The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-11-07 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll-Call Attendance _____Lisa Holland __x__Andrew Seal __x__Rhonda McCarvel _____Reid Olsen _x____Ryan Fitzgerald _x____Bill Cassinelli 2. Adoption of Agenda _____ Jessica Perreault - Chairperson 3. Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Approve Minutes of October 24, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Adera S torage (H-2019- 0094) by Chad Olsen, Located at 1680 W. Ustick Rd. D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North (H- 2019-0105) by Chad Olsen, Located at 3543 E. Tecate Ln. 4. Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public H earing 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 Continued from October 3, 2019 for Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by SI Construction, Located at the NW Corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way Recommend Denial to City Council – Scheduled December 10, 2019 1. Request: Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district, and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat for the Re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Goddard Creek Subdivision Consisting of 4.62 Acres of Land into 44 Building Lots and 8 Common Lots. B. Public Hearing for 840 E. Ustick Rd. (H-2019-0098) by Scott Lamm, Located at 840 E. Ustick Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled December 3, 2019 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.29 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district. C. Public Hearing for Waterwalk (H-2019-0111) by dbURBAN Communities, Generally Located on the West Side Of N. Eagle Rd., North of E. Franklin Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled December 3, 2019 1. Request: Rezone of 6.03 acres of land from the I -L to the C-G zoning district. D. Public Hearing for Percy Subdivision (H-2019-0097) by Schultz Development, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd. and South of E. Amity Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled December 10, 2019 1. Request: To de-annex 0.42 acres of land currently zoned R-4 for the purpose of combining the property with the adjacent County RUT parcel to the south; and 2. Request: A Rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district; and 3. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 113 single-family residential lots and 11 common lots on approximately 28.51 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district; and 4. Request: A Modification to the Development Agreement (Instrument No. 2016-007091) to incorporate the requested Preliminary Plat. E. Public Hearing for Street Length for Cul-de-Sacs (H-2019-0107) by Todd Campbell Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled December 3, 2019 1. Request: To extend the maximum street length for cul-de-sacs listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 from 450 feet to 500 feet, or up to 750 feet with City Council approval. Meeting Adjourned at 8:10 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 7, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 7, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Members Absent: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Lisa Holland and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Others Present: Andrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance _______ Lisa Holland _______ Reid Olsen __X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ________ Jessica Perreault - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like -- at this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of November 7th, 2019, and let's start with roll call. Madam Chair -- or, Madam Clerk, would you like to call the roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We don't have any changes tonight, so can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as stated? Cassinelli: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 4 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 2 of 45 A. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Approve Minutes of October 24, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Adera Storage (H- 2019-0094) by Chad Olsen, Located at 1680 W. Ustick Rd. D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North (H-2019-0105) by Chad Olsen, Located at 3543 E. Tecate Ln . Fitzgerald: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have four items on the agenda. To approve the minutes for October 17th, 2019's, Planning and Zoning Meeting. The October 24th, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. And the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Adera Storage, file number H-2019-0094 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North, H-2019-0105. Anything that we need to pull out of the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda. Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: And at this time I would like to give you all a -- kind of an understanding of how we run our public meetings. We are going to open each application and we will start with the staff report. The staff will report findings regarding how the item -- and I can't get my notes -- excuse me -- adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and development code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to make their case and after the applicant has finished we will -- we will open the floor to public testimony. There is a sign-up iPad in the back, so if you all would like to be heard tonight make sure you sign up in the application -- application you would like to be heard from. If any individual is here for an HOA and there is a group that will show their hands where they will give up their time to this person to speak on the HOA's behalf, we will give you an extra ten minutes to speak for that group. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will come back forward and we will give them ten minutes to re -- to respond to public testimony and close the discussion and after that we will close the public hearing and we will deliberate and determine if we can make a recommendation or approve the application, depending on what it is. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 5 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 3 of 45 Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from October 3, 2019 for Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by SI Construction, Located at the NW Corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way 1. Request: Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R- 4 to the R- 15 zoning district, and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat for the Re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Goddard Creek Subdivision Consisting of 4. 62 Acres of Land into 44 Building Lots and 8 Common Lots. Fitzgerald: So, with that we have a -- first on the agenda we have Goddard Creek Townhomes, which is H-2019-0068 and we -- this is a continued public hearing, Bill, and I want to make sure, because Commissioner Cassinelli, wasn't here previously to give a rundown and for everybody in the audience this is an application that was continued for -- to ensure we had adequate public comments and there were some folks who couldn't be here, so, Bill, if you can give a -- kind of a brief overview, so make sure that Commissioner Cassinelli is up to speed and, then, we will -- if anyone has already spoken we would ask that you don't come up, because we already have that on the record and everybody was here, except Commissioner Cassinelli, so I want to make sure we get everybody -- public comment that wants to talk tonight, but, Bill, if you can start this off with a brief staff report and we will go from there for this application. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you stated, this was continued from the previous Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of additional public testimony. I will run through the specifics of this application for you once again and remind you of what I brought up at that hearing and, then, also share with you some of the revisions that the applicant has made to the plan based on those conditions in the staff report. So, if you recall this property is located on McMillan Road and Goddard Creek Way. So, it's the northwest corner. This property was annexed and zoned in 2002 as part of the Lochsa Falls development. As part of that approval there was a development agreement that allowed for a use exception for office uses on this property in the R-4 zoning district. In 2017 this property came back before this body with a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change it from high density residential and office to mixed use community. At that time there was also a concurrent conditional use permit for a multi-family development on this particular site. As this property -- or as the project moved through the public hearing process the applicant was concerned that Council would not approve the request for multi-family on the site and he subsequently withdrew that request for the multi-family component of this particular project. So, currently the comp plan amendment did move forward with approval and there is currently a storage facility being constructed along the west boundary of this property. Council approved the DA amendment to allow the storage facility, but wanted the site to remain R-4 with the use exception for offices. So, the applicant is here this evening, again, to discuss developing this site with 41 townhome units. Again, this is not multi-family, it is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 6 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 4 of 45 townhomes, which is by definition single family. The site consists of 20 percent of open space and three amenities, which consists of a dog park, a tot lot and a covered picnic area. What makes this project unique is that there -- it's served by public -- or private streets, because both ACHD and city staff do not want access to McMillan Road and there is an existing common lot along the east boundary that was platted with the Lochsa Falls development that prevents access to Goddard Creek, other than West Selway Rapids Lane to the north, which was -- provided cross-access to this property and that is also a private street. So, ACHD doesn't allow public streets off of private streets -- to have private streets going back into the public streets, so that's why the applicant is proposing private streets at this time and in order to meet the requirements of code for private streets, he had to have -- provide an MU development and that's why you see that central open space in between the units in the middle of the development. So, one of our conditions was to have those fronting on the MU, rather than having the rear of the units on that in order to meet UDC standards and support this private street application. So, again, there is also alternative compliance for that. Our director's approved for alternative compliance to allow the common drives off the private streets and, then, also approve the private street application as well. So, it does not take -- require any action of this particular body. If you recall in my testimony last week or two weeks ago I also mentioned to you that the public record -- there was nine residents that testified in opposition. Primary concerns were traffic and parking in the area. In order to address that and based on staff's recommendation, the applicant did provide guest parking within this facility, which isn't necessarily required by code, because the townhome units that you see here actually meet the code requirements for the parking pad and a two -- two car garages for each unit. So, again, they heard staff's concerns, they were informed of some of the neighborhood opposition that we dealt with on that project back in '17 and now, again, was addressed with this application. So, again, staff is recommending approval with those changes and I just -- before I conclude my presentation, one of our other recommended changes was to relocate the common open space along McMillan Road. So, you can see here the applicant provided a revised exhibit. The open space shifted to the east and the two units that were on the east side have moved over next to these two units. So, before the open space was central in this location with two units on either side. Based on our recommendation currently the water and sewer stubs for this property are located in this area, so in order to facilitate the extension of those facilities it was easier to have the applicant redesign their plan, relocate the open space, increase and connect two larger open spaces to make it more usable and move this over here. Again, applicant's obliged staff in doing so. We believe that this plan is better suited this way and, again, staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have questions? Cassinelli: Yes, Mr. Chair. Bill, can you just explain to me, even though these -- you mentioned that as townhomes these are -- these are single family residences. So, can you explain to me how we are getting that versus a multi-family with the -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 7 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 5 of 45 Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's very simple. In our code there is certain definitions for each of the housing styles in our community. The multi-family development is three or more units on a single parcel. In this particular case the applicant's platting the lot underneath each one of the dwelling units and having shared walls. So, in this development when you got three or more units attached it's a townhome. When you have two units attached it's single family attached homes. So, essentially, where you are -- the central units in the middle of development, those would be considered townhomes, because it's more than three units. Each unit is on its individual lot. On the perimeter we have the single family attached and, then, there is a -- there is another townhome of three units here in the southeast corner. So, that's really the definition. And, then, when we apply the parking standards for single family dwellings, you have to have the two car garage and the 20 by 20 parking pad in front of that and that's the distinction here where in a multi-family development you will have covered parking or surface parking. You don't necessarily need a garage spot. But when we were looking at townhome developments, single family detached, single family detached homes, duplexes, all of those types of housing require the garage requirement and the parking pad in front of them and that's why they are more like a single family than a multi- family development. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff? Thanks, Bill. Would the applicant like to come forward? Scott, do you want to come -- Noriyuki: Thank you, Commission. Scott Noriyuki. Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. 83714. First of all, I want to thank Bill and staff, as well as the Commission and your comments, as well as the neighborhood. We have -- we have held three neighborhood meetings and gleaned information from them, as well as you, as well as my client and staff. With that said, I have just got a couple of things I'm going to go over, so we are not being redundant. The distinction with townhouses, which is very very critical, is these are not apartments. They are owner occupied. They are parceled with literal soil, dirt, underneath them, which allows the underwriters, banks, to approve mortgage loans more easier than say a condo, if you will. So, the product, which is very necessary in Meridian, is residential opportunities. We currently have here a lot of rentals and we have a lot of single family detached, but that jump for a lot of kids or young families or single families to transition from the rental ultimately to the single family is the step. So, it's a step-up product and it's verified, only -- only five percent of product in the City of Meridian currently fits within this need. It's a demand. With that the only other thing I want you to key into that I asked Bill -- and I don't know if you had a chance to put it forward within your staff report, I presented an update today to go into your staff report that addresses all of the traffic, as well as the school concerns. With that I will stand with -- or for any questions. Fitzgerald: Questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Mr. Chairman? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 8 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 6 of 45 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Scott, you just mentioned -- and I was going to ask you if you -- if you knew numbers and, then, you threw out the five percent that meet this criteria in the city. Where -- where did you get that from? Noriyuki: I am citing that from an article that was printed by the Idaho Statesman that -- bear with me here. I want to highlight it. That was dated late last year that cited Caleb Hood, as well as another staff member. Bear with me here. I will submit this to you. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner, do you have additional questions? Cassinelli: No. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Noriyuki. Noriyuki: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. At this time, Madam Clerk, do you have folks that are signed up to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I show one. Janie Pollman signed in, but did not indicate a wish to testify. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone additional in the audience that would like to testify? Sir, do you want to come forward. The gentleman in the blue shirt. Bellamy: And I did sign in, so -- Fitzgerald: And, please, state your name and address for the record, please, sir. Bellamy: Good evening. My name is John Bellamy. I live at 2464 Wapoot Drive in Meridian, Idaho. Okay. So, I want to testify I attended these meetings back when the discussion was about the Selway apartments. You had all of us sign in at that point in time on paper. Everyone signed in against with one exception. That one exception happened to be an out-of-state developer from Spokane, Washington. Yet this project was approved. It was approved on the little known high density housing to be developed in the Lochsa development at some point in time to be determined in the future. That was the catchphrase that got that product approved. Okay. That time has come and that time has gone. The ten acres that Selway sits on was zoned R-4 and, then, we now have 170 apartments there. Crime has gone through the roof. Our house values have tanked. Traffic has become a disaster. But yet now you want to do the same thing on 5.3 acres by putting in 40 townhomes. Okay. By definition they are not high density. Common sense tells me it's very high density. The intersection of Goddard Creek and McMillan, if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 9 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 7 of 45 you look on your map that you guys have up on the boards up here, you can see that the traffic coming from the east, that is virtually a blind intersection. ACHD has the big white line that you are supposed to stop behind until you can pull out into clear traffic. You can't see the traffic with the structures that are further to the east. No one stops short of that white line. I have seen as many as two cars in front of it and it's going to cause a major problem. In parking right now with Selway, they can't park in the Selway apartments. They are parking on all of the access streets. Apgar Creek for one. Those people that get frustrated with trying to get out of Goddard Creek onto McMillan are now using Apgar Creek and north on Goddard Creek as alternative routes. Unfortunately, they are doing it at excessive speed and excessive traffic. Those streets were not built to handle that. We have already had one child killed on Goddard Creek. We don't need additional. Talk about the schools. My wife is a teacher in the Meridian district. Has been for over 30 years. And I will tell you that the schools in north Meridian are overcrowded. I have a daughter attending the high school at Rocky Mountain. We have a fairly new high school and within, what, a year and a half, two years they had portables, because they don't -- can't handle the student population. We have shoved so much in north Meridian. We can't handle anymore. It's bad enough that our quality of housing has gone down and our home values, but now we are getting Costco, we are getting Winco. We got the super Walmart. North Meridian cannot take much more. And this 5.03 acres was zoned R-4, four residents per acre, and there were a lot of us that looked at that when we purchased our homes there. This is governance by the people, for the people, by the people. Listen to your people. You didn't do it on the Selway. The people didn't want it. You all approved it. Please listen to your people on this project. Thank you for your time. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: I resolved our technical issues. I can give the list now. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Thank you for your patience, everyone. The next person I show signed in is Danner Patchell. Patchell: Good evening. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. My name is Danner Patchell. I live on 2371 West Apgar Creek Drive there in Meridian. So, two houses right there from Goddard. I just wanted to take this time and I appreciate the time, seeings as I wasn't here last time, to kind of state my case. I have a six year old and I have another child that is due any day now and we already, as he -- as he talked -- you know, the last gentleman talked about, we have already had one kid killed on Goddard Creek. I am -- I fear for my child because of the parking and the traffic issues, especially the speed. Like he said, they no longer go out Goddard Creek, they come across Apgar and go out further -- go out further east. So, I would just like to take this time to ask you to, please, not Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 10 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 8 of 45 change this to an R-15 and keep it as an R-4, to not exacerbate our parking problems, our traffic problems, our speed problems and that's all I have to say. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, the next person signed in is -- or are Rod and Angie Ludlow. Okay. The next person is Penny Fisher. Fitzgerald: Ma'am, thanks for being here today. Yeah. Please state your name and your address for the record, please. Fisher: My name is Penny Fisher. My address is 2382 West Apgar Creek. I reside in the home that is kitty corner directly from the proposed project. With that said I am going to be affected by this directly. As it is right now there is not a single day that goes by that I don't have parking of different people in front of my home, which means when I have friends that want to come and visit they cannot even park in front of my own home. That's one of the reasons why I do oppose this. They are saying it's 5.03 acres of land, but when you look at it they are actually only able to build on 4.62 acres of the land. So, you are trying to shove 44 -- 42 units on 4.62 acres. One of the things I'm -- when we bought and purchased our home we did look at the townhomes -- or not the townhomes, we looked at the area. We did look at the planning and zoning and we looked at the master plan and on the master plan it had commercial high density, the Selway apartments, and homes. So, our subdivision did allow for high density and Selway with their 121 units, did completely comply and take that. What they are asking us to do is once again change the zoning, because, again, as they -- without being able to change it from an R-4 to an R-15, this is not feasible or pliable or -- and without putting 41 units on it, it comes down to money. It would not be -- if they didn't put the 41 units on there it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't make them any money. So, I feel like for the developer they don't care about the livability of the land. They don't care about the master plan of -- of Meridian that has been created for the livability of it. They don't care about the traffic. They are not in charge of the traffic. They don't care about the home values. They are not in charge of the home values. They don't care about the schools. They are not in charge of the home values. What they care about is purchasing and developing the plan for money and so with me being right there I have talked to many many people who are concerned about the traffic. They are concerned about crime. They are concerned about the livability going down. So, what I ask for you guys to consider is -- I know that you guys are not in charge of all of that, but you are in charge of the livability and sustaining and keeping our master plan. So, I'm asking you to once again stick to the master plan and do not change it, keep it up at the R-4 and do not change it to the R-15. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel Fisher. Seth Patchell. You can yield your turn. That's fine. Noah Patchell. Same? That's it for testimony. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 11 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 9 of 45 Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application in the audience? Any questions for staff before I get a motion to close the public hearing? Oh, and the application -- yeah. Sorry, Scott. You want to come back up and talk. Yes. The applicant would like to come forward and close the discussion. Sir, thank you. Thank you. Our good chair isn't here, because she won an election yesterday, so we are very happy for her, but I'm trying to take over. Noriyuki: Fair enough. Scott Noriyuki. Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. 83714. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank the testimony from the neighbors. I understand the concerns. I want to go over a couple of things. I wrote them down. So, I will try to be concise and quick. Number one, this area has changed from the original development at the onset years and years ago, the master plan, and, of course, this entire portion of the city has morphed and it's changed. So, I want to point that out. And over the years there have been multiple zone changes and development agreement modifications. What we are doing is we are adjusting to market demand, the needs of the city, and what's appropriate. That said I want to make clarification that I'm not from Spokane. I'm not the original developer. I have nothing to do with all the original applications. We are coming forward with what we believe is a good idea. We are born and raised Idaho. Period. Just saying that. Property values are not at risk. In fact, we are coming in with a very high end product from our standpoint. It's going to be quality built. It's not derogatory. It's not rental. It's not cheap. Traffic studies. I hope each of you had a chance to see what I submitted today as far as -- as far as the calculations that prove out, per ACHD and national standards and studies and experts, that prove out these 41 -- the staff report is incorrect stating 44. There is actually 41 townhouses proposed. It proves out the trip capture on a daily basis would be significantly lower than light office. So, from a traffic standpoint we are actually less of an impact. Furthermore, I hope you -- and you can see the links and the research points that we have that prove this out. Furthermore, from a school standpoint I'm a parent and I get that. I mean growing pains in the City of Meridian, what are we, one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. I have spoke with the vice-president of the school district. I have an understanding and I gave you links of the school -- the new schools that are approved to be built. The schools that are going to be expanded by 2020, which is at or about the same time that we would actually complete construction and per their calculations and census data, we are going to add 34, 35 kids to the school age. Very small. With that said I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? And thank you for reminding me. I appreciate it greatly. Make sure you got to close. Noriyuki: Thank you. Fitzgerald: With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2019-0068. Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 12 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 10 of 45 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: My fellow commissioners, the application is presently before you. Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: I never reviewed the minutes from the last one. Did you guys have any debate? Fitzgerald: We talked about it a little bit on certain components of it, moving some components around and kind of where the staff had gone and talking about the product mix in the city. We talked about that, too. But there wasn't a great deal of that. I think we had -- had a conversation about continuing this before that and so we didn't get deep into it. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: I have a -- Bill, I have a question for you. I don't know -- going back to -- I know when we reviewed the last the -- the multi-family back in 2017, we talked about the Selway apartments a lot. Was that -- and I don't know if you recall from that. Was the Selway apartments -- were those originally supposed to be on this land and they got pushed to where they -- they got pushed back to where they are now? Do you recall? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, this was always the location slated for the Selway apartments and it was the -- this entire front edge was always -- was going to be office -- Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: -- is what the original plan was and that's -- that's why when they came through with their comp plan amendment two years ago and we wanted to try to -- you know, as -- as this commission knows with mixed use community we try to at least get two distinct land use -- we want three distinct land uses on the particular property. In this particular case just to the west of this site is BridgeTower development that has some vacant office lots and some vacant commercial at the corner of Ten Mile and McMillan and so we used that as a barometer, say here is the commercial component, we are going to have storage. This is the other component. And, then, the multi-family was the third component to kind of tie in and blend in with that mixed use comp plan changes that we were processing back in '17. But I worked on the Selway project when I first started with the city and my recollection is that it was always part of a PUD -- approved as part of that PUD for 171 units and it was zoned R-4. The city actually recommended a condition of approval that they rezone it from R-4 to R-40 and the Council denied the rezone and that's why it remains R-4 today with the 171 units on it. The reason why the apartments went forward -- and the -- the Council couldn't necessarily deny the project based on the public Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 13 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 11 of 45 testimony that the -- the gentleman was up here testifying is because it was entitled with the PUD and there was no mechanism for the Council to deny it. It was already, essentially, approved with the PUD process. All that we were doing at that time was making sure that it -- it integrated with the neighborhood and that those were the findings that the city made and that's why the apartment was built. But in relationship to this project right now it's zoned R-4, but the DA says that they are allowed to do office uses. that's currently how its structured in today's world and as I mentioned to you in my presentation that's what the Council supported two years ago, that office was a better use for this and so they, essentially, denied the rezone for this piece, too. It was R-15. Those R-40 -- they were a lot -- they were proposing I think 82 units. They watered it down to Commission had concerns with the multi-family, that it was going to be too dense, not enough open space, parking concerns with that project. So, you guys continued it out and they lost units, brought in more amenities, more open space with that multi-family project and you guys had recommended approval, but, again, at the time that it got up to Council just felt office was better and so the applicant elected just to withdraw their application rather than take the chances with a denial and ultimately it was -- got withdrawn and office uses stayed on the site. Cassinelli: Was that in '18? Because I know in '17 we recommended for denial on it. Parsons: I believe you continued it out for the apartments to get modifications, but, then, you forwarded it on, if I recall, but I don't know if you actually partially denied it. Fitzgerald: I think we have seen it three times. I know we have recommended denial once, recommended approval once, and, then, this is the third time we have seen it, if that's what I recall. Cassinelli: I didn't look at it. I looked at the one -- I was reading through the one that was -- that we recommend for denial and the other one I thought was just for the storage unit. Fitzgerald: I think we split it up and, then, sent one on and kept one not going forward or something. I think -- Cassinelli: I think the last one in '17 was the one that was recommended for denial. Parsons: Partial approval. Partial denial. I think there was something that was -- there was two CUPs that went concurrent with that comp plan change. One was the apartments, the other was the storage. So, I stand corrected. If you guys recommended denial on it, rather than approval, then, I stand corrected and you went forward with a partial denial on the multi-family component. You felt it was too dense. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think that's what happened, because we split it in half. Cassinelli: While my mic still on, I will go ahead -- Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 14 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 12 of 45 Cassinelli: -- and make my comments. I -- I like the product. I like -- I think there is a need. We have got -- I mean multi-family as far as apartments have been exploding and going up all over, but there are -- I don't think there is a lot of -- now that -- the -- the number that Scott put up, that five percent number, had a mix of -- it was multi-family and included townhouses. But I -- I don't -- I'm just trying to picture in my mind townhouses around Meridian and I don't think there is a lot. I know for -- you know, for young -- for young families it's -- it's definitely a need and it's a -- we haven't needed it in the past, because single family homes in Meridian were always so cheap and so -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: But now they -- now they are kind of out of control. So, townhouses are a great way for, you know, somebody starting out to -- to own and do that. So, I really like that. My issues with this -- looking back and what I saw and what I recall is we denied the -- the residential portion of that based upon a lot of factors. Dense -- density being one. Changing of the DA -- the original DA for Lochsa Falls included the 171 multi-family and that's what was put in was -- with the Selway apartments and now we are looking to change it up and add more residential units and I know if I was -- if I was living in there I wouldn't be happy if I bought within that -- in that DA is what it is, now I'm trying to go back and change it later. I -- you know, I don't like -- I just -- I don't like it. I don't like it from that standpoint that it -- we are trying to change the DA for that. I know we changed the zoning of it to get -- to get the -- the storage in there and when you look at the mixed use community and having three -- three different types of usage, I know that -- I think Selway apartments are -- are separate and that's high density, but, really, kind of included in that little pocket there as far as being mixed use community. So, there is your high density residential for the MUC. You have got the storage unit, which is one aspect. Now you're looking for another and that's why I think -- I mean to me the office -- to keep it as -- you know, to have it with the office would be a good use of that land. The other issue I have with this is that we are looking at two steps up. Not from R-4 to R-8, but we are going -- we are going all the way up to R-15. So, we are looking for -- for -- for a two step up and that is -- it's a complicated piece, because, obviously, R-15 fits in the MUC and this one doesn't have the -- if you look at it as an MUC it doesn't have the residential component, but the Selway to me is that residential high density component of an MUC, even though I don't think the Selway that -- that's not in this -- that parcel is not part of the MUC, so it's kind of confusing that. So, the way I stand I like the -- I like the project from what I see of it and I think there is a need, I just -- messing with it -- you know, changing the DA when people -- they bought in Lochsa Falls with the understanding what that was going to be and, then, you know, instead taking two steps up in the -- in this -- I mean if we are looking at it like that. So, those are my issues with it. Those are my concerns as -- as a result I would personally probably vote to deny based on those. Fitzgerald: So, could I ask a quick question? So -- and I will ask you and, then, Bill, too. Everything that is -- that is being submitted in this application goes with the DA; correct? So, they -- they can't come back and change it, but that's not coming to us again, but just -- I mean I'm making sure that there is an understanding. So, we are going to maintain and if this was something we move forward with or not. But the DA -- it would change to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 15 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 13 of 45 have this product type elevation setup. So, it's not that there is something to come back in and let's go build R-15 and increase the density later on. They would have to come back to us again. So, I'm just making sure that it's clear. If it goes -- this -- everything that is in this package goes into the DA. So, they have to build this product or come back and ask for something to change. Cassinelli: This product is in the DA? Fitzgerald: It would have to be. It goes with it. Cassinelli: So, we would have to change -- we would have to -- if they are looking to amend the DA. Fitzgerald: So, you want to clarify, just to make sure we are on the same page? Parsons: I'm looking at the staff report. Give me a few minutes here. Cassinelli: Because that's -- that's my understanding is part of the application was to amend the -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. No. I agree. Cassinelli: Yeah. Fitzgerald: But is -- and all this -- this -- the plat and the elevations and what they are proposing would go into that modification. So, like if they were going to do something different that was even denser they would have to come back and ask again. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Bill, also -- as part of the comments on -- last meeting with this was even though it's R-15 pretty much for the setbacks. It's just a hair over R-8. Is it -- yeah. It's -- the density is like nine -- nine point something. I mean it's not pushing the limits of the R-15, it's just that for the setbacks of the properties, but -- Parsons: So, Commissioners, looking through the development agreement modification portion of the staff report, yes, right now, just to clarify, the density is 8.87 dwelling units to the acre, which is slightly above the medium density residential designation, but this is mixed use community where we anticipate densities between six and 15 dwelling units to the acre. So, it even falls in between the midpoint of that range as anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and the current Comprehensive Plan designation and, then, yes, the new DA, if you will, or the modified DA says that the applicant shall comply with the site plan elevations, open space, all of the things that you see in this plan is what's tied to the property if Council approves it the way it's being presented this evening. Again, you don't -- you are not an acting body on the DA modification, that's something -- the purview of the Council, but that staff's recommendation in the staff report that their strict adherence to the plan that you are seeing this evening, along with elevations and that density. So, yes, if changes were if this didn't move forward -- let's say they get approval through the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 16 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 14 of 45 Council and the DA gets executed and this is the plan on the books, yes, if they wanted to change it they are coming either before Council or this body, depending on what other applications they would be proposing. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Just want to make sure that was clear in everybody's mind. Additional thoughts? Comments? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just in looking at it and reading through the comments that are -- I mean Mr. Noriyuki's response for the public comments piece of it, I mean there is some -- some compare and contrast in here as far as, you know, putting in what's proposed versus putting in office space, essentially, and as far as the -- the number of trips each day and everything and it's very well thought out and it's very well presented, but I think in my mind the difference between them is going to be you're going to have everybody leaving at the same time, everybody coming back at the same time and what a retail office type space -- not necessarily a restaurant or something, you are going to have people that are going to be coming in and out during different parts of the day, not necessarily rush hour. I mean most people don't set their appointments up to be somewhere at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. So, I think that's an important distinction. The other thing -- and I mean we have talked about before is just the report that we got from the West Ada School District shows that every school that's -- every school that the children in this should go to is overcrowded and they won't go to it. They will be bused somewhere else. So, if it were my kid I wouldn't want them to be bused somewhere else. I want them to go to the school that's across the street and down the road, whatever that looks like. You know, the closer the better essentially. I mean that's because you want your kids to play with kids that they go to school -- school with, not come home to a -- you know, a subdivision of strangers essentially. So, I mean those are the two things that I'm looking at. The -- the other part is the ACHD report actually shows that -- I mean, essentially, those -- not only McMillan, but the streets there are -- I mean they are at capacity or more according to two plus year old data. So, that's -- you know. And I do drive by this area all the time, so that -- that portion of McMillan is horrible, to say the least. Anybody that's willing to take a bike out on that portion of McMillan is taking their life into their own hands for sure. So, you know, to try to put more people, more kids and everything into that is going to be -- I don't think it would be a very good use for it. And the other part that I want to bring up as far as the office space piece of it, people are going to be coming in and out of that, essentially, by Google or by direction, so I would imagine the offices in that area are going to instruct them to come in and out on McMillan. Now, whether or not they are going to go out Apgar and they are going to go all the way out to Linder, that's -- you know, nobody knows. I'm sure once people that would frequent those places of business figure that out, they are going to do the same thing that a lot of the residents are doing and that's -- they are going to go straight out to Linder and they are going to go out from there, just because you can't get onto McMillan from there in the mornings. It's probably nearly impossible Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 17 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 15 of 45 with the amount of people that they have going in and out. You know, those things considered, I'm -- I'm definitely looking at this for a denial. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm really torn with this, because I -- I really like the product and I love that they have come with 20 percent open space, plus additional parking, plus, plus, plus, plus. But I'm recalling our original denial on -- that really -- anything over the R-4 on this piece was just because of the traffic trying to get out of there on that corner and that it's already backed up. I think -- I think the office may be the better way to go on this. But I do -- I love the concept, I just -- I wish it was somewhere else just because of the already high density behind it, the issues that already exists there. Fitzgerald: Well, I would add my two cents. I love the product. I think there is a need for it in Meridian. I -- I think they did an exceptional job of laying this out. I don't think -- just for informational purposes, I don't think they are going to give us access onto McMillan. I think that's going to be emergency only forever. I don't think you are ever getting access to McMillan ever. So, whatever goes in there is going to have to use Selway Rapids or whatever they are going to -- because they can't curb cut on that island way on Goddard Creek. So, this is going to be a layout of -- something is going to go onto that Selway Creek line. So, that's just something -- food for thought everybody. I -- this piece of property we have struggled with for a long time. I think the DA's history is pretty extensive on -- I -- if I remember correctly -- and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong -- but there was a component of how much high density was supposed to be on the PUD and it was partially taken down, but not the whole thing, but I don't recall how much of it. So, that was something that came up and I remember having a conversation about it at our last meeting. I think we have seen this thing three times. So, I think this is the best rendition I have seen of it, but it's still back to the residential piece and if it fits there. So, I'm struggling, because I do know that there is a need for this product in the city, but if this is the right spot or not I don't know. But there is -- I'm struggling. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: The other thought that just ran through my head is if this was something else other than -- I know -- I can see where there is plenty of parking within this little corridor for what's there, but we already have excessive overflow and people looking -- Fitzgerald: To replace the park. McCarvel: -- at parking and if it was a regular street or office or something there might be an opportunity for some of that overflow parking that's already congesting Goddard Creek to be -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 18 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 16 of 45 Fitzgerald: Oh, sure. Let's blame the parking on somebody else's problems. Cassinelli: I think we have learned since then. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Well, we are definitely getting better at it. Cassinelli: Hopefully. Seal: And Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I also -- I would like to -- I mean I didn't say anything about the positives about this and that is that if you took this -- if you could cherry pick this and put it into a -- to a spot that's more appropriate I would be all over it. I mean I have -- myself I have kids that absolutely need this type of housing in Meridian. So, I mean, you know, I know people personally that would benefit from having this kind of -- this kind of product available to them and it is very well thought out and it's very well laid out. I have no issues with anything that they have done on that. It's just the, you know, the -- how appropriate is it for this specific area. That's what I struggle with. Fitzgerald: So, I'm understanding of the certainty of somewhat of the zoning and we have done this because of that several times. So, there is some thought there. And I understand the Goddard Creek neighborhood as they have had a young kid get killed on a bike not very long ago. So, that is very fresh and we need to take that into account. So -- so, that's thoughts, additional -- do you have -- I can't do motions, because I'm -- McCarvel: Yeah. I would be happy to move forward with a motion if -- Fitzgerald: Any other comments from other commissioners before Commissioner McCarvel -- Cassinelli: I just -- just kind of a general comment. We -- we talk about these in-fill projects all the time and they are tough and I know there was -- there was one up on Linder across from the fire station there on the backside of Paramount that the first go around I remember we denied it and it was -- it was multi-family and they came back with a product that the neighbors were happy with, it fit, it worked, it's going in right now. It's -- it's developing. There is a Montessori school and there is some other things in there. So, I -- you know, not just office -- it doesn't just have to be, you know, like a dentist office or CPA office or something, but there -- there -- there is a need for a lot of those types of things that aren't your standard, you know, Walgreens on the corner, you know, fast food or something like that, there is -- there is -- there are definitely other -- I think other needs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 19 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 17 of 45 in -- in Meridian that could fit in that spot. I think this would -- and I don't know what the -- you know, what the zoning is down at -- at the corner and I think a Jackson's or Fast Eddy's built in another spot down there on that -- on that corner, what's going in, but this -- that's a lot of land down there, too. This is a project that I think could -- will be wonderful for something like that. So, those are just some thoughts there. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel, were you going to take a stab? McCarvel: Sure. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2019-0068 as presented during the hearing of November 7th, 2019, for the following reasons: That it should remain as suggested with the office or R-4 because of traffic concerns. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend denial of H-2019-0068 for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Same -- motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for 840 E. Ustick Rd. ( H- 2019-0098) by Scott Lamm, Located at 840 E. Ustick Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2. 29 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district Fitzgerald: Bill, do you want to move on to H-2019-0098, 840 East Ustick Road, and -- Mr. Parsons, I will let you take over, sir. Parsons: Perfect. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is 840 East Ustick Road. This is an annexation and zoning request. The site consists of 2.29 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county and, again, it's located at 840 East Ustick Road and that's midway between Meridian and Locust Grove on the north side of Ustick Road. The property is surrounded by single family residential zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada county, but they -- there is one property just on the west boundary that is currently -- it's not showing up in this map, but it was recently annexed in as part of the 750 East Ustick property. So, there is an R-4 property right adjacent to this piece that was approved last year with a development agreement. The site is currently developed with an existing home. With the widening of that road project back in -- a few years ago the well for this property was wiped out with that project and so as part of that roadway project the previous owner entered into an agreement with the city to -- that allowed them to hook up to city services outside of our boundary and they would -- once they were contiguous they would annex in. So, that's really what they are doing tonight. It's just there is no development proposed, so staff is not recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation request, but we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 20 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 18 of 45 are recommending, rather than annexing the property in with the R-4 zoning district, we are recommending that they come in with the R-2 zone, which is also consistent with the low -- low density residential designation. Really, the primary differences between the two zoning districts is, one, R-4 are smaller lots with less street frontage. So, you are looking at 60 feet of street frontage and an 8,000 square foot lot in the R-4 zone. In the R-2 zone you need 80 feet of street frontage and a minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. We did run this idea past the applicant and they are amenable to staff's recommended change and having this come in with an R-2 zoning designation without entering into a development agreement. Now, if the -- this body wants the app -- or wants staff to enter into a DA, certainly, that's within your purview. If you are inclined to do that and support the R-4 zone, then, we would ask you to continue this out and allow time -- staff some time to craft those -- those DA provisions and bring those back to you for your consideration. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application. The applicant, again, is in agreement with the R-2 zone in lieu of the R-4 zone. We are recommending approval with the comments in the staff report. We don't condition annexations. They are -- unless we do that through a development agreement and, again, we are not recommending that. So, I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Because I just want to be here all night. Fitzgerald: Do that. Nowhere to go. Cassinelli: Bill, with the -- assuming the new Comprehensive Plan is -- is adopted coming up next month, is that going to allow residential step-ups? Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, it is not. That -- that provision of the Comprehensive Plan will be removed as part of the update. Cassinelli: Okay. That's what I thought. So, basically, the way this is -- the way this one's looking at now, I mean if we -- if we -- if it's approved as R-2 it's -- it's staying R-2. Parsons: If it comes in as R-2 and they want to subdivide it, they can do that as long as they comply with the R-2 zoning districts. If they want to do an R-4 zone in the future, then, whatever they do would have to comply with the R-4 standards and be -- provide densities of three or less units to the acre consistent with the LDR designation. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for staff? Parsons: Or amend the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 21 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 19 of 45 Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's -- I had the exact same -- when we were talking earlier, because I had the same -- the potential for that area to redevelop is pretty high and the R-4 has been brought in the next door. So, something to think about as we go forward. But any other questions for staff? No? Would the applicant like to come forward? Probably just come say hi. And, then, you can agree with staff on -- on the record, so -- just state your name and your address for the record, sir. Lamm: Scott Lamm. 1217 East Lone Creek Drive, Eagle. Bill and the staff have been great to work with. We have no plans to develop the property. We have just been renovating the old farmhouse that's there and that's all we are doing. Fitzgerald: Okay. And, Mr. Lamm, do you have a preference on R-2 or R-4 if you are going to ever do a redevelopment or -- Lamm: No. We don't plan on redeveloping. The staff was kind enough to reach out and ask my opinion on that -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Lamm: -- and pretty much I don't really care. I mean I -- if I'm going to have to pay a development -- for a development agreement anyway, I would prefer the R-4 -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Lamm: -- but, if not, I'm all for saving the 300 bucks. Fitzgerald: Understood. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Mr. Lamm, thank you very much. Lamm: Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Fitzgerald: And we appreciate -- and we greatly appreciate it. Madam Clerk, is there anyone to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, if my technology serves me properly, there is nobody signed up for this application. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, Mr. Lamm, do you need to say anything additional? Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2919-0098. McCarvel: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 22 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 20 of 45 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Shall I just move to make a motion? Fitzgerald: I think you should. McCarvel: That would be good. Cassinelli: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0098 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second and a third to approve -- or to recommend approval of file number H-2019-0098. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Lamm. We appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Waterwalk (H- 2019- 0111) by dbURBAN Communities, Generally Located on the West Side Of N. Eagle Rd., North of E. Franklin Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of 6.03 acres of land from the I-L to the C- G zoning district. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our next item on the agenda, which is the Waterwalk application, H-2019-0111, and we will start with the staff report. Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item is the Waterwalk rezone. The site consist of 5.18 acres of land, currently zoned I-L in the city and it's located on the west side of North Eagle Road and the east side of North Olson Avenue just north of East Franklin Road. To the north and west there is industrial property, zoned I-L. South is vacant, undeveloped commercial properties zoned C-G and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 23 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 21 of 45 to the east you have Eagle Road, State Highway 55, and retail, R.C. Willey store, zoned C-G. This property was annexed in 1997 with a requirement of a DA. However, a DA was never executed with the annexation. The current Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is commercial and the requested C-G zone is consistent with that designation. The property is currently vacant at this time. The applicant did provide a conceptual development plan for this particular property that shows two Extended Stay hotels on the site. If you read through the staff report you had noted that there is some deficiencies on the site plan regarding fire department access and, then, the amount of parking that's required by code. So, staff's recommendation is that we not tie this development agreement to the development agreement at this time, just because the applicant could work through staff on some of those challenges as they go through the CZC and design review process. Would also mention to you -- because of the -- the component of this type of use we also want to be -- I want to say hesitant as to what other complimentary uses could go with this restaurant -- or this hotel site. Certainly with this type of use you could get retail, office, maybe a restaurant to be a good partner with this use. So, through the development agreement process -- or through the provisions that we are proposing we have limited the use of the site to those four specific uses and if the applicant wanted to do anything other than those uses on the site, they would have to come back, modify that DA with the Council and bring forth a new concept plan to show how this could develop with other uses than what we are contemplating currently. Right now we are -- we have limited to -- and I will read Sonya's notes here. So, we are limited to office, hotel, retail and restaurant uses is currently how we are proposing it in the DA modification -- or the new DA. The applicant was informed of that information and they were in agreement with the staff report. So, again, staff is not holding the applicant to these -- to this concept plan, but we are supportive of the rezone to allow this use to occur on the property. We find that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and we ask for your approval tonight and I would stand for any questions. Fitzgerald; Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? None? Would the applicant like to come forward? Sir, thank you for being here. Please state your name and your address for the record. Holt: Dustin Holt. 211 East Broadway, Salt Lake City, Utah. And if I call you Madam Chair it's because I prepared my comments on Monday, so -- Fitzgerald: That works. Holt: Congratulations to Commissioner Perreault. But I apologize if I call you Madam Chair. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank you very much for your time this evening. In my role in -- at dbURBAN, Dusty Baker Communities, I am before bodies like yours at least monthly and a lot of times several times a month, so even though I'm not here from Meridian, thank you for your service. I think I have a glimpse of what it -- what it entails to do what you do. So, thank you very much. I also wanted to publicly thank Sonya. Sonya, the planner, couldn't be here tonight. I met Bill at my first visit. I have been working with Sonya on this for close to a year now. So, we did want to make certain that we got certain things right and I appreciate her time. I do not want you to hold us to this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 24 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 22 of 45 site plan. There are things that we need to work through. I was on the phone with Waterwalk as recently as yesterday on their prototype and their prototype may go to one building. So, I know there are things that we are going to work through and I will mention a couple other things, but I just wanted to -- wanted to thank Sonya publicly. I also want to thank Brad Miller, who is here, and the Van Auker family. They have been wonderful to work with. And now Brad with the older -- Adler Industries and the property and their continued support. So, we are -- we are not only acquiring this five acres, we are acquiring the two acres south of this that fronts onto Franklin. So, that's another reason in our conversations with Sonya of delaying the DA is we would like to work through a Comprehensive Site plan with some of the uses that Bill mentioned in conjunction with the hotel. So, the application request for you tonight is a rezone. It's a rezone to know with certainty that those four uses specifically that Bill mentioned would work, that we can work through access, we can work through parking, we can work through those uses really comprehensively on this seven plus acre site. As Bill mentioned, the general plan calls for this area to be commercial, so we think it's something that complies with that request. We have read the staff report. I think the only other comment that I would make -- we are in full support of the staff report and appreciate what Sonya has done. The only other comment is as we -- as we come back and work through this we are hopeful that at a minimum we might be able to explore a right-in, right-out onto Franklin. We know we will never get a full intersection. We know that our main ingress-egress will be off Olson. We know we will never do anything on Eagle, but certainly exploring at least a right-in, right-out just for circulation pattern and flow is something that we would like to do. So, we wanted to note that on the record. We -- we clearly understand the next steps would be to finalize that site plan and, then, work through a DA and -- and have that document recorded. So, if there is -- if there is any questions I'm happy to answer them. If not, we appreciate your time this evening and would respectfully request the forwarding of a positive recommendation. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. So, there is some significant topography on that piece of property, at least to the nor -- or your south and is there -- are you thinking you are going to combine this into one project eventually or two different separate site plans? Holt: No. I think it would -- will ultimately always be two different site plans, two different parcels, because of topography, but certainly thinking through really any connection as far as cross-access from this site to something to the south really needs to happen to the west and they are close to Olson where the topography is shallower. So, thinking through that, Matt Munger of WHP is here and they have been wonderful to work with. I should also thank him. But -- but thinking through all of that is something that -- that we want to do as a whole. Fitzgerald: Okay. Holt: Holistically. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 25 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 23 of 45 Fitzgerald: That works. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for this application, ma'am? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I show Brad Miller. Fitzgerald: Mr. Miller, do you want to testify? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here that would like to testify in this application? Seeing none, any other questions for staff before we move to close the public hearing? Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Or would you like to say anything additional, sir? Okay. Jumping the gun. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing on Item 4-C Waterwalk, H-2019-0111. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0111. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Cassinelli: I -- I think it fits it, it -- I mean if we are -- all we are doing is -- is the rezone I'm all for it. Fitzgerald: I -- I'm in agreement. I think there is time -- it's time for that corner to be something different and it's been kind of an interesting and a different group of parcels there for a long time and I think Brad's work in past to the north has been great. This would be a good thing to clean up for the city I think. So, I'm in support. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I -- this is no longer an industrial corner. Changing it to C-G makes perfect sense. A hotel on that corner I think is fabulous. As long as they are in agreement, which they seem to be, with everything in the staff report, I don't see a problem with this. Fitzgerald: And they realize they are not getting access to Eagle Road, which is always an easy thing. Commissioner Seal. Seal: Basically the same comments. It's nice to actually see a conceptual plan be provided as part of this and to understand how the southern piece of property is going to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 26 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 24 of 45 tie into there. So, just seeing what may conceptually go into there is -- it's actually a nice piece to go in there. With that, I will -- I can make a motion on this one. Fitzgerald: A motion is always in order. Seal: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0111 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of H-2019-0111, the Waterwalk rezone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Percy Subdivision (H-2019-0097) by Schultz Development, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd. and South of E. Amity Rd. 1. Request: To de -annex 0.42 acres of land currently zoned R- 4 for the purpose of combining the property with the adjacent County RUT parcel to the south; and 2. Request: A Rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R- 4 zoning district to the R- 8 zoning district; and 3. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 113 single-family residential lots and 11 common lots on approximately 28. 51 acres in the proposed R- 8 zoning district; and 4. Request: A Modification to the Development Agreement Instrument No. 2016-007091) to incorporate the requested Preliminary Plat. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on down the agenda. Next we will open the public hearing on application H-2019-0097, the Percy Subdivision, and we will start with the staff report. Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, next item is Percy Subdivision. There is a slew of concurrent applications with this, one of which we have never done before, which is de-annexation of a -- a sliver of property and I will -- as I get into my presentation I will elaborate a little bit more as to why we are -- we are de-annexing that piece of property. So, we are looking at a de-annexation, a rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R-4 zone to the R-8 zone and, then, a preliminary plat consisting of 113 single family Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 27 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 25 of 45 building lots and 11 common lots and 28.51 acres in the proposed R-8 zone and, then, also a development agreement modification to tie the applicant to the proposed development plan that he is showing -- that we are discussing this evening. So, this property -- history on this property. It was annexed in 2015 as part of the South Meridian annexation. At that time the applicant was granted R-4 zoning with a development agreement. As part of that development agreement the applicant was granted permission to proceed with a rezone of this property and a DA modification at no cost to them in anticipation of this -- potentially redeveloping other than R-4. That was, again, contemplated in that DA and that's why the applicant's pursuing the R-8 zone this evening, because that was the intent behind the recorded development agreement. So, the reason why -- but also as part of that -- so, again, the city recognized that it would redevelop, come in with a subdivision consistent with the medium density and low density designation on this particular property. If you had a chance to read my staff report, there was comments in there that this property does have dual designations on it. It has low density -- or it's primarily low density. There is medium density along the north boundary and, then, predominately it's low density residential over the majority of it. As this body knows, the Comprehensive Plan and those land use designations aren't parcel specific and so looking at the proposed density for this project, which is slightly above the low density standards it's at 3.96 dwelling units to the acre and because there is a medium designation on this property, along with the low density residential designation, staff didn't feel it was appropriate for the applicant to request a step-up and we find that the density that's proposed this evening is consistent with the dual designation on this particular property. Now, the purpose for the de-annexation of the property is to facilitate the roadway -- the access to Meridian Road. The city, ITD and ACHD, we all work together on a master street map and we have policies that restrict access to Meridian Road, because of the mobility and nature of it and the high high volumes of traffic. In this particular case ITD was adamant that this roadway connect at the mid mile between Amity and Lake Hazel and that the only way that could happen is that the developer could work with the adjacent neighbor to the south and, then, that neighbor that is also farther to the south in order to execute the necessary easements to dedicate to ACHD in order to construct an offsite portion of that roadway and if you can see my cursor here, that's -- really, this is the -- the frontage that we are talking about. So, this is the off-site portion to get the connection to Meridian Road, thereby along the north boundary of this property the applicant will have to go through the county. Once they get to the de-annexation process with the city, go to the county and re-establish a zone for this particular property. So, the county has a rezone process as well to reassign it the RUT designation, so that this property owner can do a property boundary adjustment and, then, consolidate this sliver in with his property to make him whole and keep him consistent with the RUT zoning in the county. The applicant shared an e-mail with me today. He's already conducted a pre-application with the county, so he is aware of what the requirements are going forward with reverting that back to Ada county zoning. Now, the rezone -- the exhibit on the right- hand side is the boundary of the rezone, which, again, is 28 -- approximately 29 acres and, again, it's currently zoned R-4 and the applicant is proposing R-8 zoning. So, here is the -- again, the preliminary a plat and the landscape plan before you. And, again, the plat consist of 113 single family detached lots. The applicant is proposing to develop the site in two phases. As of today if you had a chance -- again in the staff report staff was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 28 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 26 of 45 concerned with the phasing plan that the applicant submitted with the application. Today the applicant did provide staff with a revised phasing plan and layout for your consideration this evening. The notable change as you can see here is that we are going to get the Meridian Road frontage improvements with the first -- entire Meridian Road frontage improvements with the first phase and, then, the applicant also has been working with the developer on the east boundary to provide utility connections and a stub street and so rather than having two stub streets on the east boundary, the applicants -- in conjunction with Brighton Corporation on their east boundary, is proposing only one stub street and, then, common driveways along the north and south boundary to provide those accesses. The plat that's proposed to you this evening is a little bit -- it does exceed the open space standards of the UDC at 12.36 percent open space. In my staff report we -- staff was concerned that the primary open space was predominantly located along Meridian Road and the collector street, which is East Quartz Creek Drive along -- excuse me -- East Quartz Creek Street along the south boundary and so we wanted to have a little bit more open space that was central to the development, so that we weren't having people recreate along the -- the major roadways for these developments. Originally staff's recommendation was the applicant to lose these two adjacent lots, which was Lots 7 and -- Lot 6 and Lot 7 and combine those into a Lot 5. Again, the applicant is conceding to losing -- while providing a larger open space really orienting it more so that you can see it from all three sides of the street and, then, that facilitates a bigger open space, but it also has greater visibility on there. So, staff is amenable to the changes that the applicant's proposing to the revised phasing plan and the layout that's before you this evening and you can also see in that exhibit the connection of that collector street to Meridian Road along the south boundary, both the portion that he is expected to construct and the offsite portion. In the DA we have required the applicant to construct the entire boundary -- or construct the entire length to that collector street with the first phase. Here is the open space exhibit as I mentioned. The amenities proposed for the development consistent of a tot lot, a gazebo, and, then, Meridian Road requires a ten foot multi-use pathway within the 35 foot landscape buffer along that roadway and the applicant, again, is going to construct that in its entirety with the first phase. The other unique thing about this proposed development is the applicant is also providing a variety of a lot of sizes within the development to provide housing diversity and that's also the reason why staff is supportive of the request to the R-8 zone and here are the sample uses -- or examples of the proposed elevations in the development. You can see there are varying sizes, various architecture throughout the development. So, there will be quite a diverse housing mix within the proposed development, even though they are all front loaded garages. It's single family detached homes. Staff did receive written testimony from Matt Schultz in agreement with most of the conditions of approval. I think with the exhibit that I showed you this evening a lot of staff's conditions have been addressed. So, as you can see with the revised phasing plan, the State Highway 69 improvements, that buffer along that roadway with the berm, the fencing, the landscaping and the ten foot multi-use pathway will all be constructed with phase one as recommended by staff. The applicant did reorient that open space, as I mentioned to you in my presentation, which is the exhibit on the right. Staff is amenable to that change. And, then, we are recommending -- one other thing that I brought up in the staff report was the need for a sidewalk to be extended along the collector road along the offsite portion of the site. So, the UDC requires the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 29 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 27 of 45 applicant to do detached sidewalk on -- on the portion of the collector road that he is required to construct as part of the development, but for the offsite portion ACHD is only requiring a 30 foot wide street segment with three feet of gravel on each side and, then, the borrow ditches for drainage. So, we certainly want the app -- we want -- we understand that these kids are going to go to Meridian School District. We want to make sure that where ever that bus stop location is is in a safe location for kids to get to that school bus stop. So, it's been my experience that the -- the school buses actually stop on Meridian Road and pick kids up at intersections of roadways, rather than driving into the subdivisions. So, staff was very concerned with how that would play out and so we have actually asked the applicant to go speak with the school district and see -- try to determine where the school bus stop will be for this particular development. If it is located at the intersection of the collector street at the mid mile, then, we certainly want the applicant to construct that five foot sidewalk along the entire boundary of that collector street to get the students to the intersection -- safely to that intersection, rather than having them walk on just the paved roadway. So, that is a recommended condition in the DA and the staff report and I think that's the one that the applicant will -- will work with the school district. He is amenable to it, but, again, I left it flexible in the staff report that if the school district -- if that's where it's anticipated, do it. If it isn't it doesn't apply, they don't need to comply with that. No sidewalk is required. And, then, I would also mention to the Commission that currently both our Fire Department, Police Department and ITD are restricting the access out of this development to a right-in, right-out, left-in only until such time as ITD can complete their corridor study of State Highway 69. So, the state wants to study that to understand the access management for that highway and see -- determine what the future right of way needs are going to be for that roadway. So, right now we have a pretty specific in the staff report that has restricted that use, but I think we should probably modify that condition this evening and give the applicant some flexibility that if it's just a signalized intersection in the future that it could be allowed to be a right -- full access at some point in time. So, in your motion this evening I would just ask that you include that as one of your motions, that it's right-in, right-out, left-in only until such time is ITD determines that it can be a full access and a signalized intersection. With that the only written testimony that I received was from Matt Schultz, the applicant, again, in agreement with the conditions of the staff report, with the modifications that I stated and I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? Or at least at this time. No? Mr. Schultz, would you like to come forward, sir. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 821 South Ten Mile in Meridian. Here on behalf of MWT, LLC. They are the contract purchaser of the Percy Farms property, which Bill said was annexed as part of the mass annexation of -- I believe 40 properties four years ago and it was brought to our attention that Mr. Percy might want to develop it. Our first inclination was, man, it's close to the highway, you know, it gives you a little bit of pause, right? It's close, which is good, and it's close, which is bad sometimes, because the noise and the traffic and ITD is kind of tough to work through that sometimes and so we prefer not to be right on the highway, but after looking at it we love south Meridian, we think it's -- it's a great piece of property if done right and if done well and if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 30 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 28 of 45 mitigated well with the proper buffers and access and all those things, which -- which we -- we believe we have addressed. We do agree with the staff report. We have since the staff report came out, updated the phasing plan, reworked that central area to open up into the three sides and make it a few thousand square feet bigger. It's a half -- it's a 20,000 square feet. It's -- it's big. It's ample. It's not as big as our entry feature, which -- which we do need to preserve not only for a nice, passive open space, but we have an irrigation pond we need to do there, an irrigation holding pond that will have a little fountain in it. You are only allowed to do 25 percent of that area with the pond, the rest has to be open. So, we really want to preserve that size. W e think it's nice to have that size. It's more of a passive area, not a go out and you can throw a frisbee or whatever out there. But that's -- the kids are more likely to be around the playground in the middle, which is centrally located, connected with micro paths. It actually works out pretty well, the geometry of the site in that regard. We have done some other smaller R-4 projects over the last few years in Meridian, 15 lots, 20 lots, with a mix of builders, so a good variety. We want to apply that here. We didn't say, hey, we want an R-8, because we want to do all 4,000 square foot lots. Not that there is anything wrong with 4,000 square foot lots, because there is not, but in this location at this spot we thought we needed to do some transitional larger lots on the east and on the south and, then, some medium sized -- almost R-4, but not quite. In the middle. You know, some six to seven, almost eight thousand square foot. It meets the R-4 width, just not the best, but they are still ample, and, then, the transition is nice -- I'm just going to plainly state two car garage, but single story. A lot of people want it right now. It's still very nice, very expensive in south Meridian. But we wanted a mix of that two car or three car, 50, 60, 70. We are not going for high density here. It's a -- it's a low density R-8, you know at -- at that four. It's -- we thought it was appropriate, whether we had to ask for a step up or not, which we still can, but even in your new comp plan that you guys approved recently I hear, you have said that this would be medium density. You have recommended that to Council. Whether you did or not, we still -- we think it's appropriate, like Bill said, to slide that -- that boundary down to that mid mile. We think that's the good -- that's the good break point between the medium and the low. We are -- like I said, we are a low density medium at that four to the acre. But the bigger -- the issues on here are access, which has been difficult. We have got great neighbors to work with, it's just -- there is a certain way things need to go to accomplish access easements, like Bill said, and that's why we have -- the first time ever done a de-annexation strip. It's essentially adjusting our boundary four years ago that was annexed and say, yeah, we should have done that about 20 feet narrower and everything would have been good, because in exchange for granting that access easement its use would like to retain an extra 20 feet. So, there is a process for doing that. We are doing it. It's a little cumbersome, but we are getting through it. We don't -- we think it's a minor modification, it doesn't adversely impact what the city wants to do and what we want to do long term. Just right now he would like to stay in the county, RUT, until which time in the future sometime long term, medium term, we don't know yet, but right now everything in the short term he's not interested in -- in -- in rezoning this whole property and developing. So, in the meantime there is an offsite access road that we are building to, essentially, standards, which is a 30 foot wide pavement. Half on each property owner right at the mid mile, with a seven foot borrow ditch for drainage, at which time that the adjacent property is developed they would do the full curb, gutter, sidewalk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 31 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 29 of 45 and -- and widen that out. The only thing we disagree with -- with Bill -- but he did give me some wiggle room with the school district -- was the requirement for the offsite sidewalk. I don't think they are going to require it -- that they are going to pick up people right at that Meridian Road intersection, short or long term. I think this is a mid-mile collector, they are going to come inside somewhere. If our kids do need to get up to Meridian Road they can -- we have a pathway connection out there just north of the intersection going out there. I mean there is ways to get it out there without going on that frontage and we just were constrained on our width of what we can do along that mid mile and so we will check with the school district, but I'm 99 percent sure they are not going to want to stop right there on Meridian Road and pick up kids. I'm thinking they would rather come in, do the loop, pick them up and just to the east of us I know Brighton is getting ready to submit a very large application that will continue that mid mile all the way over to Locust Grove and there will be a mid-mile connection out to Lake Hazel another quarter mile past us. So, there will be a grid -- a mid-mile grid, a collector road, through -- through that section. We are doing our share of it and we are the first ones in, so we get to pioneer some of these access issues and utility issues of bringing water from a quarter mile away down Meridian Road. The sewer is already through the site. It was put in in conjunction with that mass annexation. The portion of infrastructure to serve all those properties was installed, including through that east-west road on our north boundary there is sewer all the way through that and it actually goes under Meridian Road to -- to the west. So, it's -- it's eminently developable. It's the right time to do this. We think we have the right plan. We are not asking for high density R-8, we are asking for low density to get some flexibility. So, we still have some R-4 lots underneath that zoning, but it gives us some flexibility in our -- in our depths and widths to -- to have a mix in that and we thought that was important to get some good energy out there. So, to illustrate kind of the sizing, I think our average lot size is -- it is 7,200 square feet. That's our average. Our minimum of 5,200 square feet, where 4,000 is allowed in an R-8 and as far as the distribution of those lots, we only have 19 percent between five and six thousand. We have 81 percent over six. We have 53 percent over seven and 24 percent are over 8,000 square feet -- you know, over those times. So, it's -- it's skewed to the -- to the -- to the bigger lots within that -- in that regard. Bill did point out that we did -- Brighton called me after we had submitted this, say, hey, can we work with our stub streets on our east boundary. I said, sure, just don't slow me down. But we are working -- so, it's a real -- we see this very -- a revision, those two stub streets get converted to the common driveways and, then, we just add a stub street where it works better for their geometry and ACHD has approved the single -- the single stub in their staff report, because I brought it to their attention as they read the staff report. So, they have -- they have put that in there that they would -- they would accept one, even though our official preliminary plat doesn't show it right now. We would like that to be a condition of the final platting as we have it. But we think it's the right place in the right time. A beautiful -- a beautiful wall, a berm. We have actually doubled the -- almost doubled the required trees and shrubs from your minimums on that buffer. We made sure our landscape architect, after Bill pointed out, hey, you might want to do something else and, again, we looked at that. We don't want to go minimums. We want to do more. So, I kind of instructed our landscape architect to go back and -- and bump that up. We actually have 35 feet -- we have a ten foot -- we have a 35 foot landscape buffer. There is a ten foot sidewalk in that to the right of way and, then, we are Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 32 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 30 of 45 also going to do ten feet of landscaping within the right of way. So, we actually have a 45 foot landscape buffer where 35 is required. So, we want to do something nice on the entryway corridor coming in from the south. I mean we won't be the last -- the first one in over time, but we are now. You know, we will be the next -- first one in coming from the south. So, we want to do something that everybody can be proud of and say, yeah, it looks nice. It's been in the -- the fence along there won't be your standard, you know, vinyl -- vinyl, but it's -- you know, 20 dollars a square -- 20 dollars a foot standard, it's going to be Redtail and Caven -- Caven's building right now. The Redtail is already done and it's more of a stamp composite, the concrete pillars, it's more of a composite look to it that's, you know, probably three times as much cost that does deafen the sound, that the berm being up as well will -- will be a sound barrier and -- and, then, staff -- or your code requires a ten foot total, four foot berm, six foot fence wall. We are going to recreate that, even though it falls off right now as it comes up the hill there, we are going to lift all that up and so it will be a consistent berm all the way along there that you will see, instead of looking down on that field. So, it's going to -- it's going to change the look and feel of that for the positive I think. So, hopefully, you -- you concur with staff's recommendation for approval. I know we do. And I will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Matt, could you tell us what the -- the tot lot on -- is that the area in the middle? Schultz: In the middle. Uh-huh. McCarvel: And, then, what goes on that back northeast corner? Schultz: Yes. Chair and Commissioner McCarvel, it's really elevated -- the highway is really elevated up. There is probably 12 to 14 feet above the site. That is a secondary emergency access -- McCarvel: No. No. No. The east, not west. Within the subdivision. Schultz: There is drainage and open space. Excuse me. McCarvel: So, drainage and -- Schultz: Yeah. It's open space. There is nothing -- there is no -- there is no amenity in that one. There is a central amenity of a playground and we have a gazebo in the front. I probably want to move it from the other side of the pond in the final iteration, but it's in that front area and this is kind of central -- it will be underground seepage. It won't be a pond. It will -- it will be flat with -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 33 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 31 of 45 McCarvel: And I guess I like the passive open space on the entry to the -- you know, I'm just saying -- I mean being along the busy road is -- I mean something more amenity wise within there I guess -- since there is nothing marked -- Schultz: On the -- on the front -- on the mid mile on the south on that big one as you come in -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. I like that. I like the more water and that passive area up there, but I'm thinking within it it would be nice to have something more than just -- so, I was just curious what the plan was there. But it is just green space. Schultz: Yes. Chairman and Commissioner, we -- as we do our preliminary layouts we know that the ground slopes all down to that way and we are going to run a reserve -- ample area. ACHD requires really large facilities for drainage, you know, and sometimes people do ponds and depressed retention ponds, sometimes they do beds. We have some subsurface conditions, fortunately, but I prefer if it can be out of sight, out of mind, it's -- it's grass, it's open space, you can walk your dog, you can play catch, but they don't allow you to plant your trees in the middle of it where that facility is underground. You can put shrubs on the outside and trees on the outside and center is grass and they like to keep it that way just for -- in case they have to go in and deal with it later if it ever clogs up in 20 years or something. But it's a big underground gravel drainage bed, but covered with landscaping is what it is. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Does it look like I was going to ask -- Fitzgerald: You were going for your mic. Cassinelli: And this might -- might be for Bill, too. What are the minimum number of amenities? Is it just two? Parsons: Yeah. Commissioners, yeah, the minimum is for five acres you do one and, then, an additional 20 acres out of that another. So, as I said we -- code only requires -- and Matt's doing three at this point. So, he is in excess of both open space and -- and amenities at this point. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Matt, thank you for -- we will see if there is public testimony and we will bring it back up if there is additional questions. We appreciate it. Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. One person signed up. A Ron Galloway. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 34 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 32 of 45 Fitzgerald: Mr. Galloway, don't need to testify? Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Please state your name and your address for the record, please, sir. Reiterman: Carl Reiterman. I live at 2697 South Linder Road. I own the property directly north of this and my question or concern is the little stub street that comes up on the north side will that have sewer and water in it, because right now my property has no sewer and water connected to it. It's also in the county, which we were not annexed -- I don't understand why we weren't, but we weren't. Fitzgerald: And usually when we are running stub streets we are stubbing other things, so I will let the applicant respond to that. Or, Bill, if you want to talk about that or we can have him respond when he comes back up, sir. Reiterman: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience want to testify on this application? Matt, do you want to come back up and close your thoughts and answer this gentleman's question if you can. Schultz: Yeah. Matt Schultz. Thanks. Thanks for the neighbor for showing up to the north. We have wondered what his intents were, but he is -- and it has been tried to be sold for mini storage -- potentially it's zoned. I think BC in the county -- but definitely all these stub streets have utilities in them. Sewer is really close to his property. It's about 120 feet away in our road, so we will provide a stub from the existing one to his boundary. It slopes down and it will work great. Water and sewer and there may be potential in the future on the irrigation, depending on how that develops, but it's pretty standard for us. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: Kind of follow up to Commissioner McCarvel's. The -- I guess that's the southeast corner where you got the emergency access going out, did you look at -- and you were kind of describing some of the slopeage in there. But is it possible to maybe -- and maybe put another -- get another lot in there or something -- move some of that -- move some of the -- more green space internal. Schultz: Chairman and Commissioner Cassinelli, we -- we left that like that, because as that road comes down -- I think it's a 20 foot wide fire access that can double as a pedestrian, but it will be going at about a maximum ten percent, but there will side slopes coming down off of it, so we wanted to leave that area bigger to have sloped grass, to not be too patched in that area. So, we looked at the topography in the third dimension on this, which was -- which is not apparent, you know, just looking at this it is not, we felt that that was the right space to leave for that. We didn't really put it there for open space per se, we put it there for that access road and -- and left it ample for the grades and everything else and, then, at that entryway we -- that's kind of what was left over. We liked it big as -- not only as a passive area open space, but just as a -- as a big open field Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 35 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 33 of 45 as you drive in, just as an entry feature per se, you know, as you drive in and make it look bigger with some R-4 lots backing up to it and in the central area I think by reorienting it like we did it is really going to open it up. It did increase some, you know, a couple thousand square feet, which isn't huge, but it really makes -- it's going to make it feel so much more open having it open on three sides and we just made that change here recently. We thought that was a good idea. So, as far as adding more open space and losing lots -- trading lots would be cool, you know, I mean that's okay, if we could -- we thought we had an area to do it. We are just not seeing a place to trade lots, other than that -- that front area and we actually went through that iteration of maybe losing two lots in the middle and maybe gaining two lots on the front, but still having some for the pond and two issues pop up. Because the lots are so deep it's inefficient -- we actually lose -- it's a net loss of open space, even though your -- it's an even lot swap, it's a net loss of open space and, two, we are kind of pinched on the -- which I didn't even know until -- until it was pointed out to me that ponds can only be 25 percent of that area and so we are -- we are still going through the final engineering about the size that that pond needs to be and we feel like we -- we -- we like it for three different reasons with the front up in that area. So, we really think besides this extra area, which seems to be kind of unused, the drainage part, I think it's pretty well programmed for everything we need to do, especially with the micro paths connecting everything together, so -- that's my long explanation. I'm sorry. Fitzgerald: Additional -- Cassinelli: I guess on that -- that one -- the area where that access road is going out -- out to Meridian Road, it's -- it's because of the topography there? Schultz: The topography for sure. Yeah. It is. I mean it's probably 12 to 14 feet higher than the top is from the bottom and so the three to one side slope is going to come out about 30 feet more from the -- from the top of that road just to the bottom of it and so that will be a gentle slope that there is just no -- to get another lot in there it's problematic, because of the third dimension. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Cassinelli: No. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate it. Schultz: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2019-0097. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 36 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 34 of 45 Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H- 2019-0097. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: It is properly before you, Commissioners. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Well, as far as -- kind of go down the checklist. I -- the density I think it's -- I'm -- I'm good with the density and -- and the way it transitions. Obviously, I think if you are trying to put, you know, R-4 lots up against Meridian Road they are just -- they are not going to -- probably not going to sell. I mean they might. There is --- there is areas where you can look at Eagle Road to -- you know, to the north down to Eagle against -- you know, you got some of the -- and along Chinden and whatnot, but I think for the most part that's a good -- good use of that, putting smaller -- smaller homes in there. So, I'm -- I'm great with that. When I looked at it I saw the issue of that corner, that that was -- that I addressed and I, you know, understand the topography. I would -- I guess, you know, if there was a way to get a little bit more internal green space I would like to see it, but I think they have probably done that and I was thinking -- my first thought was, you know, swap a lot into that corner, but it really can't be done. Perhaps like to see them look at some different amenities, other than the tot lot and the gazebo, something that maybe fit -- because these are -- I'm guessing these might be a little bit higher end homes. I'm not entirely sure, but something that would -- would fit that little -- a little bit better. Maybe a little bit more established community, so to speak. I think other than that it's a -- it fits as it -- as it goes for Meridian Road on the east to the west there with the lots getting larger and it sounds like if -- they have talked with Brighton and they are going to -- you know, those lots along the -- the western side are going to line up to their lots, so -- Fitzgerald: So, I -- I agree. I appreciate the applicant ensuring there is -- that they are working with their neighbors to the north and to the east. The gentleman is getting his -- the stub street to the sewer and water and going to the north and I know Brighton appreciates being able to oriental the road that makes sense for them. I'm okay with the micro paths and how that plays into the middle section and the green space there. I know Woodbridge had something similar to that when I lived there and it kind of fed everybody into that green space. It was a walkable area and, then, those -- that was a drain area -- it's underneath landscaping, so you have kids out there playing football and on that. So, I don't have a problem with that either. But I understand what you are talking about. Possibly mature components. But with the -- the smaller homes to -- on -- along Meridian Road, I don't mind having a tot lot there either. So, it's kind of a balancing act. I think they have done a good job with what they are working with topography wise as well. Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 37 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 35 of 45 McCarvel: Yeah. I mean the passive areas in the northwest and the southeast I like and I'm -- if -- just my two cents, if they can have more than 25 percent be that pond, I think it probably would be really pretty. Yeah. And the inner ones I was just wondering if there is any, you know, opportunity to do something on that other small little space in there, but I do like the reorientation of it. It just feels better. And of course -- I mean what this demonstrates going to the east over there to the future project, that's the way they have meld those together, that's -- I think that's fine. I think to the gentleman's point, I believe he asked why they weren't annexed. I think -- it's -- the City of Meridian just doesn't come annex you, you just need to request it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: So, yeah, I'm in favor. I agree, the density -- especially along Meridian Road I think this is a nice blend, especially now you got Schaffer Butte and another one coming on the other side I think is just fine. Fitzgerald: I like to mix of products with the different lot sizes, so -- Commissioner Seal. Seal: Chair. For clarification, Bill, on the open space. I mean with -- with the modifications they have made in the revision that they have submitted, is that -- does that comply with what staff wanted within the report. It doesn't -- as I'm reading back through it it doesn't seem like it, but I just want to make sure. So, if we throw a motion out there that we -- it seems like it's amenable, but I want to make sure that we have that in the -- in the motion. Parsons: Yeah. Thank you for that, Commissioner. I had some comments on how you should probably -- guide you in your motion this evening. Certainly with -- with the reduction of the stub street, in addition to the common driveways, we don't have conditions to address that. So, certainly what we have done -- and I don't want to hold up the applicant this evening either, there is no need to, but typically what we have done is -- is had them provide us a new -- a revised plan ten days prior to the City Council hearing and, then, that way we can prepare a memo for Council and have them incorporate some additional conditions that coincide with the changes to the plat. Certainly I'm open to that this evening. So, I would just include in your motion -- I think we should strike some conditions for sure. I was looking at those -- that staff report, so if -- again, if the Commission is open to the open space changes, certainly my recommendation was to lose two lots and have a bigger open space. Now, what he has done isn't commensurate to what I asked him to do, but I think having it open from three sides does make it at least more visible and more usable than the way it was before. So, I'm okay with -- with that change, so -- Seal: And he did -- yeah, he did take some of the space away from the other lots that were in there. So, he didn't -- Parsons: He even shrunk those lots a little bit, yeah, and that's something that he and I discussed. So, certainly, if you are open to that you can strike condition 2-A in the staff Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 38 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 36 of 45 report at site specific and 2-A under the preliminary plat and, then, under the landscape plan it's 3-A. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Bill. One of the questions I think we need to -- or can you point out something -- and I can't remember which point it is on the -- the road section and the flexibility we are giving them to discuss options with the school district, which specific point -- is that -- I couldn't find it without looking back. Parsons: Well, currently the way the DA reads it says construct a five foot sidewalk along the entire length of East Quartz Creek Street and, then, it goes on to say if the school district doesn't require a stop along that roadway at that intersection, then, it won't be required -- required for the offsite portion of the roadway. But he still has to do it for the portion -- his on site -- Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Parsons: -- and so that's actually DA provision 2-C. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. And, then, we have the right-in, right-out -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald; -- discussion as well. Seal: I had a question on that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir. Seal: If you could just restate what you had stated previously. I wrote some notes, but now I'm looking at them going what did I mean. Parsons: Well, currently it's in the staff report under a preliminary plat condition -- actually, -- let's see here. 2-D. It specifies that it's right-in, right-out, left-in only and, then, comply with ITD mitigation measures as described in the -- in the traffic study. But I can see at some point when there is enough traffic and there is a -- this -- a warrant for a signal there, that at some point it would be open to a full access, because now we have a controlled signalized intersection. So, I think -- I think we can leave it until such time as the intersection is signalized or -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: -- determined meets IT -- or ITD completes its corridor study and deems that it can be -- it will be -- warrant a signal and be improved to a full access. But I think it's -- to me I would just leave it open until ITD completes the -- Fitzgerald: Corridor study. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 39 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 37 of 45 Parsons: -- corridor study. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: -- and they determine what the future needs are for that. McCarvel: So, did you say in the staff report it is already stated properly for -- to work with the school district or do we need to change that wording? Because I think we are all in agreement that -- that -- Parsons: Yeah. The way it's worded it says if -- if West -- West Ada School District doesn't -- does not require a school bus stop at the intersection of Meridian Road and East Quartz Creek Street, the five foot wide detached sidewalk is not required to be constructed along the offsite portion of the roadway. McCarvel: So, we -- Parsons: So, I have got it covered. McCarvel: So, we don't need to make any other comments -- Parsons: Leave it as is. If the applicant can get with Joe Yochum before City Council, we can take it up then. Fitzgerald: Got it. Perfect. Any additional questions for staff? Any additional comments? Somebody want to take a shot at where we are headed. Seal: I can try this one. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0097 as it's been presented by the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019, with the following modifications: That we strike conditions 2-A and 3-A and accept the revisions submitted by the applicant and we modify condition 2-B, that the right-in, right-out and left-only remains until ITD completes the corridor study. McCarvel: And authorizes a signal. Seal: And authorizes a signal. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 40 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 38 of 45 McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Any clarification needed? Parsons: Just one clarification. Just include in your motion that ten days prior to the City Council hearing they submit the revised plat and landscape plan consistent with the exhibit on the left-hand side of your screen. Or, excuse me, the right-hand side. McCarvel: Second including those comments. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. Does staff understand what the motion is or do we need to have it restated? We are good? Okay. Awesome. McCarvel: You got the 2-A and, then, landscape was the three -- the landscape 3-A and I -- got it. Cassinelli: Bill, did you -- was there one other one that -- you mentioned a 2-C. Was that -- McCarvel: That was the school -- Fitzgerald: That was already stated in there properly. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, I have a motion and a second to -- for approval of file H-2019-0097 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Oppose same. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Schultz, appreciate it, sir. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Street Length for Cul-De-Sacs (H-2019-0107) by Todd Campbell 1. Request: To extend the maximum street length for cul-de- sacs listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 from 450 feet to 500 feet, or up to 750 feet with City Council approval. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our last item on our agenda. We have -- we will move forward to open a public hearing on H-2019-0107, the street length for cul-de-sacs, UDC Text Amendment and Bill. Parsons: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last item on our agenda this evening is the UDC Text Amendment to modify our cul-de-sac length requirements of our subdivision standards in the UDC. This is not a staff initiated request. This actually came forward from a developer of a project for the Silver Springs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 41 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 39 of 45 development that you guys recently approved. There was an extended cul-de-sac length that did not meet current code, which was 400 feet. As he went through that hearing process and took those deliberation -- that application up with City Council, both applicants, staff, City Council kind of struggled with what we should do with it. You know, as you know, Council cannot waive code requirements and so, essentially, the applicant took it upon themselves to come forward with this amendment, understanding that it does affect all properties citywide and so the applicant, as part of their application submittal they were given homework. We asked them to actually go out and look at all the other jurisdictions in our surrounding area to see what they approve and, like anything, every code varies anywhere you go and I just want to give Caleb some kudos, too, because he's the one that really ran with this and he looked -- even took either a broader cast -- cast it a broader net and looked nationwide for what other cities were doing and that's why you kind of see staff's recommend changes before you on this exhibit. So, originally the applicant was proposing 500 feet and, then, allow some flexibility for City Council to approve up to 750 feet and, really, that 750 feet came down to -- that's what ACHD policies allow, up to a 750 foot cul-de-sac and also our fire department or their fire code allows up to a 750 foot cul-de-sac. Well, we as staff, before we agreed to going over that 500 foot -- or even increasing our -- the cul-de-sac length from 500 -- from 450 to 500, we wanted to understand, again, what's happening in the area and so 500 feet seems to be pretty consistent with local jurisdictions in the area. So, as I mentioned Caleb went out and took that broader net and looked and said what are other areas doing. So, we think we have a workable solution here. So, we went ahead and the black text above you is what the applicant was proposing. We came in with these changes -- will allow up to 500 feet. We think that is pretty consistent with the area. So, we are amenable to that change. But we want to also give the development community flexibility in going up to 750 feet, but holding him to a maximum number of dwelling units and that number landed -- that we landed on was 20 and that seemed to be somewhat of a consistent number throughout the nation that, yeah, we will let you go up to a certain extent, but we will cap you at the number of units that could take access off the -- the extended cul-de-sac. Also mention to you here, we also wanted to give flexibility in case there aren't any other stub streets to the property or there is some kind of topography issues or irrigation facility that prohibits the extension of the roadway, too, and that's pretty consistent with other section of our code for our block length standards. And, then, we also wanted to define how to measure the length of the cul-de-sac, because, again, it's arbitrary, it wasn't well -- well defined in code and so, again, Caleb put a lot of this information together for you to take under consideration this evening and we did have conversations with the applicant and I believe they were in agreement with the changes as well. Just to -- to put some -- the text to a graphic, certainly here is an exhibit that we put together. This represents exactly what we have -- what I just presented to you in the code change in a -- in a situation where there may be an example of a 750 foot cul-de-sac where there is no adjacent connectivity with the adjacent property. So, you can see it's limited to 20 homes on that and, then, there would be connections into the adjacent subdivisions. That would be one -- one of the goals that we would get. Now, I would mention to the Commission that it's not the intent of staff to support 750 foot cul-de-sacs throughout the city. Again, we always want to promote interconnectivity where we can and provide stub streets and promote shorter block lengths. So, this isn't just a tool that we want to use haphazardly and just approve Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 42 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 40 of 45 all these long cul-de-sacs. Again, we have plenty of policies in the Comprehensive Plan that speaks to interconnectivity and stub streets, but we want to -- we understand there are circumstances out there where this may not be possible and that's why we are here this evening. Caleb also did a quick review of other cul-de-sacs in our community and he communicated to me that based on his research and survey of area photos of our city, there is only actually three cul-de-sacs in all of Meridian that have more than 20 homes that access on a cul-de-sac and those numbers were like two or three lots above the 20. So, again, staff is -- is pretty comfortable with that -- that -- limiting the number of homes off of a cul-de-sac to 20. Here are some alternatives. Again, as I mentioned to you, we don't want to encourage cul-de-sacs. The idea is to work with developers and property owners to find solutions to do that. So, an example of one is where we could have cul- de-sacs and an example of where the developer could connect the streets and essentially you had the same number of lots, but not impact the development at all. And, then, as I mentioned to you we also took it upon ourselves to work on a section of that Silver Springs project where we had struggled with that cul-de-sac length and so that graphic in the upper left-hand corner is what was approved with the cul-de-sac contingent upon this text amendment and, then, as you head to the right-hand screens you can see where there is other ways they could have redesigned it and still kept generally the same lot count. They would have only lost a lot with the middle, the better version of the graphic, and the best option they would have lost two lots. But there are ways to mitigate around cul-de-sacs and making projects work. So, just wanted to go on record and give you some options as well. And certainly in your motion if you feel like we should add graphics to our code to kind of represent those text changes, you can include that in your motion as well this evening to include something -- this graphic as something we can incorporate as well -- incorporate this graphic in accords with the text changes as well. Other than that, again, we have been in communications with the applicant the whole time on the proposed changes. I know Mr. Yorgason had a conversation with Caleb this afternoon. I'm not sure if he's proposing any changes this evening or not. I will let him speak to those. But staff is recommending approval of the text changes with the recommended changes in the yellow text before you. I will stand for any questions you have. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Any questions for staff? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: And I noticed that the fire department hadn't had a chance to respond to this. I just was -- I'm curious as to their thoughts on it and even looking at the graphics, I'm thinking about something going down -- especially the long, straight cul-de-sac here, if that's 750 feet long and we got to get, you know, four or five fire trucks in there to fight a fire, that seems like it could cause quite an issue. Parson: Well, Commissioners, I'm not a fire expert, but I have dealt with this and had many meetings with the fire department. So, yes, their code allows for 750 feet, contingent upon wider road. So, right now I know ACHD's policies, they have shifted their Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 43 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 41 of 45 direction a little bit over there. They want narrower local streets. So, in this particular case I believe in working with the previous fire marshal a cul-de-sac of this length would have to be 36 feet of pavement as well -- 36 feet wide between the curb and -- the two curbs you have to have 36 feet of asphalt. So, that's what's going to drive the width of the cul-de-sac is the fire code. So, just a wider road for them to get down that roadway faster -- Seal: Okay. Parsons: -- and not have the obstructions. Seal: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Bill, you correct me if I'm wrong, they would allow in fire code 30 houses on a cul-de-sac section; correct? Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. On a single access up to 30 single family homes can be on a roadway. Correct. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, can -- right now the way it stands can they not extend a cul-de-sac through alternative compliance? Parsons: Commissioners, that is not an option at this time. The code is very black and white on this particular case as we found out at City Council. We cannot waive that. It says no cul-de-sac shall be greater than 450 feet in length at maximum. Then there -- again, the expectation is you design -- you design around it, just like we have shown in these graphics. There is ways to do it. It's just -- you have to put pencil to paper and make it work. Cassinelli: Yeah. Is that an option is to -- is to keep it -- keep the lengths as is and -- and -- Parsons: Commissioners, yeah, if you don't agree with changing the code, that's -- you're a recommending body. If you don't like the proposed changes you are more than welcome to recommend denial of the application. Cassinelli: But I mean is that an option as far as getting alternative compliant to -- Fitzgerald: In the future? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 44 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 42 of 45 Cassinelli: Yeah. So, keep it -- keep the lengths as is, but allow alternative compliance to -- is that more of a headache -- Fitzgerald: Want to say that -- that puts pressure on staff to figure out, instead of having the applicant can do it for them. I mean that's -- bring in what you want and, then, work with the staff to come up with the right -- Parsons: There is pros and cons to all of it, to be honest with you, because alternative compliance -- it is, essentially, a staff level variance and it's -- it's on a case-by-case basis, so that you have -- at least you have the ability to say no at some point with it, where this is code this is citywide, so everyone if they comply with this, you -- essentially you are shifting the burden from staff versus shifting the burden to City Council. So, that's kind of the pros and cons here to it. But certainly with annexations and with some of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan if -- if staff doesn't feel that the extended cul-de-sac is the right fit, we can certainly recommend modifications and -- or denial of their annexation. We have that ability. But, again, what we are proposing this evening I think is -- is a good alternative. We talked about it. We have been working with everyone out there and I think this works for everyone. Again, the intent isn't that you have 750. Fitzgerald: Everybody having -- Parsons: -- 750 linear foot cul-de-sacs throughout the City of Meridian. We still need connectivity. Fitzgerald: Well -- and the 500 that's only 50 more feet. But I mean giving the City Council the ability to shift in within that -- that 500 to 750 I think is reasonable. Parsons: Certainly you guys will be able to weigh in on that as part of your recommendation onto City Council. I don't want to just say okay, kick it off down to Council and let them decide on it. I mean ultimately they are going to decide, but you have the ability to say, yes, whether or not you support the long cul-de-sac and forward on that information onto City Council with your recommendation. Cassinelli: And, then, Bill, another question. What -- right now what is the maximum block length, so I can have a perspective. Parsons: Well, the code right now restricts block length to 750 feet and, then, Council can go up -- you can go up to a thousand feet with ped connection or open space or an alley. There is certain guidelines. And, then, the Council can approve up to 1,200 linear feet when you have large waterways, arterial roadways, topography -- some of the same similar language that you see with this text change. Cassinelli: Okay. So -- so, the 750 foot cul-de-sac could be as long as -- and just for my perspective, that could be as long as a -- as a standard maximum block length right now. Parsons: That is correct. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 45 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 43 of 45 Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Would the applicant like to come forward or we had -- we had -- do we -- we do have an applicant. Want to come forward and discuss with us. We are going back and forth with staff, but -- thanks for being here. Waite: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Dean Waite. 4283 Nystrom Way, Boise, Idaho. 83713. I do appreciate your time today and I will throw away my notes and won't make this a long speech. I do appreciate Bill and the rest of the staff helping us with this. The one point I do want to make is that during our presentation and the work with City Council and with the staff on Silver Springs -- in the City Council meeting we were directly asked by the City Council to make this proposal. They -- they wanted -- they wanted to approve this as Bill stated, but they could not, their hands were tied. In talking with staff and with their -- the Council, they could not do what they want to do and so we went through, did the homework, checked with the other local jurisdictions, which are between 500 and -- like Boise and ACHD up to 750 and -- and tried to find something that -- that we thought worked and so here we are today and we were -- yeah, we are okay with the changes that the staff has recommended to what we propose. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. Mr. Yorgason, do you want to come and testify, since you are the only one in the room. Yorgason: Thank you. For the record Dave Yorgason. 14254 West Battenburg Drive, Boise. And just a couple things. First of all, again, thank you, staff. Appreciate all the work you have done and the research you have done and that's exactly right, as I stood and testified to City Council, they asked us to come back with an application, which is what we have done. Lots of discussion with the fire chief to make sure it was compatible with what they wanted and be consistent with the other cities. I got a copy of the staff report a couple hours ago, so happy to do a quick little peruse through it and, additionally, I also wear the hat of the Building Contractors Association and the BCA has not had a chance to review this and make a formal position, though I have talked to a couple developers and I look at my experience in developing in the city here, as well as other surrounding cities, and, really, the only question that will come up is the number of units being restricted to 20 on -- on the streets. I don't want to make that a big deal tonight and it's really important for them to keep moving forward with their final plat and their construction drawings for their development. However, I do know that I did a quick little sketch if I were to do it -- not a 750, but a 500 foot long cul-de-sac. Not in an R-15, but in an R-8 zone with the standard lot sizes that are in R-8 zone. I actually come up with 29 lots. So, 29. So, the 30 lots that Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to as -- that would be restricted based on the -- the single access -- if we had a lot of discussion with that, we would appreciate that. I know to raise that number from 20 to 30, but I'm not here to make a big deal out of that as well. I haven't cleared a whole lot of -- our association, the BCA, has not actually made a formal statement on that. What's really more important is to have this application move forward, so they can keep moving forward with their construction drawings. Lastly, the city made the -- the condition -- the requirement that they will file Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 46 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 44 of 45 their final plat application after whatever is approved by the City Council of this modification to the code change. Commissioner Cassinelli, I appreciate your comments with regard to alternative compliance. I love that idea. This was what was directed by the Council. And also I appreciate why, meaning don't put the pressure on staff to be arbitrary with the decisions, but let's be consistent with across the city and so this bump up from 450 to 500 makes a lot of sense. So, with that I appreciate the comments and approve what was being presented here and I will just stand for any questions you might have. Fitzgerald: Any questions? Thank you, sir, very much for being here. Yorgason: You're very welcome. Thanks again. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Any questions for staff before we close the public hearing? Can I get a motion? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing for file number H-2019-0107. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0107. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would be in favor of moving forward with this. I would like to include the graphics with the text changes. I think -- Fitzgerald: Agreed. McCarvel: -- pictures say a thousand words. I would not -- I don't think I would want to entertain moving that from 20 to 30 lots. I think that's -- I mean fire, everything -- I think there is other ways to do a street with that much density. I don't think it needs to be down a cul-de-sac, so -- my two cents. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Thoughts? So, I -- I have no -- I think as Council is going to see this again when we bring it -- I think they -- if they want to take it to the 30 and match the fire code they can do that. I want to allow the applicant to move forward as well and I have no problem with the changes. I think it -- it makes sense. Again, it gives Council leeway to approve based on design and uniqueness of typography or other Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 47 of 68 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 45 of 45 things to approve a larger block length if they need to, but I think this makes sense. So, someone want to make a motion? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0107 as amended by staff in the staff -- staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019. Cassinelli: Are you going to have the graphics? Seal: With the -- with the following modifications: That we include the graphics with the text changes. Cassinelli: I will second that. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve -- or recommend approval of file H- 2019-0107, street length for cul-de-sacs UDC Text Amendment and all those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate you being here. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: I need one more motion. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have a motion to adjourn. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: We are adjourned. Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. (AUDIO RECOR OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED By Adrienn�leatherly, Pe�uty Clerk Chris Johnson, City Clerk �, 0 1 tq MAN DATE APPROVED r,Ucusr i, P`vO 1963 O� 4 "00 w i Ss" Qom. ��6 CEh,TEF at �h e'(AE�SJ. CjQ/rE IDIZIAN?-DAHO PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Item Title: Approve Minutes of October 17, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Appr ove M inutes of October 17, 2019 P lanning and Zoning C ommission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Meeting Minutes Minutes 10/24/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 3 of 282 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 107 of 107 go with the staff recommended of low density on Rustler and that we would also follow staff recommendations on the other areas as presented. Seal: Second. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to approve -- to recommend approval to City Council with modifications stated. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we adjourn. Holland: Second. Seal: Second. McCarvel: Before it's Friday. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the public hearing for October 17th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:54 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED /l Adrienhe bjft�—erly,�e uty Clerk for Chris J6- son, City Clerk DATEIAPPROVEb Lj�EDAHO IDIZ IANC -- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 B Item Title: Approve Minutes of October 24, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: u I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.B . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Appr ove M inutes of October 24, 2019 P lanning and Zoning C ommission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Meeting Minutes Minutes 11/4/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 111 of 282 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2019 Page 43 of 43 Fitzgerald: I have a motion -- McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: And a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay -- same. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thank you all. We appreciate you being here tonight and I need -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: -- a motion. Yes, Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Fitzgerald: I have a motion for adjournment. Do I have a second? McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: And we get to go home. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:33 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED _-sl;;, K�AW ATTEST: Adrienne We 'ther Chris Johnson i _Deputy Clerk DATE APPROVED Q�aPTED Ali 0Q ST r CVEE IDIAN*-- Z �DAHD SEAL/ the EIDIAN,'+-- D_J PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 C Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Adera Storage (H- 2019-0094) By Chad Olsen. Located at 1680 W. Ustick Rd. Meeting Notes: 9 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.C . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for Adera S torage (H-2019-0094) by Chad Olsen, Located at 1680 W. Ustick Rd. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings F indings/Orders 11/4/2019 E xhibit A E xhibit 11/4/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 155 of 282 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0094 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Service Storage Facility for Adera Storage on 4.61 Acres of Land in the C-C Zoning District, Located at 1680 W. Ustick Rd., by Chad Olsen. Case No(s). H-2019-0094 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 24, 2019 (Findings on November 7, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 156 of 282 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0094 Page 2 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 157 of 282 B action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the q 4) day of Uet't'lw , 2019. COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI COMMISSIONER REID OLSEN Jessica Perreault, Chairman Attest: nu - r(e Jea 4h ,'De�� Clea k oY Chris SohnsDo�, C� C12r� VOTED VOTED VOTED �v VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED�� \� pRPORA �G G t� r w Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services diM YWg'o: Develop ent Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: \� C k's Of r CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0094 - Nae r� the Community Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 10/24/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Adera Storage H-2019-0094 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1680 W. Ustick Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a self-service storage facility on 4.61 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4.61 Future Land Use Designation MU-C Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Self-service storage facility Current Zoning C-C Proposed Zoning NA Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Creason Lateral crosses southwest corner of site & has been piped Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 04/25/2019 - no attendees; and 7/23/19 – one attendee History (previous approvals) AZ-09-0.5 (JJA Land, Ord. 10-1445, DA #110031366) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 159 of 282 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Full (temporary) access via N. Linder Rd.; emergency access via W. Ustick Rd. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 160 of 282 Page 3 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Chad Olsen – 104 E. Fairview Ave., #233, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Buyrite, LLC – 16130 N. Elder St., Nampa, ID 83687 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/4/2019 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/1/2019 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 10/11/2019 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/1/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is requested for a self-service storage facility in a C-C zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: None C. Existing Zoning C-C D. Proposed Use Self-service storage facility containing up to 425 units ranging in size from 8’ x 10’ – 20’ x 10’ consisting of 47,762 square feet. An additional building for interior storage containing (36+/-) 10’ x 10’ units consisting of 3,648 square feet may be developed at the northeast corner of the site; in the alternative, retail uses may be developed instead. Note: The number of storage units noted is based on the calculation table included in Section VII.B which is different than that depicted on the site plan; the site plan should be updated based on final design. The Applicant would like flexibility to develop up to 425 storage units on the site. E. Dimensional Standards: See 11-2B-3 for the C-C district F. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff’s analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-34: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY A. Storage units and/or areas 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 self-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 161 of 282 Page 4 B. 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. C. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty five feet (25'). The site plan complies with this standard. D. The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road, chainlink shall not be allowed as fencing material. The rear of the storage structures will serve as a wall and will screen the proposed facility from public view. The emergency gate shall be provide screening of the facility with an acceptable screening material. E. If abutting a residential district, the facility hours of public operation shall be limited to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. F. A minimum twenty five foot (25') wide landscape buffer shall be provided where the facility abuts a residential use, unless a greater buffer width is otherwise required by this title. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-9C of this title. The site plan depicts a 25’ wide buffer; landscaping within the buffer should be provided in accord with UDC standards. G. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with section 11-3A-16, "Self-Service Uses", of this title shall also apply. The use will not be unattended. H. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes. An emergency access is proposed via W. Ustick Rd. in accord with Fire Dept. requirements. I. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. J. The site shall not be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. K. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material, the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand feet (1,000') from a hospital. G. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with storage units, internal driveways, access and parking (see Section VII.A). The boundary of the site needs to be enlarged to include the 0.15 acre area on the south side of the Creason Lateral; the site plan should be revised accordingly. H. Access: One temporary full access is proposed via N. Linder Rd.; an emergency only access is provided via W. Ustick Rd. The existing stub street (W. Crosswind St.) at the west boundary is not required to be extended until the subject property is subdivided in the future. I. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6B.1, parking is based on gross floor area of office space for self-service storage facilities. An 896 square foot office is proposed, therefore, a minimum of one (1) parking space is required; 13 spaces are proposed with one of those being an ADA space in excess of the minimum standards. The parking calculations depicted on the site plan should be revised to reflect the number of spaces required based on the square footage of the office only (i.e. 896 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 162 of 282 Page 5 square feet). Note: If the interior storage ends up being replaced with retail uses, a minimum of one parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area will be required. The 2-way drive aisle in the parking area should be widened from 20 to 25 feet in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-5. A minimum of one (1) bicycle parking space is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. J. Sidewalks: There is an existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalk along W. Ustick Rd. and along the portion of N. Linder Rd. nearest the Linder/Ustick intersection. A minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk should be constructed along the portion of Linder Rd., an arterial street, where sidewalk does not exist to the north property boundary in accord with UDC 11-3A-17C. K. Pathways: There is an existing 10-foot wide multi-use pathway adjacent to the Creason Lateral that runs across the southwest corner of this site. The Applicant proposes to replace the existing sidewalk along Ustick Rd. with a 10-foot wide sidewalk to the intersection; Staff recommends it’s constructed as a detached pathway with a landscaped parkway. A new public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the existing/proposed pathway. L. Landscaping A 25-foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A minimum density of one tree per 35 linear feet is required along with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover; a calculation table should be depicted on the plan demonstrating compliance with this requirement. The proposed plan appears to be short trees and does not depict any vegetative groundcover but does include shrubs. A 25-foot wide buffer is proposed to future residential uses along the west boundary of the site as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and 11-4-3-34F. The buffer is required to be comprised of a mix of evergreen & deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover; the buffer area should result in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of tree maturity. The plan doesn’t depict any trees along the west boundary; the plan should be revised accordingly to comply with UDC standards. M. Waterways: The Creason Lateral runs across the southwest boundary of this site and has been piped. An easement for the Irrigation District should be depicted on the plans if one exists. N. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Fencing is not depicted on the plan. O. Utilities All utilities for the proposed use are required to be installed at or below grade in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. The proposed development is required to connect to the City water and sewer systems, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (See UDC 11-3A-21) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 163 of 282 Page 6 P. Building Elevations Perspective views of the proposed storage facility were submitted as shown in Section VII.C. The facades of the structures facing the adjacent public streets have the appearance of store fronts rather than the rear of storage units, which is a much more appealing view than typical for storage facilities. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Note: The multi-family structures shown in the background of the perspective view from Ustick Rd. were not approved with H-2019-0092. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on October 24, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Chad Olsen, Applicant b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Carl Wibel; Chris Williams; Janie Pullman d. Written testimony: Chad Olsen, Applicant e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Desire for more neighborhood serving uses (i.e. restaurant, retail/commercial) rather than a storage facility to develop on this site. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Future development on the northern portion of the site in relation to what was conceptually approved by City Council with the Development Agreement; b. Desire for retail use, rather than interior storage for the northern building. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Modification to condition #A.6 in Section VIII to include language that the Commission strongly recommends retail/commercial uses rather than interior storage at the northeast corner of the site, although not a requirement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 164 of 282 Page 7 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (dated: 9/21/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 165 of 282 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 166 of 282 Page 9 B. Landscape Plan (dated: 9/21/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 167 of 282 Page 10 C. Building Elevations & Perspectives Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 168 of 282 Page 11 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the provisions in the Development Agreement associated with H-2019-0092 (Adera) and the conditions contained herein. The Development Agreement shall be recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application for this site. 2. The Developer/Owner shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 34, Self-Service Storage Facility. The application submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall demonstrate compliance with these standards. 3. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. A minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk shall be depicted along the portion of Linder Rd. where sidewalk does not exist to the north property boundary in accord with UDC 11-3A-17C. b. Depict a minimum of one (1) bicycle parking space on the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 169 of 282 Page 12 c. A minimum density of one tree per 35 linear feet is required along with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover within the street buffers along W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd. as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C; a calculation table should be depicted on the plan demonstrating compliance with this requirement per the application checklist. d. The buffer to future residential uses along the west boundary of the site is required to be comprised of a mix of evergreen & deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of tree maturity as set forth in UDC 11-3B-9C in accord with UDC 11-4-3-34. e. The boundary of the site needs to be enlarged to include the 0.15 acre area on the south side of the Creason Lateral. f. The parking calculations depicted on the site plan should be revised to reflect the number of spaces required based on the square footage of the office (i.e. 896 square feet). g. The number of storage units included in the Development Data on the site plan should be updated based on the number at final design, not to exceed 425. h. Depict an Irrigation District easement for the Creason Lateral if one exists. i. Depict the proposed 10-foot wide pathway along W. Ustick Rd. detached from the curb with a landscaped parkway. j. A detail of the proposed emergency gate shall be included that provides screening of the facility in accord with 11-4-3-34D (chainlink with slats does not qualify as an acceptable screening material). k. Remove Day Lily as a shrub and show it as a plant instead in the Plant Schedule on the landscape plan. l. The 2-way drive aisle in the parking area shall be widened to 25 feet in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-5. 4. The hours of operation for the storage facility shall be limited to 6:00 am to 11:00 pm in accord with UDC 11-4-3-34. 5. A public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathway and recorded prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy; the easement shall extend to the Ustick/Linder Rd. intersection where the new pathway is proposed. 6. Flexibility shall be granted for the future interior storage depicted on the site plan at the northeast corner of the site to be converted to retail if desired by the Applicant. The Commission strongly recommended retail/commercial uses rather than interior storage; however, this is not a requirement. 7. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. B. Public Works Department 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 170 of 282 Page 13 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. 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. 3. 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 tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, and at a minimum, a compacted gravel road base shall be in place prior to applying for building permits. 7. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 8. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 11. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 12. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 13. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 171 of 282 Page 14 14. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 15. 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. 16. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed 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 1. Fire Flow: Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with International Fire Code Appendix B to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix C. 2. Water Supply: Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department or their designee in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have a Storz LDH connection in place of the 4 ½” outlet. The Storz connection may be integrated into the hydrant or an approved adapter may be used on the 4 1/2" outlet. b. Fire hydrants shall have the Storz outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. d. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. e. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the Storz outlet. f. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the Meridian Water Dept. Standards. g. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3. Roadways: In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. Cul-D-Sacs shall be 96’ in diameter minimum and shall be signed “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 & D103.6. 4. Roadways: All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 172 of 282 Page 15 5. Roadways: Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection IFC 503.4.1. 6. Access: Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4. 7. Access: All electric gates are required to be 20’ in width and equipped with a Fire Department key switch as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.6 & National Fire Protection Standard 1141, Section 5.3.17.3. 8. Access: This project will be required to provide a 20’ wide swing or rolling emergency access gate as set forth in International Fire Code Sections 503.5 and 503.6. The gate shall be equipped with a Knoxbox padlock which has to be ordered via the website www.knoxbox.com. All gates at the entrance to fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the roadway and shall open away from the roadway, unless other provisions are made for safe personnel operations as set forth in National Fire Protection Association 1141, Section 5.3.16 - 2017 edition. 9. Access: Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 10. Addressing: The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 104-4-1. D. Police Department http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177230/Page1.aspx http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/178356/Page1.aspx E. Park’s Department http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177504/Page1.aspx F. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=177195&dbid=0 G. Central District Health Department (CDHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177499/Page1.aspx H. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177537/Page1.aspx I. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/178103/Page1.aspx J. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177499/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 173 of 282 Page 16 IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-C district (see Analysis, Section V for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-C and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-C zoning district. Further, the Commission finds the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed storage facility will provide a needed service within close proximity to residential uses. Additional retail uses will be provided in the future to contribute to the mix of uses desired in this area. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed self-service storage facility 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. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 174 of 282 EIDIAN'--- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 D Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North (H-2019-0105) By Chad Olsen. Located at 3543 E. Tecate Ln. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.D . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for Verraso Village North (H-2019-0105) by C had Olsen, L ocated at 3543 E . Tecate L n. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings F indings/Orders 10/28/2019 E xhibit A E xhibit 10/28/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 175 of 282 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0105 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit Modification to Reduce the Multi-family Units from 56 to 36 and Update the Development Plans on 1.7 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District for Verraso Village North, Located at 3543 E. Tecate Ln., by Chad Olsen. Case No(s). H-2019-0105 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 24, 2019 (Findings on November 7, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 176 of 282 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0105 Page 2 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit modification is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of October 24, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 177 of 282 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 9 day of NOVeM Y)or , 2019. COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT, CHAIRPERSON VOTED / COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL VOTED_ COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED AIV COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED, COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER REID OLSEN VOTED Acl i ne 0.-k�n� e�U ckr- ' FoY' Chris SOh Oil, CAerL-. Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: PMDated: I 1 I dolq City Cler 's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). 1-1-2019-0105 ve rra.`c Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 10/24/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Kevin Holmes, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0105 Verraso Village North MCU PROPERTY LOCATION: 3543 E. Tecate Ln., in the NW ¼ of Section 4, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit modification to reduce the number of dwelling units in the multi-family development from 56 to 36 and update the development plan for the site. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.7 Future Land Use Designation MU-R Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Residential, Multi-Family Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning N/A Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 8/19/2019; 1 attendee History (previous approvals) H-2018-0071; A-2018-0339; H-2016-0132; A-2016-0287; H- 2015-0016; MFP-11-002; FP-09-002; PP-08-007; DA Instrument No. 106137048; AZ-05-061 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 179 of 282 Page 2 Description Details Page  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access is depicted on the site plan via E. Tecate Ln., a private street; emergency access only via N. Records Ave., a collector street, is proposed. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 180 of 282 Page 3 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Chad Olsen - 12790 W. Telemark Street, Boise, ID 83713 B. Owner: Envision360, LLC - 12790 W. Telemark Street, Boise, ID 83713 C. Representative: Same as applicant IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/4/2019 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/1/2019 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 10/11/2019 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/1/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This development is the fourth phase of the Verraso Village multi-family development. The site consist of 1.7 acres, zoned C-G with a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of MU-R. The applicant requests a modification to the previously approved conditional use permit (H-2018-0070) to reduce the number of multi-family units from 56 to 36 and update the development plan for the site. The previous approval’s design consisted of a common garage on the first floor and living units on the second and third floors. The 56 units were comprised of one and two bedroom units with private balconies (Exhibit A). The new proposed plan has private two car garages on the bottom story with units above. The 36 units are all three story, three bedroom, and attached in rows along a shared drive. Each unit includes two parking pads outside the private garages. The development’s gross density is 21.3 units per acre, consistent with the MU-R designation. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies This site is designated Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. Fox example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the developments. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5 of the Comprehensive Plan. This site is proposed to develop with high-density multi-family residential uses at a gross density of 21.2 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre); anticipated density in the MU-R designations is between 6 and 40 dwelling units to the acre. The proposed development consists of 36 dwelling units on 1.7 acres of land; the structure is proposed to be three stories in height. The proposed multi-family development should contribute to the mix of uses in this area adjacent to retail, employment and restaurant uses near major intersections (Eagle & Ustick Roads and Eagle & Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 181 of 282 Page 4 Fairview Roads), consistent with the plan for MU-R designated areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (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, pg. 56) The proposed multi-family units will contribute to the variety of rental options available within the City.  “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, pg. 45) City services will be provided and extended with development of this site.  “Require appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.) A 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer is required along N. Records Avenue, a collector street.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F, pg. 53) The proposed multi-family development should be compatible with existing multi-family residential units to the south.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) Access is proposed via E. Tecate Ln., a previously approved private street along the site’s north boundary. No public access is provided to N. Records Ave., a collector street.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02, pg. 55) The proposed high-density development is located near major access thoroughfares [N. Eagle Road (State Highway 55) and E. Ustick Road & E. Fairview Ave. (both arterial streets)] and is within walking distance of Kleiner Park, a 60 acre City park, and The Village at Meridian shopping center to the south. B. Specific Use Standards The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: A minimum of 80 square feet of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Private balconies are proposed for each unit that meets this requirement. Development with 20 units or more are required to provide a property management office, maintenance storage area, central mailbox location (including provisions for parcel mail) that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access, and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The property management and leasing office and maintenance storage area is located in the northwest corner of this site. A central mailbox location is depicted on the site plan next to the leasing office. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict the location(s) of the directory & map of the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 182 of 282 Page 5 At a minimum, 250 square feet (s.f.) of outdoor common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All but one of the proposed units are within this range at 1,199 s.f.. Therefore, a minimum of 9,100 s.f. (or 0.20 of an acre) of common open space is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C. The applicant proposes a 20-foot wide strip of landscaped area along the entire southern boundary of the property, a 50’ x 20’ central open space, and a dog park located at the southwest corner of the property to meet the common open space requirements. These areas comprise approximately 10,582 s.f. (0.24 of an acre), meeting the UDC requirement. For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D.1. The applicant proposes an approximately 20’ x 69’ pet area at the west end of the building and a pet parlor, both of which staff would classify as quality of life amenities. Staff recommends the addition of at least one other amenity for either the open space or recreation categories. Per UDC 11-4-3- 27-D3, the Commission does have the latitude to consider other improvements as long as they provide a similar level of amenity. Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27E. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundations as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least three-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24-inches for every three linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. The landscape plan submitted with this application meets this requirement. The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. C. Dimensional Standards The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and for multi-family developments listed in 11-4-3- 27. The setbacks for the C-G district are 0; however, the 20-foot required street buffer along N. Records Way will serve as a setback on the east side of the development. D. Access Access is depicted on the site plan via E. Tecate Ln., a private street; emergency access only is proposed via N. Records Ave., a collector street. E. Parking: The UDC requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family developments. Based on 36, three bedroom units, a minimum of 36 covered and 36 uncovered (or covered) spaces are required for a total of 72 spaces; a total of 72 covered vehicle spaces and 72 uncovered are proposed, double what is required by code. All but two of these spaces are reserved for the individual units. The number of proposed parking spaces complies with UDC standards. One bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion thereof, per UDC 11-3C-6G. Based on a total of 144 proposed parking spaces, a minimum of six bicycle parking spaces should be provided for the development. The site plan does not depict any bicycle parking. A minimum of six bicycle-parking facilities, built to the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 183 of 282 Page 6 standards of UDC 11-3C-5C, shall be included on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. F. Sidewalks/Parkways: A five-foot wide detached sidewalk exists on this site along N. Records Avenue in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. The site plan depicts a four-foot wide attached sidewalk along E. Tecate Ln., a private street. The western most building on Tecate Ln. depicts landscaping that could obstruct pedestrians walking to the front entrances of the units or to the adjacent commercial area. The applicant should remove the parking pads from the rear of these units, widen the drive aisle from 20 feet to 25 feet and shift the building further to the south to provide additional open space on the site and ensure safe access for traveling pedestrians in the development. Even with the reduction in parking, the applicant still exceeds the parking standards of the UDC. G. Landscaping: A minimum 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer is required (as proposed) along N. Records Avenue, a collector street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. One tree is required per 35-feet per the aforementioned standards listed in code. The landscape plan shall be revised to include a minimum of five trees along N. Records Ave. A minimum of two tree species will be used to meet this requirement, in accord with Table 11-3B-5-3. H. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. New fencing is depicted on the site plan but no details are provided. A detail of the fences shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. I. Utilities and drainage: All utilities and drainage facilities are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-18 and UDC 11-3A-21. J. Lighting: All outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. K. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted several conceptual building elevations for the multi-family structures within this development. These applications may not be the ones the applicant intends to build. They were provided for illustrative purposes to depict the specific design elements for the development. Further refinement will occur at staff level during review of the design review application submitted with a concurrent CZC application. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit modification application in accord with the Findings in Section IX per the provisions in Section VIII. B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on 10/24/2019. At the public hearing, the Commission voted to approve the subject MCU request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Chad Olsen b. In opposition: None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 184 of 282 Page 7 c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. b. Design of the multi-family structures. Commission preferred the Brownstone units. Eliminating the driveways for the western most building fronting on Tecate Lane. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 185 of 282 Page 8 VI. EXHIBITS A. Previously Approved Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 186 of 282 Page 9 B. Proposed Site Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 187 of 282 Page 10 C. Proposed Landscape Plan D. Conceptual Elevations (not approved) Not Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 188 of 282 Page 11 Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 189 of 282 Page 12 VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. Development of the site shall general comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A, the conditions of approval listed herein, the provisions of the development agreement (Inst. #106137048) and amended development agreements (H-2015-0016, Inst. #2016-106279; H-2016-0132, Inst. #2017-056982). 2. The architectural character of the proposed multi-family structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 3. The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, including but not limited to the following: a. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. b. The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 4. The applicant shall provide one more amenity from the categories of open space or recreation listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D, in addition to the two amenities proposed (dog park and dog parlor). 5. Any fencing constructed on the site shall be consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7. 6. The interior parking area shall comply with the required stall and drive aisle dimensions listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. 7. The site plan, dated 06/11/2019, included in Exhibit VII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Revise Note 6 with correct unit and building count. b. Depict the location(s) of the directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. c. Depict bicycle parking as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C; a minimum of six bicycle parking spaces should be provided for the development. d. The western most building on Tecate Ln. depicts landscaping that could obstruct pedestrians walking to the front entrances of the units or to the adjacent commercial area. The applicant shall remove the parking pads from the rear of these units, widen the drive aisle from 20 feet to 25 feet and shift the building Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 190 of 282 Page 13 further to the south to provide additional open space on the site in front of the structure to ensure safe access for traveling pedestrians in the development. 8. The landscape plan, dated 06/28/2019, included in Exhibit VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. A minimum of five trees, of at least two different species, shall be added to the twenty-foot landscape buffer along N. Records Ave. b. The two-gallon “Evergreen Shrubs” used on the plan shall be identified by its species name. 9. The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications for approval from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. 10. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan to Meridian Land Development for review and approval to ensure adequate drainage can be maintained on site in accord with UDC 11-3A-18. 11. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 12. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 13. The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. B. Public Works 1. A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. Streetlights are required on public roads, including E. Tecate Lane. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 191 of 282 Page 14 VIII. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E): The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G district as required by the UDC (see Analysis Section V for more information). B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this site. C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions listed in this report, the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the 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 (see Analysis Section V for more information). D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not involve excessive traffic, noise, or odors that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. H. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 192 of 282 EIDIAN+<-- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 7, 2019 Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Revised Layout Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map The Applicant’s proposed text is as follows: 11-6C-3B4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred feet (500'), or up to seven hundred fifty feet (750') with City Council approval. Staff’s recommended text is as follows: 11-6C-3B4.Cul-De-Sacs: a.No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty feet (450').five hundred feet (500’) except as allowed in subsection b of this section. a.The City Council may approve a dead end street up to seven hundred fifty feet (750’)in length where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope,railroad tracks or a large waterway,that prevents extension;and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. b.Cul-de-sac streets shall serve a maximum of twenty (20)dwelling units. c.The length of a cul-de-sac street shall be measured from the near edge of right-of-way to the center of the turnaround. Changes to Agenda: None Item #4A: Goddard Creek Townhomes (H-2019.0068) Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement Modification (does not require action from the Commission, only Council) ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Private street and Alternative Compliance (does not require action from the CommissionlCouncil — Director decision) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.62 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at the NWC of W. McMillan Rd. & N. Goddard Creek Way. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Apartments (Selway), zoned R-4 West: Future self-service storage facility, zoned C -C South: McMillan Rd. & SFR, zoned R-4 East: Goddard Creek Way & SFR, zoned R-8 & L-0 History: This property was part of the Lochsa Falls development approved in 2002 and received annexation w/a DA, CUP/PD and preliminary plat approval; the PD allowed offices as a use exception in the R-4 district. In 2017, a map amendment was approved from Office & HDR to MU -C and the property was included as a lot in Goddard Creek Sub. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -C Summary of Request: A modification to the existing DA is requested to allow the development of SFR attached homes & townhomes to develop on the property instead of the previously approved office uses; and to exclude the subject property from the terms of the existing DA and enter into a new one that just governs development of this site and not the larger Lochsa Falls development. A rezone of 5,03 acres of land is requested from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. The proposed development plan consists of a mix of SFR housing types (attached & townhomes), which along with the multi -family to the north, the SFR detached homes in the vicinity, and the storage facility planned to the west, provides a mix of uses and residential housing options in the area consistent with the MU - C designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 41 building lots & 8 common lots on 4.62 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district. Access is proposed via a private street, W. Apgar Creek Ln., via N. Goddard Creek Way, a collector street; direct access via McMillan Rd. is prohibited. Private streets (24' wide) & common driveways are proposed for internal access within the development. Although private streets are not typically intended for single-family developments, because the development is proposing a common mew through the site design & access via McMillan in restricted, Staff is of the opinion the private streets are appropriate. As a condition of approval, Staff is requiring the townhome units proposed on Lots 36-49 be oriented with the front of the units oriented toward the mew. Because on -street parking is not allowed with 24' wide street sections and parking is a concern in this area due to the existing apartment complex to the north not having adequate parking, the applicant is providing an off-street parking area w/16 spaces at the south end of the townhome units to ensure adequate parking for guests is provided within the development. Although the UDC does not require common open space & site amenities to be provided because the property is below 5 acres in size, the Applicant is proposing approximately 20% of qualified open space & a tot lot, picnic shelter & dog park as amenities. Conceptual building elevations/renderings were submitted for the proposed townhome units; none were submitted for the SFR attached units. Because Staff recommends the front of the townhomes are oriented toward the abutting mew, the elevations submitted do not contemplate this design. Therefore, Staff recommended in the staff report that the Applicant provide 3 distinct elevations for the development that meets this condition prior to the Commission hearing; revised drawings were submitted as shown, All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Scott Noriyuki, Applicant — in agreement w/staff report 9 letters of public testimony included in the public record in opposition to the proposed development for the following reasons: ➢ Preference for office uses rather than more homes due to traffic & overcrowding of schools or lower density housing; ➢ Safety concerns pertaining to traffic travelling at a high rate of speed on Goddard Creek Way with cut -through traffic to Chinden and the proposed development contributing to the traffic volume; residents using Kelly Creek park & amenities; crime & vandalism, trash; and, ➢ Existing parking issues in the area which will be exacerbated by the proposed development. Staff Recommendation: Approval per the conditions in the staff report 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- 2019-0068, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 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- 0068, as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0068 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #413: 840 E. Ustick Rd. (H-2019-0098) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.29 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 840 E. Ustick Rd., midway between Meridian & Locust Grove Rds. on the north side of Ustick. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: This property is surrounded by SFR properties, zoned R1 & RUT in Ada County on the north side of Ustick & R-8 on the south side of Ustick. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (3 or fewer units/acre) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests annexation of 2.29 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district. No development is proposed at this time; the existing SFR home on the property is proposed to remain. Annexation of the property into the City is requested due to the failure of the existing septic system & the need for connection to City sewer. The Applicant recently entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water & sewer service outside Meridian city limits which allowed the property to hook up to City water & sewer service with the requirement the property is annexed into the City. The Applicant requested an R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) zoning district for the subject property. The R-4 zoning district is consistent with the LDR designation for this site but could allow development to occur above 3 dwelling units per acre. Density is essentially dictated by the dimensional standards of the district (i.e. the minimum property size, resulting in how many lots can be developed on a property). The R-4 district requires a minimum property size of 8,000 square feet (s.f.). Because no development is proposed at this time, Staff recommends an R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district instead, which requires a minimum property size of 12,000 s.f., to ensure if/when the property redevelops in the future it's consistent with the density envisioned for this area; with R-2 zoning, Staff does not recommend a DA is required. However, if Commission/Council determines the requested R-4 zoning is appropriate, Staff recommends a DA is required to ensure fitture density is consistent with the LDR FL Wdesignation. In this case, the project should be continued to a subsequent hearing date to allow for Staff to prepare recommended DA provisions. Written Testimony: Scott Lamm, Applicant (in agreement w/staff recommendation); and Alyssa & John Villanueva — in agreement w/staff s recommendation of R-2, rather than R-4, however would prefer R1 zoning (City doesn't have R1 zoning, R-2 is the lowest) Staff Recommendation: Approval with R-2 zoning instead of R-4 zoning as requested by the Applicant — the Applicant is in agreement with Staffs recommendation. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0098, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 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- 0098, as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0098 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: Waterwalk (H-2019-0111) Application(s): ➢ Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.18 acres of land, zoned I -L, located on the west side of N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 & the east side of N. Olsen Ave., just north of E. Franklin Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North & West: Industrial properties/uses, zoned I -L South: Vacant/undeveloped commercial property, zoned C -G East: Eagle Rd/SH-55 & retail (RC Willey), zoned C -G History: This property was annexed in 1997 without requirement of a DA Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The Applicant requests a rezone of 6.03 acres of land with a C -G zoning district consistent w/the Commercial FLUM designation. The site is currently vacant/undeveloped. A conceptual development plan was submitted with the rezone application that depicts how the site to be rezoned may possibly develop with two (2) 4 -story hotel buildings & associated parking; office uses are also contemplated which aren't depicted on the plan. Access is proposed via N. Olsen Ave.; no access is proposed or approved via Eagle Rd./SH-55. Because this layout is highly conceptual at this point and is anticipated to change in the future & is not approved by Staff, Staff does not recommend future development is tied to this plan through a DA. Detailed review of the site plan will take place with the CZC and DES applications; compliance with UDC and Fire Department standards is required. Staff recommends a DA as a provision of the Rezone, that allows office, hotel, retail & restaurant uses to develop on the site; any other uses would require modification of the agreement & submittal of a conceptual development plan. Written Testimony: Matt Munger, Applicant's Representative (in agreement w/staff report recommendation) Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement of a DA containing the provisions in the staff report. 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- 2019-0111, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 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- 0111„ as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0111, to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4D: Percy Subdivision (H-2019.0097) Application(s): • Modification to the existing DA to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat & replace the terms of the agreement, (only requires Council approval) • De -annexation of 0.42 of an acre of land currently zoned R-4 to consolidate the property with the adjacent parcel to the south zoned RUT in Ada County; • Rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district; and • Preliminary plat consisting of 113 SFR building lots & 11 common lots on 28.51 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 28.51 acres of land, zoned R-4, located on the east side of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, south of E. Amity Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The surrounding area consists primarily of agricultural land with a few rural residential properties, zoned R-4 and C2 & RUT in Ada County. History: This property was annexed with R-4 zoning as part of the South Meridian Annexation in 2015; a DA exists for the property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mostly (22.93 acres) LDR (3 or fewer units/acre) with some (5.58 acres) MDR (3-8 units/acre) on north end of site. Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to modify the existing DA to incorporate the proposed development plan & update the provisions of the agreement accordingly. The terms of the new agreement will supersede the previous provisions. This application does not require action from the Commission. De -annexation of 0.42 of an acre of land currently zoned R-4 in the City is proposed to consolidate the property with the adjacent County RUT zoned parcel to the south in exchange for an easement to construct the off-site portion of the collector street to Meridian Road with this development consistent with the MSM. A rezone 30.02 acres of land is requested from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district with development of 113 SFR homes on the site at a gross density of 3.96 units/acre consistent with the FLUM. Because the property has two land use designations which are not parcel specific, staff finds the development is consistent with the Com Plan without requesting a "step-up." A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 113 building lots for SFR detached homes with 11 common lots on 28.51 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. The minimum lot size proposed is 5,250 s.f. with an average lot size of 7,239 s.f. Four (4) different sizes of lots are proposed (5K, 6K, 7K, and 8K s.f.) for the development of traditional front -loaded lots as shown on the lot size exhibit. The subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases. A revised phasing plan based on staffs recommendation in the staff report. Access to the development is proposed via an off-site collector street (E. Quartz Creek St.) to be constructed with this development at the '/z mile in accord with the MSM for access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69; a secondary emergency access is planned at the NWC of the site to S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 (the # of homes constructed is limited to 30 until a secondary access can be provided). Four (4) stub streets to adjacent properties to the north, east and south are proposed for future extension & interconnectivity. A minimum 35' wide landscaped street buffer is required along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, an entryway corridor; and a 20' wide buffer is required along E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street. A 4' tall berm with a 6' tall concrete wall on top is proposed adjacent to SH -69 along the west boundary of the site as noise abatement for residential properties adjacent to a state highway as required by the UDC. A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided within this development; a total of 3.52 acres (or 12.36%) is proposed; however, a majority of the area is located adjacent to major roadways (Meridian Rd./SH-69 & E. Quartz Creek St.), Staff recommends Lots 6 & 7, Block 4 is added to Lot 5 to provide a larger central open space area within the development. A minimum of 2 site amenities are required; a covered seating area (gazebo), a tot lot with benches, internal micro -paths and a segment of the City's 10' wide multi -use pathway is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Applicant has revised the plat to include a larger central open space. Staff is amenable with the requested change. Conceptual building elevations photos were submitted for the proposed SFR detached homes, A variety of 1- and 2 -story homes are proposed with a variety of building materials. Because the rear and/or sides of 2 -story homes that face SH -69 will be highly visible, Staff recommends they incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step -backs, pop -outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street; single -story homes are exempt. Written Testimony: Matt Schultz, Applicant's Representative • Agrees to construct the street buffer, pathway & berm/wall along SH -69 with Phase 1; • Proposes to re -orient the 2 lots on the east side of the central open space to be on the north which will increase the common area by 4,200 s.f. to approximately 22,000 s.f. & open up the area to 3 sides for visibility instead of 2 — they need to maintain the front entry space size for their irrigation pond & passive open space/entry feature; • States a micro -path connection is provided to Meridian Rd. for potential bus service, just not exactly at the intersection; • States the left-in/right-in/right-out is approved by ITD as an interim measure until they finish their corridor study in 2020 — they will be building a median to enforce that limitation & anticipate a traffic signal to be a recommendation from ITD. Staff Recommendation: Approval per the Staff Report. 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- 2019-0097, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 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- 0097, as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0097 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4E: Street length for cul-de-sac (H-2019-0107) Application(s): ➢ UDC Text Amendment Current Code: 11 -6C -3B4. Cul -De -Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty feet (450'). Applicant Proposed: 11-6C-3134. Cul -De -Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than _five _hundred _feet Lao,_or upto seyen hundred fifty eet �750''j with City Council approv_al.. Staff's recommended: 11-6C-3134, Cul -De -Sacs: a. No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than feur hundred fifty feet �450five hundred feet (500') except as allowed in subsection b of this section. b. The City Council may approve a dead end street up to seven hundred fifty feet (750') in length where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope railroad tracks or a large waterway, that prevents extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an ad'lacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. C. Cul-de-sac streets shall serve a maximum of twenty (20) dwelling units. d. The length of a cul-de-sac street shall be measured from the near edge of right-of-way to the center of the turnaround. NOTE: An exhibit (or two) depicting cul-de-sac design may be appropriate to include in the UDC as well. Staff will bring some exhibits to the public hearings. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0107, as amended by staff in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 2019, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0107, as requested by the Applicant for the hearing date of November 7, 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- 0107, as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0107 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) EIDIAN,?DAHO -- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from October 3, 2019 for Goddard Townhomes (H-2019-0068) By SI Construction. Located at the NW Corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way 1. Request: Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district, and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat for the Re -subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Goddard Creek Subdivision Consisting of 4.62 Acres of Land into 44 Building Lots and 8 Common Lots Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: S onya Allen Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from October 3, 2019 for Goddard C reek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by S I C onstruction, L ocated at the NW Corner of W. M cM illan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way C lic k Here for Applic atio n 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 taf f R eport 10/23/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 193 of 282 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/7/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-A Project Name: Goddard Creek Townhomes MDA, PP, RZ, PS Project No.: H-2019-0068 Active: ►9 Page 1 of 2 Signature HOA HOA Sign In Address For Neutral Against Name Name Represent Date/Time Janie 5030 N Goddard 11/7/2019 Pollman Creek Way 9:33:18 AM 2464 W Wapoot John Kelly 11/7/2019 Drive, Meridian, ID X Bellamy Creek 5:48:06 PM 83646 Danner 2371 W Apgar Kelly 11/7/2019 X Patchell Creek Dr Creek 5:53:54 PM dnd Rod 2347 W Apgar Kelly 11/7/2019 Angie X Creek Dr Creek 5:54:39 PM Ludlow Penny 2382 W Apgar 11/7/2019 X Fisher Creek Dr 5:55:25 PM Daniel 2382 W Apgar 11/7/2019 X Fisher Creek 5:56:00 PM Seth 2196 W Kelly Kelly 11/7/2019 X Patchell Creek Dr. Creek 5:58:26 PM Noah 2196 w. Kelly Kelly 11/7/2019 X Patchell Creek Dr. creek 5:58:40 PM 11/7/2019 Testing 6:15:44 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=342 11/8/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 2 of 2 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=342 11/8/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: October 24, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0068 Goddard Creek Townhomes LOCATION: Northwest corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION  Modification to the recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #102012598) to allow the development of single family attached homes and townhomes instead of offices;  Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district; and,  Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 residential building lots and 8 common lots on 4.62 in an proposed R-15 zone; and  Private street to provide access to the townhome development. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 194 of 282 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4.62 Future Land Use Designation MU-C Existing Land Use vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Current Zoning R-4 Proposed Zoning R-15 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 41 SFR building/8 common Number of Residential Units (type of units) 41 (SF attached and townhome units) Density (gross & net) 9.52 units/acre (gross); 11.92 (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 1.045 acres, 22.62% Amenities Children’s play structure, pedestrian pathways, covered picnic and barbeque area, passive open space and dog park Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: February 7, 2019; 10 attendees History (previous approvals) This property was granted annexation, preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit as part of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision in 2002 (AZ-02-010, PP-02-009, CUP 02-012) and has a development agreement (Instrument #103012598). These approvals granted office uses in the R-4 district. In 2017, the property received CPAM approval from Office and High Density Residential to Mixed-use Community. A PP and FP were also approved. A concurrent RZ, CUP and MDA was proposed to develop the property with 76 multi-family units however, that request was withdrawn. A PP and FP were also approved (H-2017-0007 and H-2018-0014) to develop the self-storage protion of the development. Written Testimony Written response from 9 residents in opposition of the project (see public record). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 195 of 282 Page 3 Community Metrics Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 196 of 282 Page 4 Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Willow Creek Elementary: +/- 1 miles Sawtooth Middle School: +/- 1.2 miles Rocky Mountain High School: +/- 1.1 miles  Capacity of Schools Willow Creek Elementary: 650 students Sawtooth Middle School: 1000 students Rocky Mountain High School: 1800 students  # of Students Enrolled Willow Creek Elementary: 685 students Sawtooth Middle School: 1043 students Rocky Mountain High School: 2485 students  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development The project is anticipated to add 35 students. Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0  Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 41  WRRF Declining Balance 13.69  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facili ty Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns None Water  Distance to Water Services 0  Pressure Zone 2  Estimated Project Water ERU’s 41 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 197 of 282 Page 5 B. Project Area Maps  Water Quality Concerns Yes – The current plan results in two 330 LF dead ends which is a concern for water quality. This concern can be mitigated by looping the water mains together at the north edge of the site and connecting to existing water main in W Apgar Creek Ln.  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns Applicant to extend and connect proposed water on the east side of the site to the existing water in W Apgar Creek Ln to provide redundant connection. Also, loop proposed water mains at the north edge of the site. Applicant to eliminate water mains in shared drives, replace with water services. Connect water to the north. Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 198 of 282 Page 6 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Gibson Family Revocable Living Trust PO Box 88 Notus, ID 83656 B. Representative: Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management 6810 Fairhill Pl. Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/13/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 9/17/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 10/14/2019 Nextdoor posting 9/17/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is designated MU-C on the future land use map. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the Zoning Map Planned Development Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 199 of 282 Page 7 urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use - Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. When the FLUM was changed in 2017, staff had analyzed the viability of three different land uses on the subject property. At the time, of the FLUM change, the plan consisted of multi-family and a self- service storage facility. In determining the appropriateness of the land use change staff determined that other commercial and office uses approved next to the storage and multi-family development would serve as the third land use type to support the requested FLUM change. Prior to City Council’s action on the previous development, the applicant of the multi-family project withdrew their CUP application. Therefore, the subject 4.62 acre parcel is still governed by the original development agreement which allows office to develop on the property. The applicant now desires to develop the site with 41 single family attached and townhome units. Staff has evaluated the existing land uses and zoning in the area to determine if this stand-alone residential project is attainable. This area is primarily developed with single-family homes with the exception of the apartment complex to the north. Because the applicant is proposing to provide housing diversity in the area and include useable open space and amenities as part of the development, staff believes the plan is consistent with the MU-C designation. The project also falls within the target density of 6 and 15 dwelling units per acre; as proposed gross density is 8.87 dwelling units to the acre. DESIGN: The design of structures on this site is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. The development should incorporate high quality architectural design and materials consistent with the MU-C designation. 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):  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The proposed development will contribute to the variety of residential categories that currently exist in this area (i.e. low and medium density). Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the units will be.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Because of its location in close proximity to nearby shopping centers (the corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road), and major transportation corridors, this property is  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) The subject property is under 5 acres in size and the UDC does not require that the applicant provide common open space. To ensure the project is compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods, the applicant is proposing to provide 24 percent common open space for the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 200 of 282 Page 8 development and include three amenities as follows: tot lot, covered picnic area and dog park.  “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) The area in the vicinity of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road is limited in housing options. The proposed project would promote housing diversity and provide greater opportunities for residents to live near their place of employment and shopping centers.  “Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels.” (3.07.01D) Few of the major employment areas within the City are adequately supported with enough housing options. Density near employment centers allow for workforce housing and promote community resiliency, potentially reducing commute times and expenses, and allowing for increased community and economic engagement.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The UDC (11-3A-3) restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local street. Access tto and from the development is provide along the north boundary via a private street (W. Apgar Creek Lane). Access is not proposed to McMillan Road. REZONE The applicant requests to rezone of the 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 zone to the R-15 zone consistent with the MU-C FLUM designation. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION The applicant is requesting to modify the recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #102012598) to development the site with 41 single family attached homes and townhomes instead of offices. The applicant is requesting to exclude the subject property from the boundary recorded DA and enter a new one that governs the site. Staff’s recommended DA provisions are include in Exhibit VIII. below. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 41 building lots and 8 common lots on 4.62 acres in a proposed R-15 zone. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): 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 zoning district. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via a private street, W. Apgar Creek Lane and access via McMillan Road is prohibited. Therefore, internal private streets are proposed on Lot 34, Block 1 for internal access within the development. Private streets are not typically intended for single-family developments; however, because the development is proposed to be designed with a common mew and access is restricted to McMillan Road, staff is of the opinion the internal private street is appropriate. However, the townhome units proposed for lots 36-49 should be oriented with the front of the units on the mew. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 201 of 282 Page 9 Private streets are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. The proposed private street is 24 feet wide with 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. To ensure adequate guest parking is provided, the applicant is proposing a guest parking area along the north side of the private street across from Lots 16-20, Block 1. Additionally, the private street standards prohibit common driveways from taking access from private streets, unless approved by the director with an alternative compliance application. Alternative compliance has been requested in accord with 11-3F-4A.6, to allow the two (2) common driveways to be accessed off the private street. Because this a mew development and is a small compact, infill development, the Director approves the request for alternative compliance. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Two (2) 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 are not taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the Fire Department. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required within street buffers (11-3B-7C), and within common open space areas (11-3G-3E) in accord with UDC standards. Note: The only required landscaping for the site is the 25-foot wide landscape buffer along McMillan Road. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G-3): The UDC does not require the applicant to provide any qualifying open space because the project is less than 5 acres. However, the applicant recognizes that this is an infill development and the surrounding residential developments have ample open space. In order to complement the surrounding developments, the applicant is proposing to provide approximately 20% of qualified open space within the development; this also includes the following amenities: tot lot, covered picnic shelter and dog park. The existing utilities to serve this development are stubbed in from McMillan Road. The alignment of these utility stubs are offset from the central open lot (Lot 18). In order to facilitate, the logical expansion of City services, staff recommends that the applicant relocate this open space along the east boundary of lot 20. Further, the applicant should coordinate with the fire department to determine if the access road for the Public Works Department can be utilized as the secondary emergency access. Staff is supportive of the amenity package and qualified open space for this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 202 of 282 Page 10 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. Each of the units are required to comply with the parking standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-6. Because of the proposed 24-foot wide street section, on street parking is restricted. As mentioned above, the applicant is providing 16 guest parking stalls to provide additional parking for the development. Parking stalls are required to measure 9’ x 19’ in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-5. NOTE: Parking is concern in the area. The City has received multiple complaints from residents in the area because the existing apartment complex does not have adequate parking. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII-B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations are proposed as shown for the townhomes. The applicant has not provided elevations for the single-family attached units. As noted above, staff also recommends that the applicant orient the front of townhomes abutting the mew. The townhomes submitted with the application do not contemplate this design. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant provide three distinct elevations for the development. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant should provide the two additional elevations planned for the development. All structures within the development are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An administrative design review application must be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the overall development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 203 of 282 Page 11 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone, development agreement modification and preliminary plat and the Director approved the private street and alternative compliance applications per the conditions included in Section VIII. in accord with the Findings in Section IX . Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 204 of 282 Page 12 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 205 of 282 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 206 of 282 Page 14 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 10/15/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 207 of 282 Page 15 C. Landscape Plan (date: 10/18/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 208 of 282 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 209 of 282 Page 17 D. Rendering & Conceptual Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 210 of 282 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 211 of 282 Page 19 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Within six (6) months of Council’s approval of the findings for the rezone and prior to submittal of a final plat application, the developer shall sign and obtain Council approval of the development agreement with the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall comply with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, color rendering and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 10/15/19 shall be revised as follows: a. The existing utilities to serve this development are stubbed in from McMillan Road. The alignment of these utility stubs are offset from the central open lot (Lot 18). In order to facilitate, the logical expansion of City services, the applicant shall relocate this open space on the east boundary of Lot 20. Further, the applicant shall coordinate with the fire department to determine if the access road for the Public Works Department can be utilized as the secondary emergency access. b. Depict zero lot lines on those lots that have shared walls. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated 10/18/19 shall be revised as follows: a. Provide the details of the site amenities with the submittal of the final plat application. b. Applicant shall relocate Lot 18 further to the east per site specific condition 2a. above. c. Applicant shall provide the common open space and amenities as proposed. d. All fencing constructed in the development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7. 4. Private streets within the development are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. Exception: Alternative Compliance was approved to UDC 11-3F-4A.6 to allow the common driveways off of the private street. 5. Parking is only allowed in the designated guest parking area as shown on the attached plans. The private streets shall be posted with “no parking” signs. 6. Off-street parking shall be provided for this site as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-5 and 11-3C-6. 7. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application for the lots accessed by the common driveway that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. Driveways for abutting properties that are not 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 212 of 282 Page 20 8. Provide address signage at the street for homes on Lots 11-14 and 21-23, Block 1 accessed by the common driveway for emergency wayfinding purposes. 9. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveway, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 10. All structures within the development are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An administrative design review application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the overall development. 11. The front of the townhome units proposed on Lots 36-49, Block 1shall be oriented towards the mew. 12. The applicant shall provide three (3) distinct elevations for the development. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide the two additional elevations proposed for the development. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. As currently proposed, the water and sewer serving this project connects to existing mains in W. McMillan Road and then traverses northerly into the development. Meridian city standards requires a minimum of a 14-foot wide compacted gravel roadways over each utility within a 20-foot wide easement (30-feet for two utilities). No large trees are allowed within the easement area. Applicant should reconsider the location of Common Lot 20, Block 1 to be in alignment with the existing sewer and water mainline stubs. 2. The current plan results in two 330 LF dead ends which is a concern for water quality. This concern shall be mitigated by looping the water mains together at the north edge of the site and connecting to existing water main in W Apgar Creek Lane. Applicant to eliminate water mains in shared drives, replace with water services. General Conditions of Approval 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 213 of 282 Page 21 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 17. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 214 of 282 Page 22 18. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Work with the addressing agent to install city approved signs at the common driveways. 2. The Common driveways shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane". 3. Fire Flow: One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet require a fire- flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 1 hours to service the entire project. One and two family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet require a minimum fire flow as specified in Appendix B of the International Fire Code. Fire Hydrant spacing shall be provided as required by Appendix C of the International Fire Code. 4. Roadways: All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 215 of 282 Page 23 5. Roadways: Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20’ wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 80,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 & D103.6. 6. Roadways: To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project which serves more than 30 homes, as set forth in International Fire Code Section D107.1. The two entrances should be separated by no less than ½ the diagonal measurement of the full development as set forth in International Fire Code Section D104.3. The applicant shall provide an additional stub street to the property. 7. Roadways: Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection IFC 503.4.1. 8. Access: Secondary emergency access routes shall be protected from illegal entry by a gate or collapsible bollards as set forth in IFC 503.5. An example would be the MaxiForce Collapsible bollards that is hydrant wrench activated or an approved equal. 4. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177333/Page1.aspx 5. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/177314/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS A. 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; Staff finds the proposed density and associated R-15 zoning designation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the MU-C future land use map designation for this site. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the northern portion of the City. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 216 of 282 Page 24 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Because this application is for a rezone, this finding is not applicable. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT (UDC 11-6B-6) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. C. PRIVATE STREET (UDC 11-3F-4) In order to approve the application, the Director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 217 of 282 Page 25 The design of the proposed private streets complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. See analysis in Section V for more information. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity; and Staff does not anticipate the proposed private streets would cause any hazard, nuisance or other detriment to persons, property or uses in the vicinity if they are designed as proposed and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4B. 6. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. The location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Both ACHD policy and the UDC prohibits access to McMillan Road if local street access is provided. With the development of the property to the north, staff finds that local street access has been provided via a private street. 4. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. The proposed residential development includes a mew. D. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE In order to grant approval for alternative compliance, the director shall determine the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR Access to this development is provided by a private street and the UDC restricts access to McMillan Road, an arterial street. Because the property is not served by internal public streets, the Director finds strict adherence to the UDC is not feasible and approves the request for the common driveways to take access from the private streets as proposed. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the infill development proposed by the applicant as a whole provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements in that it contributes to the unique character of the area, provides open space and amenities in excess of UDC standards and provides diversity in housing types available within the City. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use/character of the surrounding properties and will actually contribute to the character and variety of housing types in this area of the City. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 218 of 282 C IDIAN*,---- ��W,IZ PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Item Title: Public Hearing for 840 E. Ustick Rd. (H-2019-0098) By Scott Lamm. Located at 840 E. Ustick Rd. 1.Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.29 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for 840 E. Ustick Rd. (H-2019-0098) by S cott L amm, Located at 840 E. Ustick Rd. C lic k Here for Applic atio n 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 taf f R eport 11/4/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 219 of 282 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/7/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: 840 E. Ustick Rd. AZ Project No.: H-2019-0098 Active: ►9 There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=333 11/8/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 11/7/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0098 840 E. Ustick Rd. LOCATION: 840 E. Ustick Rd., in the SW ¼ of Section 31, Township 4N., Range 1E I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 2.29 acres of land with an R-4 (Medium Low-Density) zoning district request. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 2.29 including right-of-way; 2.09, exclusive of right-of-way Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (LDR: 3 or fewer units/acre) Existing Land Use Rural residential/agricultural (one single-family home) Proposed Land Use(s) No change (continue existing use) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-4 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) NA Amenities NA Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None known Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 8/20/19; 4 attendees History (previous approvals) None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 220 of 282 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Existing residential driