman, that we would put a request that the applicant -- or a condition that the applicant would include some of this multi-story office live-work space as part of phase one in the development process. What else am I missing? Fitzgerald: I second your motion. That's all you're missing. I think. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2017-0088 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: And, believe it or not, we are not done yet. Anybody want to stand up and move around? Fitzgerald: Stretch. Recess: 12:49 p.m. to 12:52 p.m.) G. Public Hearing Continued from September 6, October 18, 2018 for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment H- 2018- 0059) by DevCo Development LLC 1. Request: A Text Amendment to Change the Naming Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, R-D and R-E, and Modify Other Related Sections in Chapters 1 - 3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed Naming Convention McCarvel: All right. At this time I would like to open Public Hearing Item H-2018-0059 and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 192 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 125 of 144 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Good morning. So, this item was continued from the November hearing and the main reason for it is you gave the applicant and myself some homework to come back and bring forward to you. The applicant did provide an update to you and that is included as part of your application packet. But I did want to mention that the applicant has withdrawn their request to go forward with the residential naming convention change at this time. So, really, the only thing that he wants you to take under advisement this evening -- or this morning is the changes to the R-15 zoning district. So, what I will do is -- as part of my presentation the Commission wanted me to look at other jurisdictions in the valley and through the country to see are there other places that are -- that use these types of setbacks in their jurisdictions and so I had a new planner that came to us, thought it was a good exercise for him to go through some of the zoning codes, so I thought I would share some of that information with you. What I can tell you is a lot of it is -- there -- what we are doing as part of this change isn't what I found in other areas. What I have found is similar lot sizes, similar setbacks, like zero setbacks and five foot setbacks, but nothing specifically to having setbacks off a private street and/or a common driveway. So, I will quickly go through these. I won't spend too much time, but you asked for it, so what we did is we looked at the valley in general and, then, we went to -- out to Portland and those areas to see what some -- some of the larger cities, more progressive cities are doing out there as far as setbacks. So, this is the city of Boise here before you. You can see they have an R-1M zone. You can see their -- what their lot sizes are. Pretty typical. And, then, again, side yard setbacks, zero to five feet. I mean that's -- that's pretty typical in most of these scenarios. Eagle. Similar. For the head lot coverage. So, minimum lot sizes here you can see and, then, we went to Caldwell. Some of their zones are a little bit different than ours, but you get the gist of it. There is heights, setbacks, minimum lot sizes. They don't even go down to the lot sizes that we go in some of our zones, which you get an R-15 zone the minimum lot sizes is 2,000 square feet, but you can see their setbacks here. They have six and 15. It's not a good example for you there. Kuna is a little different, too. So, here they have an R-12 and an R-20. The minimum street frontage is here. Some setbacks. Garden City. Again, R- 20. As your interior setback zero. Five feet from the side and, then, five and five for the front and rear. So, there is probably the best example that I could find in the valley for you as far as getting down to that zero and three foot setbacks and you can see here it's an R-20 zone. So, it would be quite dense. And that's explained here, you know, they are looking at a minimum density in those zones. That is a multi-family zone. Nampa the same thing. Five foot setback, but nothing down toward the lot sizes that we currently have. So, then, we went out to Portland to see what they did. You can see there are 2.5 zone -- they have a different -- I think 2.5 you're actually probably going up less dense, but in their case it's -- it's more dance. So, you can see here -- here there is maximal heights of 35 feet setbacks or ten feet from the front. The side is five or zero to five. The rear and, then, garage 18 feet. And then same -- same situation here. I don't think anything that the applicant -- here is kind of their RM zone, 2,500 square feet here. Their lot lines. Pretty typical. Kind of explains what -- what it is, what you can do. I know that was -- that was a concern. You wanted to kind of see that in practice. You can see here many other jurisdictions are using a zero or five foot setback. Again, none of them explain what the setbacks are off a common drive and/or a private street and I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 193 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 126 of 144 will -- I will go ahead and just stand there for any questions and, then, maybe have the applicant come in and discuss some of their changes. I did want to point out to the Commission, as a side note or one -- one other -- an agreement. The applicant is in agreement with one of staff's recommended changes I think, if you remember right, they were proposing a one and a half foot setback from the common driveway for 50 percent of the facade or 40 percent of facade. In the applicant's narrative to you -- letter they indicated that they are fine with staff's recommended three foot change along -- along the common driveway. So, with that I will stand for questions and turn it over to the applicant. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like -- oh, sorry. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, for clarification for this evening, are we making a decision on this, but we are not addressing the name change? Is that right? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- that's accurate. They have withdrawn -- they want you to act on their request to withdraw that -- the name change and, then, move forward the R-15 dimensional standard change. But it's still one application. Perreault: So, they want -- they want to add a section to the code that specifies the common driveways and the -- Parsons: They want to add a section. They have that already. That was part of what we discussed at the previous hearing. All they are doing is -- you asked for further clarification where that -- where other jurisdictions are -- Perreault: Okay. Parsons: -- using those setbacks. That's what I'm reporting to you now and, then, you wanted some additional information from the applicant on the drainage and how that would be addressed with these setbacks. Perreault: Uh-huh. Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Bailey: Do you have our presentation, Bill? Parsons: I can see if I have it here. Bailey: Okay. Parsons: See if we got it open. Did you give it to anyone, Laren? Bailey: What was that? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 194 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 127 of 144 Parsons: I said did you give it to anyone to upload for you? Bailey: Yes, I did. Parsons: All right. Is that UDC text changes? Is that yours? Bailey: Yes. Parsons: There you go. Bailey: Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Laren Bailey. My address is 4024 West Fairview Avenue and as -- as Bill stated, we are back in front of you because there were a few questions that were asked last time. I apologize that -- and I don't mean this negatively, but a few of you weren't here then, so if you have questions, if I'm not answering the whole thing, let me -- let me know and we can go back and start over on some of it. As Bill indicated, we decided to pull the portion of the application that had to do with the renaming of the residential zoning districts. After hearing, you know, questions from the Commission, also testimony from the public, it became apparent that there was -- there was even more confusion than we had anticipated in what we were trying to do and so in our trying to fix some confusion, we were just making it worse. So, we are not going to move forward with that at this time. The second part of our request, though, for the additional setback requirements to the R-15 zone for properties on private streets and, more specifically, within -- you know, these private streets are usually within a gated area and so -- so, the issue is that the current code does not address some of the dimensional standards and so it became difficult for staff to review plans and say that if it met the standard or not, because there weren't any standards for them to -- to focus on. So, at the last meeting there were a couple of concerns and questions that came up. The first one had to do with drainage and how it's handled within developments of this type in and around the individual buildings. I will cover that in a moment. And the second one was, you know, how would the city be able to control the outcome of future developments using -- using the code and so I will talk about those issues. First, I would like to reiterate that we are in complete agreement with staff and the staff report and the recommendations for approval. I also want to state again for the record that we are not proposing to change the existing setbacks, we are adding new requirements here and these -- these are items that were just not addressed in your current code. So, now we will discuss the drainage. So, there is -- there is a three step approach to drainage in -- in the City of Meridian. First we have got the International Building Code, which lays out the requirements for -- for the residential structures. It talks about, you know, sloping away from foundations and that -- that all the residents need to have positive drainage away from the foundation. The second one is you have got the city engineering review, which this is a little different on a private street than it would be on an ACHD street. ACHD would review the drainage in a -- in an ACHD roadway, whereas on a private street the city is reviewing that, we get comments back from them on our drainage design and they have standards that we need to meet and, then, the third portion of it is going to be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 195 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 128 of 144 your building permit and inspection process. The city inspects every home as part of the building permit inspection process, including drainage, to ensure that water flows away from the homes and is disposed of properly. Through this process the city already has all of the processes and procedures in place to require review and inspect projects that utilize private streets. Where did my -- here we go. So, as you can see in this illustration, this shows how a lot drainage works in a typical lot in a subdivision. You have got water flowing -- see the blue water here, it's flowing away from the home down property lines. It comes out to the street and down here and hits -- hits a storage drainage facility. As you can see, all the -- the lot is graded away from the building and water is directed to the street. The typical R-15 project is designed in the same way. In let's see. We need to go to my next slide. In this illustration you can see the arrows here are -- are how the water is all directed away from the buildings. Hits these common drives or areas in between buildings and it comes out to this -- to the private street and, again, then, it is disposed of properly. It goes to seepage bed, a pond, or a swale, whatever the -- the system might be to -- to deal with the storm drainage. So, with that being said on the -- on the drainage, I just also wanted to emphasize that the three foot setbacks are already approved setback in the R-15 zone. Staff has reviewed and recommended approval of these additional setbacks that we are discussing tonight. The one last thing is you're going to hear from some residents tonight that feel that where -- how the city's currently moving through a comp plan amendment and update that -- that this might be putting the cart before the horse or ahead of -- ahead of the game. These are really requirements that have not been there in the past. We are not changing anything, you know, huge in the code, these are detailed portions of the code that wouldn't be updated in a comp plan amendment or a comp plan change. You know, the comp plan may direct things in the future, but -- but these are fairly detail oriented issues that are strictly in the code. So with that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Bailey: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Do we have any public testimony, Chris? Johnson: We do. First we have Susan Karnes. Karnes: Good morning. My name is Susan Karnes and I live at 5556 South Graphite Way and I'm very sensitive to wildfire smoke, so I apologize for my voice. I haven't had it since July. Yes, the Meridian Southern Rim is concerned about the optics of, you know, code changes being made when we are in the midst of a new Comprehensive Plan review, because the comp plans drives the code. That's one concern. But there are other things that we think are a little problematic and this is feedback we are getting from our members, this would be citywide and there are so many distinct scenarios with each and every development and application -- I don't need to tell you. We feel that in some cases these kinds of changes are best reviewed on a case-by-case basis and we it's our understanding that this would affect R-15 applications that have already been approved. We have one by the applicant, Eastridge Estates, that was bitterly opposed Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 196 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 129 of 144 by nearly every single neighbor and City Council approved one thing and this applicant would have the ability to come in with these new code dimensions under R-15 and -- and so our concern is the appearance of that to residents when they have understood one thing was approved and another gets built. I have to say that I'm going to just wax philosophical about this and I guess this evening's proceedings. I have lived in a lot of communities and I have been involved in a lot of development and -- and one thing that has always been prominent in those discussions and deliberations is what compelling reason do we have to approve something? What kind of value does it bring to the community and to the future homeowners and, in general, I think the city is trying to discourage private streets and developments with private streets. This evening we had an application where there was the possibility of a private street connecting with a public street leaving a burden on, you know, those future property owners and so one of the concerns that was expressed to -- to us at the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition is that they didn't want to see more code changes that might encourage more private street developments, that they wanted to see these types of dimensions carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because there is a process for that and where it might be a good fit in one area of the city in terms of, you know, fit, transition, appropriate use, it may not be appropriate elsewhere in an R-15 setting. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Karnes: Thank you. McCarvel: Any others, Chris? Johnson: Yes. More than are in the room I believe. Wendy McKinney. McCarvel: Okay. Who is here that wants to testify? LaFever: Hello. Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way, Meridian, Idaho. And, first, before we even start, I really like the changes in the staff report, Bill. It's looking really good. So, back to business here. Yes, we are in the middle of a comp plan change and, yes, I realized this is not a comp plan change, but we are also in the middle of a UDC change and I -- I submitted my changes that I would like to see in the UDC plan to Cameron, who I'm sure has passed it on to Bill. To me this is not necessary. We are already dealing with two of the biggest things going on right now, the comp plan change and the UDC change or smack dab in the middle of reviewing those. This to me feels like an end run around these two processes that are going on right now. I think we should deny this process and refund Jim Conger's money and take his ideas and address them through the UDC. As far as modeling that we have brought up, our best example is Garden City. We don't want to model ourselves after Garden City. I think we -- I think we deserve better than that. Not the Garden City is bad, but I think we are - I think we should have approach it more like an Eagle or other areas. As far as many, as Bill stated in there, that was not many. You know, we can go back through and look at other areas as far as examples and -- and what brought -- was brought up in the testimonies that three feet setbacks already exist in the code. Then why are we even Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 197 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 130 of 144 here? I just think this is really unnecessary. The citizens -- I'm on -- on part of the steering committee and I'm out talking to people and listening to people and what they want to see. One of the -- some of the driving factors when you set aside infrastructure, one of the things they don't like seeing is they feel that places are being built too close together and there is a lack of open space. The too close together, this gives that illusion that we are not listening. I would really like us to see this be denied now, have it addressed in a UDC change and have our comp plan go forward. That's all I have to say. McCarvel: Good morning. Reynolds: Good morning. Sally Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. So, I was here the first time that this came before the Commission and I guess I'm just mostly confused as to why we are allowing one applicant to redefine setbacks for the entire city. So, one of the concerns that I heard voiced by this Commission was that -- that they have the product and they know how to do the drainage and how to build these facilities with zero, you know, setbacks very well, but if we implement it city wide, then, what's going to be the implication for other builders who don't have that product or know how to use those drainage systems. So, I think that we are kind of putting the cart before the horse to implement this city wide. There is already a process in place, as you know, for this developer to ask for an exception if they need zero percent setbacks, but to do that for everyone has far reaching implications and I don't believe that this should be enacted and go retroactively, because that does give a signal to the citizens that things are allowed to come in through -- through other areas and just be -- as one resident put it last time -- sneaky. A time to change -- a time to ask for a change in the code is not now when we are in the middle of the comp plan process, which that does drive the code and I completely agree with Denise that she submitted her changes in a way that would be considered and the developers should do the same. So, please, consider the comp plan process right now and the signal that this would send to the citizens, especially when they are asking for more open space and more green space and less density in Meridian. I think it's great you're looking at other areas for inspiration, but, ultimately, I think that we need to decide how we really want Meridian to look. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like come back forward? Oh, did you want to speak? Okay. There being no one else left in the room, we will take the applicant. Bailey: Thank you, Chairman. Again, Laren Bailey. Just wanted to comment on two items there. One, this is not changing any plans that have been approved, at least that that we are working on. This is not a change that's going to change the lot layout or the number of units or the density or the open space or any of those items. What this is is as we got the project approved and -- and started to build buildings and staff started to review the building permits, it became difficult under the current code, even though everybody felt like we were on the same page when it was approved, it became difficult for staff to make the current pieces of the code fit and so it became confusing and so we have worked with staff for months trying to figure out how do we make this work, so staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 198 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 131 of 144 has a game plan, they know what they are supposed to do, we know what we are supposed to do and everybody gets what was approved at the end of the day. It's not changing anything. And this was -- this is what was come up with, us working alongside staff and that's why -- that's why you have a staff report that recommends approval. So so, again, yeah, that's -- that's why we are here. We are -- we are not changing anything that's happened before. We are not changing the density, we are not changing the buildings. None of that's happening. We are just trying to clarify some areas of code and provide some detail that wasn't there previously. So, with that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I apologize, my memory isn't -- I was at the meeting, but -- but my memory is pretty poor at the moment. What process have you had to go through in the past to get approval for that? Can you specifically tell me the process that you -- isn't there a specific special process that you have to apply for? I don't know why that's sitting in my brain. Do you know what I'm referring to? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- yeah. Process for what? The UDC change or their entitlement? Perreault: The entitlement. Parsons: You mean what process that we go through when they went through Movado? Perreault: So, I guess what I'm asking here is when -- when you have made the request in the past -- or what exactly is it -- is it -- what exactly is it that you have to request, outside of -- okay. So -- so, like Movado, for example, you just came in and, basically, requested the three foot setbacks as -- and since those are not in the UDC code -- do you understand what I'm asking? I guess I -- it's so late. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- if I'm -- if I'm understanding you correctly, Movado sorry. The Movado development was mixed residential community. It had multi- family. It had single family. Perreault: I'm talking about the one we just heard. Parsons: You're talking about the -- Perreault: Verado. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 199 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 132 of 144 Parsons: -- Movado Village. Perreault: On the corner of Locust Grove and Ustick. Parsons: Oh, that was Verado. That's -- that's not the same product. Perreault: But we had that discussion. No. No. We had that discussion -- Parsons: Yes. Perreault: -- about the -- Parsons: No. Yeah. When they come in with an R-15 zone their minimum setbacks are what we have on code, so they can take advantage of the three foot setbacks. That's already been established and we went through this exercise with this same developer five years ago. Perreault: Those kind of developments are the reason that you're bringing this request forward; is that right? Parsons: Not necessarily, no. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: What -- what's driving this request is the 55 and older component that they have gotten approved with Eastridge and Movado Village and in those particular cases those are gated communities, they are common drives off of private streets and when the applicant wants a certain product type and it's not fitting on the lots that they just -- they have platted, that's what's driving this and so our typical R-15 setbacks don't fit in with that product type and so the applicant is trying to work with staff to say we -- we encourage diversity in our city, but we need to have a game plan and we need to have a code that can support that. If you -- the last time that I brought this forward I said there is -- there is different ways you can skin this cat. If you don't want to do a code change, you can go to a PUD -- Perreault: PUD. Parsons: -- and do something -- you can do -- do something different than change the code. Those were options that were presented to the applicant. It was their opinion that this was the process they wanted to go through, because it -- for them it seemed to be a less cumbersome process to do and work with staff to try to find a solution. What we didn't count on was the amount of public comment we would receive on this because a UDC -- a text amendment is processed different than a PUD process. A PUD process is parcel specific. So, the applicant would have to go through that neighborhood -- neighborhood meeting process, notify the property owners within 300 foot radius. When a person goes through a code change it's city wide, you can't notify all those parcel Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 200 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 133 of 144 owners. So, code doesn't require them to have a neighborhood meeting or -- but we have to still put it in the paper and notify the public, but we don't send out notices that way. So, it's a different process and that's why it worked well for them five years ago and we said, well, if that's the way you want to go -- they already had the name change in process, so they said they wanted to amend their application, so that's why we are here. Now, there is a -- there is a couple of distinctions here that I -- I don't want the neighbors or those in the audience thinking that this is -- yes, it's city wide, it is still case by case basis. Not every project has private streets. I don't think staff is going to support every privacy project that comes through. It's going to depend. There is a lot of variable -- private streets aren't a given; right? There is an application, there is a process you have to -- the director has to approve a private street. But what's unique about this product is that common driveways aren't even supposed to be off private streets and code prohibits it, unless you get an alternative compliance request. Again, another director's approval. So, the instance of this -- they receive director's approval of the private street and they received alternative compliance approval. So, they are doing it is a case-by-case basis. It's not an ongoing -- it's not someone could come in -- now, I don't totally disagree with the homeowners. If someone had a common driveway if -- if this gets approved and a Brighton comes in and they have a common driveway with a plat, yeah, they could take advantage of these setbacks. They could go retroactive and use these setbacks. But in their particular cases we have got certain easements already approved for that development that would restrict them from taking advantage of that. So, there is a couple things that we look at when we approve house plans. One we look at setbacks, but we also have to look at platted easements to see if they are structured -- the structure can encourage an easement and typically on an R-8 and an R-4 lot that takes advantage of a common driveway, they are bigger lots and there is typically a five foot public utility easement along the interior lot line, a 15 foot on the front in a ten or 12 on the rear, so even if these setbacks were in place it would be prohibited from encroaching that setback -- or in those easements and can't take advantage of those setbacks because of the easement. So, by default the easements would control the placement of that building on that lot. So, again, yes, it's city wide, but at the same time there is -- there is a whole bunch of variables that go into applying the setbacks. They are not just -- someone could come in tomorrow and say I have common driveways, I want to take advantage of a three foot setback all the way around. Yeah, but you could vacate the easement and change that, but there is a process to do that. So, it is -- it is -- it is difficult, it does get messy for us and if you recall when I presented to you about a month ago, I told you this would require more staff time to review these things, because as part of this -- as part of this amendment we are trading open space, yard area, for patio space or some other yard space on the lot. So, the developer is trying to get a hybrid, kind of -- just some of the multi-family standards, require a porch or a patio, a certain square footage -- 120 square feet is what they propose and we -- we think that's a good number. A ten by 12 patio on the front of the home. But we have to verify that during the building permit review. Building isn't going to do that. Planning is going to have to do that. So, yes, there is risk and reward here I guess is what I'm getting here and there are different processes you can go through to obtain these setbacks. But this is what the applicant proposes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 201 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 134 of 144 Holland: Madam Chair, a couple follow up questions for Bill. So, just to kind of rephrase what -- what you have said and what Commissioner Perreault asked, if this change doesn't go through, the process an applicant would have to go through, if they wanted to have a private street or a common driveway as part of their development, would be to go through a PUD process if they -- this is so they wouldn't have to do the PUD? Parsons: No. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the question is entitled with their subdivision. They could go back through a PUD process, but not to get approval for the private street and a common drive. That's already done. A PUD process would be to -- again, this is what I kind of alluded to about a month ago is -- we are too far down the road to really go through a PUD, because there is so many findings you have to make and we have already approved a project and to unravel that -- it gets pretty messy for us sometimes. But typically to approve a PUD you have to make findings that meet certain criteria. You have to have a minimum two different product types. They didn't have that. You got to have a certain amount of open space. They have that. It's not -- a PUD process isn't to primarily get you out of dimensional standards. That's one option, but we would have to make sure if we went through that process that the project as approved would still meet all the criteria in order to -- for staff to support a PUD for the site. That's where it gets in that -- that's -- that's the risk to the applicant and the time and money that, you know, would be well spent for them, because a PUD process is more expensive than a text amendment. Holland: So, one follow-up question then. In the research that you did and you presented to us, I didn't see a lot of language in there about private streets and common driveways. Is it fair to say that many other cities don't have that specific language in there -- in the UDC? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I didn't do that. Again, I didn't do the research, I had one of the assistant planners do that for me, but I asked him specifically to look for that, just a random sample. We didn't go through every community out there, but we didn't have any -- I didn't see anything from what he presented to me and what I shared with you tonight that showed setbacks off of private streets. But in my experience a street is a street; right? Whether it's private or public it's a street. So, those setbacks are going to apply regardless. What we are trying to do here is to be very specific that when you have a private street these setbacks apply. When you have a common driveway these setbacks apply. I think the cities interpret their code -- codes differently and that's where we kind of got sideways with the applicant. They were seeing our code one way, we were seeing it the other, and, again, they proposed some of these changes to try to make -- get rid of that gray and provide some black and white. McCarvel: So, is -- the staff report I know it was written with all the other verbiage in there and so, in general, then, what's before us tonight wanting to be considered -- is staff in agreement with that? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 202 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 135 of 144 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, that's my understanding. The applicant's in agreement. We are in agreement. We can strike the rest out or remove it as we go to Council. Or we can strike it all out if you don't approve it and, then, Council can make a decision. McCarvel: I'm just thinking forward to a motion one way or the other. I don't know where it's going, but is the staff report written in a manner that it could be approved or not as is? Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. McCarvel: Can I get a motion to close the hearing on H-2018-0059? Holland: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to closed the public hearing on H-2018- 0059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I think I'm going to defer comments to the people who were involved in this in the first place. They seem to have a little more teeth in the game in this one. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I will go first. I wasn't sure if you were ready or not. You know, first of all, I want to thank all of those of you that have stayed with the early morning hour here with us. We appreciate your -- your commitment to -- to being here and being involved. I also want to thank the applicant for trying to go through and make the process easier for for development. I do have a couple of concerns with the way that this application is coming through. You know, a couple of comments that came through from the last hearing and also from this hearing is, one, that we are going through a public comp plan process right now and that these conversations really should be part of that conversation and since this specific change outside of a text amendment request that was originally put forward, should be something that technically could go through UDC process and be submitted to staff separately. So, there is -- there has been some concerns voiced about having a developer bring that change -- or staff bring that change. Having it come from a private sector development versus coming from staff and a committee and having multiple thoughts that kind of look -- look through it. The only other concern I have is that, you know, if -- if this is -- the setbacks are already pretty much -- sorry, words are escaping me this early in the morning. It's already allowed to have the zero or three foot setbacks or the 12 foot setbacks, they just want to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 203 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 136 of 144 have more specific language that adds private streets and common driveways. The concern with adding that language is that it might encourage future developments to include more options of private driveways and common -- or private streets and common driveways, which was my understanding that the city doesn't tend to like as much. Hopefully that will make sense. But those are a few thoughts to start. McCarvel: I think -- I mean that -- they just said that those two issues have to get special approval in the first place. It's not like every developer is going to be knocking down the door to -- okay, I won't -- I'm guessing. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I appreciate your comments. I think the challenge is that you're trying to build a product that's already been approved and there is no functional way to go forward without having a change and so that's -- I think you have -- and that's why you have text amendments, that's why -- you're dealing with an issue that's out in the field, they don't have a specific standard that they -- the developer can work with, so instead of cobbling together a solution that doesn't -- isn't in coded, they are bringing something to us to allow them to find a solution and so I tend to -- I mean I don't think there is going to be a massive like line at their counter to go see -- I'm going to go build private streets and common driveways. I mean we see common driveways and projects all the time. I think it's -- it's a tool that's used by -- by planners. I don't think they are that common, but I think they have to get approved on a case-by-case basis by the staff and I mean if Bill is sitting here saying, hey, we are -- I want -- I don't think this is a good idea. I'd be a little bit more concerned in who was bringing. But I think it -- trying to find a solution for a project that's already been approved, I -- I'm not sure how -- why that's a problem or if there is going be a process to go through after a project has already been approved. Again, I find the solution that -- that doesn't have to send them back through a complete approval process. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for Bill. So, if staff -- you have chose this, what does that look like for you to get approval? Is it just bringing it to us and Council or is there a public process that you go through as well? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it would be the same process, whether the city does it or -- but what we typically deal with are larger text amendments is we meet with our UDC focus group, so we do roll it out to the design professionals and developers and see if they are on board. So, it does get scrutinized a little bit more from that standpoint. But, yes, the citizens still don't have the level of input, unless they Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 204 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 137 of 144 know what -- they are aware of what's going on. There isn't that level of transparency with -- with this process, unfortunately. Probably something we should work on. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for Bill. If -- if we were to approve this with upcoming changes to -- and review the UDC and whatnot, could that be stripped out and refined at a later -- so, that the problems that they are having now can be addressed in -- in that. Does that make sense at this hour? What I'm trying to say -- so, I mean we could -- if we were to approve it as it is now, but, then, to discourage a rush on private driveways or private -- private streets with -- with common driveways, could that be stripped out later, but yet the -- yet what the problem is -- and I think specifically is the drainage, is that what -- what really is the issue here is how to deal with drainage? Fitzgerald: My understanding is -- Parsons: That was one of the concerns that -- there is -- there is multiple concerns that I raised in the staff report. One was more staff time to review it -- drainage and how that would be handled. Cassinelli: But as far as the -- as far as the applicant, is that their -- is that their issue with getting -- Fitzgerald: Envelope and drainage -- Cassinelli: -- is -- is the drainage issue of them getting -- Parsons: No. Their issue is setbacks, but -- Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: Anything can be solved with money, but their issues are setbacks. They -- what they are -- they are struggling with is our 12 foot rear setback specifically. They -- their -- their product can meet our parking standards or driveway widths. Our street setbacks. It's just when you have a cluster of internal -- a cluster of lots that are surrounded by other lots that have street frontage, but the interior lots don't have street frontage, then, you don't really have a front or side yard. So, how do you apply rear yard and it gets a little convoluted. I don't want to get into the weeds with you, but we have gone -- like the applicant said, we have been back and forth I don't know how many staff has been part of this. We waste a lot of manpower on this trying to get it right for everyone. It's like anything, we don't -- it's -- it's -- code can be changed. I mean if it doesn't work, yes, we can change the code. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 205 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 138 of 144 Fitzgerald: Well, it helps to be put in the review process that's going on right now. Find a solution and, then, if it needs to be changed we can change it. Cassinelli: Yeah. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Bill will love this one. It also creates parking issues and I can -- I mean I'm only going based off of examples of -- of applications we have -- we have done. So, I can get it in visually in my mind, but if they are allowing for private a street to only have a ten foot setback instead of a 20 foot, so now the structure is a lot closer to the -- to the street and, then, the structures are a lot closer to each other, now all of a sudden we have got driveway, driveway, driveway, driveway, driveway and, then, that -- but -- but because it's a private street they are not required to have parking on either side. So -- so, it's -- it's more -- it's not just -- at least in our conversations with -- on one of the last applications it's not just a drainage issue, there is a spacing issue, too. Parsons: Yeah. Homes -- homes will certainly be closer. Private streets are typically 24 or 26 feet wide and don't -- are supposed to be striped no parking. So, you know, we try to encourage the applicants to provide that overflow parking. I think we had that townhome development that came through recently and we added -- had them add some more overflow parking for guests parking. So, those are -- those are the types of projects that need to be scrutinized more that come through our department and before you, because those are the ones that we have to make sure we get right, because we don't want to get in the situation where we are in front of you now trying to solve the problem with a code change. If we do that exercise up front, we recognize that issue, we can get it resolved before we get to this point is the goal. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I will try and make this quick, Bill. This applies to private streets with common driveways or -- common driveways can be separate from the -- okay. Parsons: Right. Cassinelli: The other -- the other question is with -- with properties -- homes closer together, has this -- does this need to be reviewed by police or fire? Is that an issue with them? Parsons: We have discussed all this with them. They don't -- they don't have any concerns with it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 206 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 139 of 144 Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: Yeah. They were part of the conversation, along with the building department, just to make sure we were all on the same page as we go forward. I don't - if the applicant didn't have support from city departments, they wouldn't even have gone forward. Holland: Madam Chair. Bill, one more question for you. The UDC committee that you mentioned, how often does that meet and who sits on that committee? Is that an internal staff committee? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, they meet -- we typically -- I keep a running tab of UDC changes throughout the year and, then, sometime in the spring we convene the committee and say hey -- the applicant is part of that committee. We have a representative for Brighton Corporation. We have architects sit on it. Staff members, of course. Legal. It's about 20 people or so giving feedback and input on the process. Holland: One follow-up question. Once something comes through to that committee and you review changes, is that something that staff, then, would bring back to a Council -- Commission meeting first and, then, go to Council or does it just get changed through -- through that Commission meeting or that committee? Parsons: No. That -- that's just to go over some changes in proposed language and, then, at that point we go to BCA as well, which is the Building Association of Southwest Idaho and, then, we put together an application and submit and, then, come before you you and -- and City Council for -- Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: You know, with a -- with a city wide change I really -- I really feel like that that would be beneficial for it to -- I mean I don't want to delay the applicant. I know you guys have been doing this for a long time. I don't know how many people you have talked to that are members of the -- of that committee already, but I would like to see -- I would like to have it reviewed by -- by that committee. Say the name of it again. Parsons: UDC focus group. Perreault: Focus group. Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 207 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 140 of 144 Cassinelli: Maybe this is a legal question. Can we approve it with a sunset clause so it, essentially, expires after this is approved -- after their projects? Fitzgerald: This isn't legislation, man. Cassinelli: Hey, I am trying. Holland: Madam Chair. Bill, one more question for you. So, if we decided to go the route where we would prefer that this goes through the UDC focus -- or UDC focus group, would we make a motion to continue it or would we make a motion to deny it and have it go -- with a note that it would go through UDC focus group instead? Does it make sense what I'm asking? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of -- interesting question. I'm tasked to putting together the next changes, which I have -- I have done that, I just haven't finalized that process to recirculate that back to the UDC focus group. So, what would have to happen is you would have to deny the application. The applicant could go before City Council. If it gets denied, then, certainly we can take that under -- under advisement. But you can't move it forward -- I guess you can move it forward to City Council with a denial saying that you think it should be further vetted with staff and the UDC focus group before Council approves it, but at this point -- at this point you got to make a decision tonight. I think that's what the applicant is looking forward to. And if it gets denied -- I guess that's my question for Legal. If it gets denied can we take it under advisement again, because -- or do we hold ourselves to the same standard of what -- that one year sunset clause. Holland: That's what I was asking really. Parsons: There won't be anything different. Fitzgerald: Is that something they can make modifications? Perreault: Sorry, I missed that. What was that? Fitzgerald: It's a test. Pogue: It was a test. Yeah. I was tracking with what Bill was advising, which is recommend denial, if that's what you want to do, with the recommendation that it go that that it be directed by Council to the UDC committee. So, they would deny as well. But at least you would be giving them direction as to what the concern is here. Fitzgerald: Isn't it a year -- that puts a year clock on it or would that -- I mean it's a project. They are not a project, but do you have a clock after a denial of this type of application? Pogue: Oh. Got you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 208 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 141 of 144 McCarvel: Well, didn't -- I mean Bill can bring it back through the regular text amendments; right? Pogue: He would -- yeah. Fitzgerald: It's not like a normal project. Pogue: No. Correct. Holland: So, one more follow-up question. So, if we decided to -- just thinking about how we can make this motion. If we decided to continue the application with a note that we would prefer that this goes through the UDC focus group to a point in time after that UDC focus group meets and, then, we carry it forward, that could be a way we do it? Perreault: That would be bringing it back to us. Is that what you want to do? Holland: I think it would ultimately come back to us anyway if it was to go through the UDC commission -- or committee. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would table this application until it caught up with staff's UDC changes and, then, hear it at that same night and, then, we could add it as a side discussion with the UDC focus group with the changes that I'm preparing to bring forward to you with a future application. Holland: I'm not sure which -- which way would be better, but whether we recommend denial and recommend that they go through the UDC process or recommend continuance and -- until the point where it's been heard by that UDC focus group. Perreault: Before we make a motion, I'm still struggling with this idea that -- that developers may use this as a way to bring more dense applications. Does staff really anticipate that? I'm getting the impression that -- that staff's in agreement with this and that this would be helpful to you and so I want to very much keep that in mind. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, staff is supportive -- supportive of the changes, but there -- there is risk. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: And that's what I stated in my staff report. It's going to take more review time for staff. Going to have to look and scrutinize drainage a little bit more. Perreault: So, what is the best way for us to mitigate that risk? Is it to just get this looked at further with the focus group and the BCA? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 209 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 142 of 144 Parsons: There is no way to mitigate it, just requires more work, so -- Perreault: To educate -- Parsons: Let me -- let me -- let me explain the process to you. So, whenever there is a common driveway our code requires the applicant to provide us an exhibit. On that exhibit they are supposed to show us the building footprint and show us how the home sits on the lot, so we can verify all of those setbacks. That typically happens -- that can happen into two -- two stages. It can happen at the preliminary plat or it can happen at final plat. Most of the time it happens at -- at final plat. That's when we start scrutinizing that a little bit more, make sure that they can comply with those standards. That -- that exhibit we attach to a building restriction form so that when building permits come in we verify the setbacks meet what we have approved with the final plat. Well, in this particular proposal we still have to verify that. They will give us that exhibit, but, then, we have to look at the floor plan to verify that it -- and scale out the patio that it's -- there is 120 square foot patio on there and that takes time. I mean I'm not opposed to doing the work, I'm just letting you know there is a level of work there. Do we have a lot of common driveways? No. I can tell you a handful. A majority of our permits aren't off of common driveways, but we -- you see them on a regular basis. If someone wants to get three lots and the common driveway you don't need street frontage, so someone throws in a 20 foot wide common driveway and now they can get two more lots on there, rather than having 30 feet of frontage on the street. So, I mean it's -- it's becoming more and more of a common practice. Again, this particular instance we have got common driveways off a private street that were -- was -- was approved on a case-by-case basis. And when I say someone wouldn't take advantage of these setbacks if they had common driveways? I can't say that with certainty that someone wouldn't do that. But what I can tell you is we go through the subdivision process, there is requirement for them to establish easements along those property boundaries and so 99 percent of the time you can have a bigger easement than the setback requirements that you see before you and that's why we are -- we are confident -- that's why we can support the application and don't -- don't see it being an issue, but there is always going to be somebody out there that tries -- tries to test you. It's just the way it is. Pogue: Madam Chair? Could I ask a question to Bill. I'm still wondering what other options the applicant may have with regard to the -- to approve -- is it to approve projects? Parsons: The other options are a variance. Pogue: A variance. Parsons: Yeah. Pogue: And were they tied to DA's? Could they come back with an MDA? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 210 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 143 of 144 Parsons: The developments are tied to -- their density is tied to a -- to a DA. Setbacks, again -- Pogue: It wouldn't have come into that, but -- Parsons: You got to change setbacks. Pogue: A variance is a possibility? Parsons: Variance is -- yeah. We talked about three options. PUD, a variance, or this process. Pogue: Uh-huh. Parsons: Pros and cons; right? You do an analysis, what's the pros and cons for each process. A variance goes straight to City Council. Then, you know, how do you make the findings that it's a hardship when it's a vacant piece of ground and it's bare dirt. It -- it's like anything, we are sitting here -- it's semantics and we can't support a variance because there is no hardship to prove. There is -- there is no reason why we have to support a variance. We already gave them two. We gave them -- we gave them the alternative compliance for the common driveway. So, basically, that's a staff level variance. So, they have already gotten that. So, that's not the preferred way to go through that process. But it is an option. And that, again, parcel specific. Your neighborhood meeting. Get -- get input from your neighbors within 300 feet of your -- of your project boundary. Certainly that's the other option, you know. Now, you can go through a variance. I mean there is -- we could spend this -- many different ways for you -- you just have to decide what's best for the community. Pogue: And I have one more question. When would you be convening the UDC committee with your -- with your list -- Parsons: It's done -- yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we -- we have met once already and kind of talked about what we were going to bring forth with our next changes. What I have done is I have prepared a table with some strikeout, underlying changes. We realize we don't have this -- the resources at this time to cover all of those items, so we are going to pair back that table a little bit more, so I would like to get something in the near future, at least have something before this body at least January I would probably guess. So, get something to the UDC focus group for comments December and an application for January is where I'm targeting at this point, but no guarantees. McCarvel: It's not that far out and if that makes everybody feel comfortable let's do it. I don't know that we would have this much reservation if this was brought forth by staff, but there is -- Perreault: Sorry, I have one more question. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 211 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 144 of 144 McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: So, do you -- is -- are all -- is everything that goes through the focus group also ran by the BCA or is it just specific things as needed? Or how does that process work? Parsons: Yeah. Once the UDC focus group as -- have the changes and they -- no, we don't always get a hundred percent consensus on the changes. Perreault: Sure. Parsons: We agree to disagree on some of those changes. But, then, I schedule a meeting with BCA and just let them know, hey, this is scheduled for the hearing. I welcome your comments on it and then -- Perreault: Okay. So, you don't meet with them and -- Parsons: I take all the tables to them and share everything. Perreault: Okay. Great. Parsons: I don't go over every item, but just the ones that affect the building community. Perreault: Right. Okay. Parsons: Typically they have been supportive of setback changes. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioners. McCarvel: Yes. Holland: I -- if -- unless anybody else has more comments to make on -- and I would make a motion that we reopen the public hearing, so that we could make a motion to continue the application. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Unless anyone else has anything else they would like to add to that. McCarvel: Okay. Do we have a second to open the public -- Cassinelli: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 212 of 248 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2018 Page 145 of 144 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing for H-2018- 0059 by DevCo Development for the change in the UDC code, that we would continue that application to a point in time after the UDC focus group has had the opportunity to review the text changes and come back with a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the other UDC code changes at the same time. McCarvel: And do we leave it at that or do we need a date? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would say leave it open for now. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Because that way I will make sure to coordinate that when we get -- when I get my stuff in. McCarvel: I just thought the -- I thought we had tried to do something like that before and we had to have a date on it, so -- okay. Perfect. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: Second? It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we call it a night and adjourn. Holland: Second. McCarvel: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 213 of 248 EIDIAN*,-----, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 2, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 F Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0034 Item Title: Public Hearing for Residential Self Storage Facility By Engineering Solutions LLP, Located at 3755 W. Perguia St. Request: For a Text Amendment to create a new residential self -storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. Meeting Notes: 0 Do ^4 R1 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.F. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Residential Self-Service Storage F acility (H-2019-0034) by Engineering S olutions L L P, located 3755 W. Perguia 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 4/29/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 214 of 248 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: May 2, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0034 Residential Self-service Storage Facility Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to create a new residential self-service storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Ten Mile Development, LLC 1409 N. Main Street, Suite #109 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Representative: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions, LLP 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite #100 Meridian, ID 83642 III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: April 19, 2019 B. PSA distributed: April 16, 2019 C. Next door posting: April 16, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 215 of 248 Page 2 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant has applied for a UDC Text Amendment to allow for a Residential Storage Facility within R-15 and R-40 zones with a conditional use permit. A definition of a residential storage facility has been provided along with provisions under the Specific Use Standards of the UDC. The current UDC provisions allow for self-service and outside storage facilities within the residential zones only as an accessory use to a principally permitted use. If it is proposed to be a stand-alone commercial storage facility it requires procurement of a CUP in the C-C and C-G zones but is a principally permitted use in the I-L zoning district. Therefore, any storage facility approved under the accessory use provision is restricted to providing storage service only for the residents associated with the primary residential use. The applicant believes this creates a problem for the storage facility management to screen and police their potential lessors. If someone vacates the residence or apartment within the principally permitted development but continues to lease a storage unit, this creates an issue. The other concern is that high vacancy rates at a facility cannot be remedied with allowing renters from outside the development. From a business perspective, this creates a situation that could be detrimental to the cash flow and success of an accessory storage facility. These were the primary concerns discussed with the recently approved project known as Elevate Storage which has necessitated the requested text amendment. The only avenue to remediate this situation under the current UDC is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property. The intent of the proposed code change is to create a third type of storage facility that is smaller and integrated into residential neighborhoods, setting standards for landscaping and architectural requirements that provide compatibility and a complementary use to existing or proposed neighborhoods. The proposed UDC Text Amendment provides a new residential storage facility category within Table 11-2A-2 providing for the use as conditional within the R-15 and R-40 zones. The application of the Ordinance Amendment would be appropriate within areas that are designated for residential uses in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan encourages a wide range of uses in close proximity to one another to reduce the number of trips on the arterials and to provide more sustainable development. The proposed UDC text amendment will alleviate some of the limitations of the Ordinance. To ensure compatibility and integration with adjacent residential uses, the residential storage areas should be totally surrounded by a solid masonry wall with architectural features to provide articulation and break up the expanse of wall. Great care should be taken to create an architectural focal point. Extensive landscaping should be provided around the exterior and along arterial frontage. The residential storage facilities will be beneficial to existing and future residents, providing for the storage of personal items, recreational vehicles and extra vehicles. Signage would meet the requirements outlined in the UDC for signage within a residential zone. Hours of operation would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which would minimize the impact on the adjoining residential development. Per the Comprehensive Plan, City staff is responsible for keeping the UDC current with local trends. Below are multiple policies to support the applicant’s request.  Implement design criteria to set quality standards City-wide (2.01.02B). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 216 of 248 Page 3  Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan (7.01.01A).  Promote area beautification and community identity through building and site design, signs, and landscaping (2.01.04G).  Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate growth trends (3.01.01D).  Cluster new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement adjoining residential areas (3.06.02B). In general, staff is supportive of the proposed text changes. In the Exhibit Section below, Staff has inserted the applicant’s requested modifications and associated support documents. V. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, applicant and staff recommended modifications (red font) in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 217 of 248 Page 4 VI. EXHIBITS A. Applicant’s Proposed UDC Text Amendment Changes 11-1A-1: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: Add new term: STORAGE FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL: Any real property designed and used for renting or leasing individual storage spaces incidental to residential property or dwelling units, to which the occupants thereof have access for storing or removing personal property. 11-4-3-TBD: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL A. The facility is encouraged to accompany or be a component of a single-family or multi-family residential development with a conditional use permit within an R-15 or R-40 zone. B. The size of the storage facility shall be less than 8 acres. C. The location of the facility may be located along an arterial roadway as a buffer to a residential development, but shall not take direct access from an arterial. Access to the facility shall be from an internal collector or local street only. D. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o’clock (6:00) a.m. to ten o’clock (10:00) p.m. E. The use shall be limited to individual storage compartments which shall be used for residential related personal property including vehicles. F. Storage units shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a residential storage facility is specifically prohibited. G. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’). H. The storage facility shall be fully enclosed and screened from public view. I. A minimum twenty-foot (20’) wide landscape buffer shall be provided along a collector or local road and a twenty-five-foot (25’) wide buffer adjacent to residential development or an arterial and thirty-five-foot (35’) adjoining an entryway corridor. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C and 11-3B-9C of this title. J. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes approved by the Meridian Fire Department. Table 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Storage facility, residential - - - C C Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 218 of 248 Page 5 K. No outside storage area shall be allowed. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. L. Buildings shall be designed Design the building facades to express complement the architectural character of the residential area. The building design shall comply with the TND design standards set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. M. Any parking lot associated with the leasing office shall comply with the standards in Section 11- 3C-5, “Parking Standards for All Other Uses Not Specified,” of this title. Signage for the facility shall comply with Section 11-3D-8BC, “Residential Signs in Residential Districts,” of this title. N. On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Chapter 3, Article E, “Temporary Use Requirements,” of this title. O. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-16, “Self-Service Uses,” of this title shall also apply. P. No storage of fuel or hazardous materials shall be allowed. (Ord 13-1555, 5-14-2013) Q. The site shall not be used as a “vehicle wrecking or junk yard” as herein defined in Section 11- 1A-1. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 219 of 248 Page 6 VII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 220 of 248 IDIAN*,----- �W,EZ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 2, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 G Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0049 Item Title: Public Hearing for 2019 Text Amendment By City of Meridian Planning Division Request: For a Text Amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi -family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 and other miscellaneous sections. Meeting Notes: CC,Ar)ucd -C 'Mc'nL / Z_oo I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.G. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for 2019 UD C Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of M eridian P lanning Division 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 5/1/2019 P roposed Table of Text Changes Cover Memo 5/1/2019 O pen Space 1 B ackup Material 5/1/2019 O pen Space 2 B ackup Material 5/1/2019 E agle I nterchange E xhibit 5/1/2019 Meridian I nterchange E xhibit 5/1/2019 Ten Mile I nterchange E xhibit 5/1/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 221 of 248 5/2/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 5/2/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-G Project Name: 2019 UDC Text Amendment Project No.: H-2019-0049 Active: *#* Signature Name Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral I Wish To Testify Sign In Date/Time 4224 S Locust Meridian, Id 5/2/2019 Will Patterson X X Grove Rd 83642 5:46:49 PM Greg curtis 5/2/2019 X X MNID 5:52:45 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://i nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=232 1/1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: May 2, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0034 2019 UDC Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite #102 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Representative/Contact: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor Phone: (208) 489-0571 bparsons@meridiancity.org III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: April 19, 2019 B. PSA distributed: April 16, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 222 of 248 Page 2 C. Next door posting: April 16, 2019 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5, the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code (UDC). For purposes of this application, both the Planning Division and the Code Enforcement Division have work closely to compile a host of changes and combine them into one application. The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections and the addition of new provisions that pertain to the following:  Chapter 1: Notification of violations and definitions;  Chapter 2: Residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables;  Chapter 3: Ditches, laterals, canals and drainage courses, outdoor lighting, outdoor storage, traveling sleeping quarters, landscape standards, parking standards, qualified open space and variance processing;  Chapter 4: Specific use standards for educational institutions, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant;  Chapter 5: Public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance;  And other miscellaneous sections to improve the administration of the code. All of the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are attached as separate exhibits. Commentary has been provided for each of the respective code changes and new additions that are proposed. Staff has highlighted the requested Code Enforcement changes in light gray to delineate their recommended changes. These recommendations are made in hopes of eliminating confusion for the public, addressing common issues, eliminating loopholes and making the existing codes enforceable. The changes being proposed by the Code Enforcement Division were not shared with the UDC Focus Group or the BCA as they do not directly impact development per se. These changes were vetted separately with City Council and fully endorsed. Staff has shared the proposed Planning’s Division changes with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA. Several members of the UDC Focus Group have expressed concerns with the open space changes (specifically removal of the street buffers from counting towards qualified open space) and believe they should be deferred until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. At this time staff has not modified the document based on earlier conversations. Further, staff has not received any other recommendations to modify the current proposal. A separate memo prepared by staff was sent to the BCA addressing some of these concerns. The Commission should determine if it is in the City’s best interest to delay amending the open space standards until the Plan is adopted. In addition, the both NMID and SID shared their concerns with the City encouraging waterways to remain open and integrated with developments. Primary concerns were safety and maintenance. After discussing the issues with them, staff has modified UDC 11-3A-6 to include a requirement that the applicant execute a license agreement for the irrigation districts if a waterway is to remain open and public safety can be adequately addressed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 223 of 248 Page 3 Overall most of the proposed changes are supported by our Community partners. In summary, staff believes the changes proposed with this application will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. V. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, modifications in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 224 of 248 Page 4 VI. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 225 of 248 03/08/2019 1 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question Potential Fix 11-1-11 Code enforcement Recently a UDC violation case went to a court trial. The prosecutor, defense council and judge all pointed out the UDC does not specifically outline the methods of service when serving a UDC violator notice of a violation. The MCC does outline this process in 4-2-3 (C) 1, 2 and 3. B. Investigation: 1. The code enforcement officer shall investigate any structure or use which he or she reasonably believes does not comply with the standards and requirements of this title. 2. If, after investigation, it is determined that the standards or requirements of this title have been violated, a code enforcement officer shall serve a notice of violation upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation sha ll state separately each standard or requirement violated; shall state what corrective action, if any, is necessary to comply with the standards or requirements; and shall set a reasonable time for compliance. The notice shall state that any further violation may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 3. The notice shall be served upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition addressed to the last known a ddress of such person. If no address is known, then notice may be made by publication in the newspaper of record for the City of Meridian. The Code Enforcement Officer will record all efforts made to effect service in person or by mail as part of their investigative report . (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10- 2007). Methods of service shall be by any of the following: a. Personal service upon such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property; or b. Regular mail to such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property, at the address shown on the last ava ilable assessment roll, or as otherwise known; or c. Posting such notice and order at a conspicuous place on the property and publishing one notice in the official newspaper of t he City that the property has been posted in accordance with this chapter and ordering the owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property to remedy the violation by the given date. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of accessory use, residential. ACCESSORY USE, RESIDENTIAL: A use or activity on a residential property that is secondary to the principal use. 11-1A-1 Definition Separate the personal and professional definition. They are separate uses in the allowed use tables in Chapter 2. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to per sonal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultants; lawyers; med ia advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies. The term does not include healthcare and social service. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: See definition of personal and professional services. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; compute graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies general offices. The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of foot-candle. FOOT-CANDLE: A standard unit of measurement used to identify the intensity of light. A unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of one candela at a distance of one foot. This is the SAE/Imperial unit of measurement whereas Lux is the Metric unit of measurement. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of an indoor shooting range. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A controlled area of activity, specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not include arts, entertainment and recreation facilities. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of light trespass. LIGHT TRESPASS: Light emitting from one property that crosses the property line of another property in excess of 0.1 foot -candle as measured at a height of 60 inches above grade in a plane at any angle of inclination. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of lumen. LUMEN: A lighting industry standard unit of measurement used to measure the total quantity of visible light emitted by a sour ce. 11-1A-1 Definition Modify definition of open space to include linear open space. OPEN SPACE: An area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The area may include, along with the natural environmental features, linear open spaces, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. This term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures for habitation. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of personal property. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Any property that is not real property. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 226 of 248 03/08/2019 2 11-1A-1 Recreational vehicle Add the term mobile tiny homes to the definition. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle or portable structure primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping, and travel use. The term shall include, but not be limited to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel trailer, truck camp er, fold down camping trailer, park trailer, mobile tiny homes and travel trailer. 11-2A-3(B)(3) Minimum street frontages Ensure common driveways provide access to an abutting public street. 3. Properties taking access from a common driveways do not require street frontage, but said common driveway shall connect to an abutting public street. Table 11-2A-6 Dimensional standards of the R-8 District Developer requested that the UDC specifically call-out setbacks for side loaded garages in the R-8 district. R-8 Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 227 of 248 03/08/2019 3 Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Restaurant1 - - - - A Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the commercial districts. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Hotel and motel1 P/C P/C P/C - C P Indoor Shooting Range1 - - - - C - Industry, information1 P P P C P P Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards; specifically different parking standards. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Restaurant1 P P P C A A Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the industrial districts. Use I-L I-H Fuel sales facility, truck stop1 C C Indoor Shooting Range1 P C Industry, heavy1 - P/C Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use I-L I-H Restaurant1 A A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 228 of 248 03/08/2019 4 Table 11-2D-2 Allowed uses in the traditional neighborhood districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use O-T TN-C TN-R Restaurant1 P P - 11-2B-3(A)(4) Standards Clean-up item. Re-numbering this standard as it does not pertain to a dimensional standard. 4B. Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L-O and C-N Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C-G Districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. 11-3A-6(B)(2) and (3) Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Amend this section of code to reference the definition of a water amenity in chapter 1 and grant the decision-making body on the application the authority to waive the tiling of irrigation facilities. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, Sout h Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fenc ing is proposed, the following standards shall apply. B. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and s hall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection C1 of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space, as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. See also subsection C2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The city councildecision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved and a license agreement is executed with the Irrigation District. b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 229 of 248 03/08/2019 5 11-3A-6(C)(3) Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Add the word sloughs to be consistent with section B. above. C. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idah o shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 230 of 248 03/08/2019 6 11-3A-11 Outdoor lighting The current code does not adequately address light trespass. We are seeing advancements in lighting technology. These advancements are making lighting retrofits cost effective and common. With the retrofits come brighter lights. Code Enforcement is seeing an increase in light trespass complaints. Through a recent investigation, City Attorney staff and Code Enforcement learned light trespass is not enforceable with the language in our current code. The code allows for an exemption of all light fixtures below 1,800 lumens (equal to an average 120 watt incandescent bulb). One of these fixtures may not be a problem but the current wording of the code allows for an indefinite number of these unregulated fixtures to be installed in a single lighting project. The exemption allows said light fixtures to be configured in any way regardless how they impact an abutting property. A Lumen is a unit of measure routinely used by light fixture manufacturers and only practically measured in a laboratory environment. Lumen ratings are practical when used in the code for planning and development purposes but lumen measurements cannot be practically obtained in the field. This creates a huge obstacle for Code Enforcement when investigating light trespass complaints. The standard unit of measure for field-work in the United States is the foot-candle. Foot-candle measurements are easily obtainable from readily available instrumentation. The foot-candle must be referenced in the code to make light trespass enforceable. Lumens in the code should only be used when referencing fixture specifications as it applies to planning. Foot-candles should be used in the code to govern light trespass once the fixture is installed. Currently, when a permitted fixture is installed in a way that causes light trespass Code Enforcement cannot take any action. Holiday lighting is currently allowed for 40 days and is exempt from regulation. Which 40 days are not identified and such would require a daily inspection and documentation to prove/enforce. The exemption allows holiday lighting to be the source of light trespass and limit the enjoyment of abutting properties. We have seen exceptionally bright and flashing lights that illuminate a majority of an abutting property. The change would eliminate the 40 day period and have holiday lighting comply with light trespass standards. A. The following types of lighting are exempt from the regulations of this section: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of less than one thousand eight hundred (1800) lumens unless said fixture is the source of light trespass in violation of subsection C (3) of this chapter or is configured in a manner that impairs the vision of drivers and/or pedes trians in violation of subsection B (6) of this chapter. (Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 2. All outdoor lighting produced by the direct combustion of natural gas or other fossil fuels such as kerosene lanterns or gas lamps. 3. Temporary hHoliday lighting used for forty (40) days or less per year that is not in violation of this section. 4. Vehicular lights and all temporary emergency lighting needed for fire protection, police protection, and/or other emergency services. 5. All hazard warning lights required by federal or state regulatory agencies. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 6. Lighting when used to light a governmental flag in accordance with 4 USC 6(a); and provided, that the fixture used does not create light trespass in violation of this section. 7. Street lights and historical lights installed and configured to the appropriate specification for the applicat ion as determined by the Community Development Director or his/her appointee. B. The installation, use, or display of any of the following types of lighting and/or illumination shall be prohibited: 1. Mercury vapor lamp fixture and/or lamp. 2. Laser source light or any similar high intensity light. 3. Lighting that changes colors, revolves, or moves, including searchlights shall be prohibited in all districts, except wher e approved for temporary uses under a valid, current city of Meridian temporary use per mit. 4. Lighting, including strings of lights, on commercial or private tower structures that exceed the district height limit, ex cept as required by regulations of the federal aviation administration (FAA). 5. Strobing, revolving, or flashing lights. 6. Light or illumination with such brilliance or so positioned as to blind or dazzle impair the vision of drivers and/or pedestrians. 7. Low pressure sodium lighting. (Ord. 09-1436, 12-15-2009, eff. 1-1-2010) C. Standards: 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall have an opaque top to prevent uplighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield. See figure 1 of this section. 2. Light fixtures with a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall be placed such that the effective zone of light (as documented by the photometric test report) shall not trespass on abutting residential properties. See figure 2 of t his section. (Ord. 11- 1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 3. Floodlight fixtures shall be located in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on abut ting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. All light emitting from any parcel shall not cause the light level along any property line abutting a residential use to exceed 0.1 foot -candle. Light readings shall be measured at a height of 60 inches above grade and in a plane at any angle of inclination. Any light exceeding 0.1 foot- candle, when documented in the above manner, and extending onto an abutting residential use constitutes light trespass. 4. Floodlight fixtures shall be located positioned in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on prevent light trespass on abutting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 231 of 248 03/08/2019 7 b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. 5. Uplighting shall only be allowed in cases where the fixture and any light it emits are shielded from the sky by a roof overha ng or similar structural shield. 56. In residential districts, the height of a freestanding light fixture on private property shall not exceed six feet (6'). St reetlamps are exempt from this height restriction. 67. Light fixtures mounted on a wall may extend to the full height of the stru cture, but no farther. 78. Electrical feeds to outdoor light fixtures shall be underground, not overhead. 89. If an owner or applicant desires to obtain an alternative compliance from the provisions of this section, the procedure sha ll be in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 232 of 248 03/08/2019 8 11-3A-11 Figure 1 Replace existing figure with new one Figure 1 EXAMPLES OF FULL CUTOFF SHIELDS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 233 of 248 03/08/2019 9 Figure 2 Replace existing figure with new one FIGURE 2 LIGHT TRESPASS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 234 of 248 03/08/2019 10 11-3A-14(A) and (C) Outdoor storage as an accessory use An outdoor storage investigation recently went to a jury trial. During the trial it was made apparent that our current outdoor storage language does not include “personal property.” This became an issue when defense counsel asked the investigating officer to explain how the items referenced fit the current language in the code. The current language easily applies to commercial properties but not residential properties. 11-3A-14: OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE: Accessory outdoor storage shall be allowed for an approved use subject to the following standards: A. All outdoor storage of material, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be conducted in an orderly manner. It shall be unlawful to conduct outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies in a manner that: 1. Creates a public nuisance, visual blight, or acoustic impacts by reason of condition, duration, and/or volume. 2. Blocks, impedes or overlaps any sidewalk and/or vehicular traffic. 3. Causes the site to be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. B. For properties in commercial and/or traditional districts, outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are full y contained and screened from view of adjacent properties, the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height of six feet (6'). Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structur e. C. For properties in residential districts, all materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies, shall only be stored in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. No outdoor storage of materials, equip ment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be allowed in the required street yard, except as follows: On corner properties, such materials may be stored in the street side yard where such area is screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height; see section 11-3A-7 of this article for fencing regulations in street side yards. 11-3A-14(D)(2) Outdoor storage as an accessory use Clean-up to provide clarification to this section of code. 2. For properties that adjoin the railway corridor, in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor st orage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be screened from the interior edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (100') from the edge of right of way parallel to the railway corridor. 11-3A-20 Travelling sleeping quarters The current title and the definition are inconsistent. The title reads in part “…Sleeping Quarters” and the definition reads in part “…living quarters.” The tiny house movement is growing in popularity and we are seeing them in Meridian. Mobile tiny houses are not currently defined in our code. As their popularity increases, we are fielding more inquiries about Meridian’s stance on them. 11-3A-20: TRAVELLING SLEEPINGLIVING QUARTERS: No motor vehicle or trailer including, but not limited to, travel trailers, fifth wheels, recreational vehicles, mobile tiny houses and/or motor coaches, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters except within an approved recreational vehicle park. No recreational equipment, including, but not limited to, tents, tepees, yurts, and/or huts, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters. 11-3B-5(A)(1) Standards and installation Update this section of code to reflect the newly adopted tree publication guide for the Treasure Valley. A. Approved Tree Species: 1. The publication titled "Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide For Streets And Landscapes Throughout Idaho" by the urban forestry unit of the Boise parks and recreation department (latest edition) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species. The publication categorizes the trees by size as class I, cla ss II, or class III trees. 11-3B-9(C)(2) Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Add flexibility to this section code so applicants don’t have to submit City Council Review application to reduce the landscape buffers when commercial and industrial uses abut a residential use. Example of this is when a conditional use permit is before Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission doesn’t have the authority to waive the buffer except through the City Council Review process. 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise modified by the decision making body set forth in UDC Table 11-5A-2 city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum buffer size. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 235 of 248 03/08/2019 11 11-3C-4(A)(2) Parking standards for single- family detached, townhomes, secondary, duplex and single- family attached dwellings The amendment would cause the UDC to read more in line with the similar ISC 49-456. The UDC as it currently reads allows a vehicle to display any currently registered license plate even if the license plate is registered to another vehicle. Code Enforcement Officers have experienced this occurring when trying to get property owners to come into compliance. The front license plate of currently registered vehicle is often placed on the public view portion the unregistered vehicle. 2. Types Of Vehicles; Location Of Parking: Only automobiles and motorcycles displaying license plates and assigned to the vehicle with current registration may be parked in the required street yard. All other vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles without current registration, vehicles without license plates, recreational vehicles, personal recreational items, boats, trailers and/or other vehicles sh all only be parked in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 236 of 248 03/08/2019 12 Table 11-3C-6 Required parking spaces for residential use Modify parking standards to make it clear what parking standards apply to nursing care facilities and age restricted housing. Request of the UDC Focus Group members, they requested that 1 and 2 bedroom units have the same parking requirements. Use And Form Number Of Bedrooms (Per Unit) Required Parking Spaces1 Age restricted elderly housing (attached or detached) 1 0.5 per bed 2+ 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, duplex and dwelling, single-family (detached, attached, townhouse) 1/2 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 2/3/4 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 5+ 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, fourplex, apartments, etc.) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Dwelling, secondary 1 As set forth above for single-family dwellings as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property Nursing and Residential Care Facility 1 0.5 per bed Vertically integrated residential4 1 1 per dwelling unit 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 237 of 248 03/08/2019 13 11-3D-8(A)(14)(f) Sign requirements Include a new figure to the sign ordinance since there is a new interchange in the Ten Mile area. f. Properties within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way and properties adjoining the Interstate 84 interchanges, as depicted on figures 1, and/or 2 and/or 3 of this section are subject to the following standards: (1) Such freestanding signs shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, signs which may be permitted by the district provisions set forth in subsections B through H of this section. (2) Freestanding signs within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way are prohibited in resid ential districts. (3) The maximum background area of any sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4) The maximum height of any sign shall not exceed forty feet (40'). (5) Properties exceeding seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage may be allowed an additional height allowance and background area allowance. Such sign shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height nor shall such sign exceed three hundred (30 0) square feet of background area. Only one such sign shall be allowed per seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage. 11-3D-8 Figure 1 Replace and add new Interchange figures. Figure 1 I-84/Meridian Road Interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 238 of 248 03/08/2019 14 Figure 2 Figure 2 I-84/Eagle Road Interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 239 of 248 03/08/2019 15 Figure 3 Figure 3 I-84/Ten Mile Interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 240 of 248 03/08/2019 16 11-3G-3(B) Qualified open space Modify the open space standards to ensure the City is getting consolidated usable open space with residential developments. B. Qualified Open Space: The following may qualify to meet the common open space requirements: 1. Active Or Passive In Intended Use: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including, but not limited to: a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area; b. Community garden; c. Ponds or water features; or d. Plaza.; or e. Linear open space area that is at least 20 feet and up to 50 feet in width, has an access at each end, and is improved and la ndscaped as set forth in subsection 11-3G-3E of this chapter. 2. Additions To Public Park: Additions to a public park or other public open space area. 3. Landscape Buffer as Open Space Full Area of Buffer: The full area of the landscape buffer along collector and arterial streets may count toward the required common open space if developed with a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s pathway system, and where the pathway provides a direct route to an adjacent passive or active open space noted in B1 and B2 above. 4. Percentage Of Buffer: Fifty percent (50%) of the landscape buffer along arterial streets may count toward the required common open space. 5. Parkways Along Collector AndLocal Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11-3A-17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be excluded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the par kway. 6. Parkways Along Arterials: Parkways along arterial streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway is a minimum of ten feet (10') in width measured between edge of sidewalk and back of curb. Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street, the width of the buffer shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by AC HD; and (1) The parkway is planted with street trees and other materials in accord with subsection 11-3B-7C, "Standards", of this chapter; or (2) The parkway contains planter beds which meet the following requirements: A) Lawn areas account for no more than fifty percent (50%) of parkway. (B) Massed shrubs which at maturity provide vertical relief between minimum of one foot (1') and maximum of three feet (3') in he ight, cover at least twenty five percent (25%) of parkway area during growing season. Shrubs must be planted as a continuous edge or in a distinct repeating pattern to create vertical visual break between roadway and pedestrian areas (C) Planter beds must meet mulching and vegetation coverage requirements list ed under subsections 11-3B-5H and N of this chapter. 57. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-3B-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count towards the qualified open space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 68. Open Water Ponds: Aesthetically designed open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11-3G-3C. All ponds with a permanent water level shall meet the following standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water. b. The pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 241 of 248 03/08/2019 17 11-3H-3 Variance process Legal has determined that variance may not be required for Council to approve an access to State highways per State Statue. This modification to the UDC is being requested by the City Attorney’s office. 11-3H-3: PROCESS: Staff shall review all development applications for compliance with these standards. The City Council decision making body may consider and approve apply modifications to the standards of this article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not feasible. 11-4-3-14 Education Institution Add specific criteria for parking. I. In all commercial and residential districts, education institutions shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-27(B)(1) Site Design Recently, there have been some conflicts between the setbacks in the UDC and the building code. This change is needed to make it clear that the IBC has different ways of governing building separation on a property. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. 11-4 Indoor Shooting Range The City has approved one such facility in the Gramercy development. This has caused issues for code enforcement and other sections of city code. This use is currently defined as an indoor rec facility. 11-4-3-47: INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A. No indoor shooting range shall be allowed within three hundred feet (300’) of a residential use or district, daycare center, education institution, hospital, library or nursing or residential care facility. B. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. The application shall include a sound study prepared by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the impact of noise on adjoining uses. Any adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11-4 Restaurant Add specific uses standards for a restaurant, specifically to address parking. 11-4-3-48: RESTAURANT A. Parking: 1. At a minimum, one parking space shall be provided for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title. 11-5A-6(G)(5) Public hearing Extend the time period when the Commission has to forward its recommendation to Council. Need to make more consistent with this section of code. 5. The decision making body (see section 11-5A-2, table 11-5A-2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all information to make a decision or seventy (70) days from the last meeting where the application is considered if additional information is not needed . For applications where the commission is acting as a recommending body, the commission shall forward its recommendation t o the council within seventy forty five (4570) days. 11-5A-8(B) Fees Remove the request for fee waiver from code. 11-5A-8: FEES: In the application of fees for the review of permit applications, the following rules shall apply: A. Basis For Calculation: For any requested public hearing involving more than one classification of a petition or application, the filing fee shall be calculated on the basis of the cumulative fee for the individual application(s). B. Waiver Of Fee: Notwithstanding any of the preceding fee schedules, the city council shall have the authority to waive in whole or in part any application fee when such a fee would present a hardship. An applicant for a hardship waiver must present the request in writ ing to the city council, outlining the degree of such hardship. C. Fees Not Refundable: Fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition o r application is withdrawn at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of its scheduled public heari ng, and then only after order by the city council. 11-5B-4(B) Variances Remove the access to state highways section from the applicability section based on recommendation from Legal. State statutes do not specify access to state highways as part of a variance process; may be in violation. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for modification from the bulk and placement requi rements of this title. B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with respect to lot size, width, and depth; front, side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions of this title affecting the size and shape of a structure or the placement upon properties; and the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. If a means of alternative compliance is available, it should be exhausted before applying for a variance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 242 of 248 03/08/2019 18 Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Clean-up item to include noise abatement standards in UDC 11-3H- 4(D) are eligible for alternative compliance. B. Applicability: 1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-5B-5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Permit Section Common driveway 11-6C-3 Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G Fence requirements 11-3A-7 Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3 Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3 Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5 Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E Landscape requirements 11-3B Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8 Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3 Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11 Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3 Noise abatement standards 11-3H-4D Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5 Parking requirements 11-3C-6 Private street standards 11-3F-4 Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5 Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 243 of 248 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 244 of 248 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 245 of 248 E FRANKLIN RD S E A G L E R D S E A G L E R D E OVERLAND RD §¨¦84 [ Legend Interch ange Sign Area Parcels 0 10.5 MilesPrint Date: 4/25/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 246 of 248 E OVERLAND RD S M E R I D I A N R D S E 5 T H W A Y S S T O D D A R D R D W OVERLAND RD S S T R A T F O R D D R S M A I N S T E CENTRAL DR §¨¦84 [ Legend Interch ange Sign Area Parcels 0 10.5 MilesPrint Date: 4/25/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 247 of 248 W O V E R L A N D R D S T E N M I L E R D S B L A C K C A T R D §¨¦84 [ Legend Interch ange Sign Area Parcels 0 10.5 MilesPrint Date: 4/25/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 2, 2019 – Page 248 of 248 032/1108/2019 1 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question Potential Fix 11-1A-1 Definition Separate the personal and professional definition. They are separate uses in the allowed use tables in Chapter 2. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies. The term does not include healthcare and social service. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: See definition of personal and professional services. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photogr aphy studios; fitness trainers; and title companies. The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of an indoor shooting range INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A controlled area of activity, specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not include arts, entertainment and recreation facilities. 11-1A-1 Definition Add a new definition of linear open space OPEN SPACE, LINEAR: An area that is open to the sky that is a minimum of 20 feet in width, up to 50 feet in width, with two points of access and landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3G-3E.2. This term does not include other common open space requirements set forth in 11-3G-3B. 11-2A-3(B)(3) Minimum street frontages Ensure common driveways provide access to an abutting public street. 3. Properties taking access from a common driveway do not require street frontage, but said common driveway shall connect to an abutting public street. Formatted Table 032/1108/2019 2 Table 11-2A-6 Dimensional standards of the R-8 District Developer requested that the UDC specifically call-out setbacks for side loaded garages in the R -8 district. R-8 Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Restaurant1 - - - - A 032/1108/2019 3 Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the commercial districts. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Hotel and motel1 P/C P/C P/C - C P Indoor Shooting Range1 - - - - C - Industry, information1 P P P C P P Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Restaurant1 P P P C A A Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the industrial districts. Use I-L I-H Fuel sales facility, truck stop1 C C Indoor Shooting Range1 P C Industry, heavy1 - P/C Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use I-L I-H Restaurant1 A A Table 11-2D-2 Allowed uses in the traditional neighborhood districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use O-T TN-C TN-R Restaurant1 P P - Formatted Table Formatted Table Formatted Table 032/1108/2019 4 11-2B-3(A)(4) Standards Clean-up item. Re-numbering this standard as it does not pertain to a dimensional standard. 4B. Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L -O and C-N Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C-G Districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. 11-3A-6(B)(2) and (3) Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Amend this section of code to reference the definition of a water amenity in chapter 1 and grant the director the authority to waive the tiling of large irrigation facilities. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals , sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fenc ing is proposed allowed, the following standards shall apply. B. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and s hall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection C1 of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space , as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. See also subsection C2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. The city council decision-making body may waive the requirement for the covering of such ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can not be preserved. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining pro perty. a. The city council may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, or drain, if it finds that the public pur pose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. 032/1108/2019 5 11-3A-6(C)(3) Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Allow other styles of fencing along untiled irrigation facilities. C. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, and drains do not require fencing if it ca n be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Const ruction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals , and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or otherwise meet the fencing standards set forth in 11-3A-7(A)(7)(b) construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, or drain. 11-3A-14(D)(2) Outdoor storage as an accessory use Clarification to this section of code. 2. For properties that adjoin the railway corridor, in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor st orage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be screened from the edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (100') from the edge of right of way parallel to the railway corridor. 11-3B-5(A)(1) Standards an installation Update this section of code to reflect the newly adopted tree publication guide for the Treasure Valley. A. Approved Tree Species: 1. The publication titled "Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide For Streets And Landscapes Throughout Idaho" by the urban forestry unit of the Boise parks and recreation department (latest edition) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species. The publication categorizes the trees by size as class I, class II, or class III trees. 11-3B-9(C)(2) Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Add flexibility to this section code so applicants don’t have to submit City Council Review application to reduce the landscape buffers when commercial and industrial uses abut a residential use. Example of this is when a conditional use permit is before Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission doesn’t have the authority to waive the buffer except through the City Council Review process. 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the distric t in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise modified by the decision making body set forth in UDC Table 11-5A-2 city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum buffer size. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. Formatted Table 032/1108/2019 6 Table 11-3C-6 Required parking spaces for residential use Modify parking standards to make it clear what parking standards apply to nursing care facilities and age restricted housing. Use And Form Number Of Bedrooms (Per Unit) Required Parking Spaces1 Age restricted elderly housing (attached or detached) 1 0.5 per bed 21+ 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, duplex and dwelling, single-family (detached, attached, townhouse) 1 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 2/3/4 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 5+ 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, fourplex, apartments, etc.) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Dwelling, secondary 1 As set forth above for single-family dwellings as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property Nursing and Residential Care Facility 1 0.5 per bed Vertically integrated residential4 1 1 per dwelling unit 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit Formatted Table 032/1108/2019 7 11-3C-6(B) Required number of off street parking spaces Recently the City has been experienced an abnormal amount of parking issues with commercial developments. To minimize adverse impacts, staff recommends change the parking ratio for nonresidential uses in commercial developments. B. The following standards shall apply for off street vehicle parking for nonresidential uses: 1. In all commercial and residential districts the requirement sha ll be one space for every five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area,; one space for every two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area for restaurants, and drinking establishments and private/public education institutions and; except for self-service storage facilities which shall only require parking based on the gross floor area of any office space. 032/1108/2019 8 11-3D-8(A)(14)(f) Sign requirements Include a new figure to the sign ordinance since there is a new interchange in the Ten Mile area. f. Properties within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way and propert ies adjoining the Interstate 84 interchanges, as depicted on figures 1, and/or 2 and/or 3 of this section are subject to the following standards: (1) Such freestanding signs shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, signs which may be permitted by the district provisi ons set forth in subsections B through H of this section. (2) Freestanding signs within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way are prohibited in residential districts. (3) The maximum background area of any sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4) The maximum height of any sign shall not exceed forty feet (40'). (5) Properties exceeding seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage may be allowed an additional height allowance an d background area allowance. Such sign shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height nor shall such sign exceed three hundred (30 0) square feet of background area. Only one such sign shall be allowed per seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage. 032/1108/2019 9 11-3G-3(B) Qualified open space Modify the open space standards to ensure the City is getting consolidated usable open space with developments. The goal is to develop standards that are commensurate to the size of the proposed development. Further refinement and research is needed to this section. B. Qualified Open Space: The following may qualify to meet the common open space requirements: 1. Active Or Passive In Intended Use: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including, but not limited to: a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area; b. Community garden; c. Ponds or water features; or d. Plaza. 2. Additions To Public Park: Additions to a public park or other public open space area. 3. Landscape Buffer as Open Space Full Area of Buffer: The full area of the landscape buffer along collector and arterial streets may count toward the required common open space if developed with a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s pathway system, and or where the pathway provides a direct route to an adjacent passive or active open space noted in B1 and B2 above. 4. Percentage Of Buffer: Fifty percent (50%) of the landscape buffer along arterial streets may count toward the required common open space. 45. Parkways Along Collector AndLocal Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11-3A-17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be exclu ded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the parkway. 6. Parkways Along Arterials: Parkways along arterial streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the co mmon open space requirement: a. The parkway is a minimum of ten feet (10') in width measured between edge of sidewalk and back of curb. Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street, the width of the buffer shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by AC HD; and (1) The parkway is planted with street trees and other materials in accord with subsection 11-3B-7C, "Standards", of this chapter; or (2) The parkway contains planter beds which meet the following requirements: A) Lawn areas account for no more than fifty percent (50%) of parkway. (B) Massed shrubs which at maturity provide vertical relief between minimum of one foot (1') and maximum of three feet (3') in he ight, cover at least twenty five percent (25%) of parkway area during growing season. Shrubs must be planted as a continuous edge or in a distinct repeating pattern to create vertical visual break between roadway and pedestrian areas (C) Planter beds must meet mulching and vegetation coverage requirements listed under subsections 11-3B-5H and N of this chapter. 57. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-3B-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count towards the qualified open space requireme nt if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 68. Open Water Ponds: Aesthetically designed open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11 -3G-3C. All ponds with a permanent water level shall meet the following standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water. b. The pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. Commented [CH1]: We talked about an exhibit. I think that would help. 032/1108/2019 10 032/1108/2019 11 032/1108/2019 12 11-3H-3 Variance process Legal has determined that variance is may not be required for Council to approve an access to State highways. This modification to the UDC is being done the recommendation to the City Attorney’s office. 11-3H-3: PROCESS: Staff shall review all development applications for compliance with th ese standards. The City Council decision making body may consider and approve apply modifications to the standards of this article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not feasible or desirable. 11-4-3-14 Education Institution Add specific criteria for parking. I. In all commercial and residential districts, education institutions shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-27(B)(1) Site Design Recently, there have been some conflicts between the setbacks in the UDC and the building code. This change i st needed to make it clear that the IBC has different ways of governing building separation on a property. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent prop erties. 11-4 Indoor Shooting Range The City has approved one such facility in the Gramercy development. This has caused issues for code enforcement and other sections of city code. This use is currently defined as an indoor rec facility. 11-4-3-47: INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A. No indoor shooting range shall be allowed within three hundred feet (300’) of a residential use or district, daycare center, education institution, hospital, library or nursing care facility. B. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. The application shall include a sound study prepared by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the impact of noise on adjoining uses noted in A above. If the proposed use is located closer than 300 feet, the Any adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11-4 Restaurant Add specific uses standards for a restaurant, specifically to address parking. 11-4-3-48: RESTAURANT A. Any new restaurant use shall provide one parking space for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. Upon any change of use, the number of vehicle spaces to be provided shall be calculated according to the requirements of this article for the new use. TENANT SPACE? 11-5A-6(G)(5) Public hearing Extend the time period when the Commission has to forward its recommendation to Council. Need to make more consistent with this section of code. 5. The decision making body (see section 11-5A-2, table 11-5A-2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all information to make a decision or seventy (70) days from the last meeting where the application is considered if additional information is not needed . For applications where the commission is acting as a recommending body, the commission shall forward its recommendation to th e council within seventy forty five (4570) days. 11-5A-8(B) Fees Remove the request for fee waiver from code. 11-5A-8: FEES: In the application of fees for the review of permit applications, the following rules shall apply: A. Basis For Calculation: For any requested public hearing involving more than one classification of a petition or applicatio n, the filing fee shall be calculated on the basis of the cumulative fee for the individual application(s). B. Waiver Of Fee: Notwithstanding any of the preceding fee schedules, the city council shall have the authority to waive in whol e or in part any application fee when such a fee would present a hardship. An applicant for a hardship waiver must present the request in writing to the city council, outlining the degree of such hardship. BC. Fees Not Refundable: Fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition or application is withdrawn at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of its scheduled public hearing, and then only after order by the city c ouncil. 11-5B-4(B) Variances Remove the access to state highways section from the applicability section based on recommendation from Legal. State statutes do not specify access to state highways as part of a variance process; may be in violation. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for modification from t he bulk and placement requirements of this title. B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with res pect to lot size, width, and depth; front, side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions of this title affecting the size and shape of a structure or the placement upon properties; and the placement and/or number of access points to state highways . If a means of alternative compliance is available, it should be exhausted before applying for a variance. Formatted Table Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.17" Formatted Table Formatted: List Paragraph, Space Before: 6 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.05" + Indent at: 0.3" Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font color: Auto, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0", Space After: 10 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li 032/1108/2019 13 Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Clean-up item to include that noise abatement standards in UDC 11 - 3H- 4(D) are eligible for alternative compliance. B. Applicability: 1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-5B-5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Permit Section Common driveway 11-6C-3 Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G Fence requirements 11-3A-7 Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3 Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3 Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5 Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E Landscape requirements 11-3B Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8 Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3 Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11 Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3 Noise abatement standards 11-3H-4D Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5 Parking requirements 11-3C-6 Private street standards 11-3F-4 Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5 Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19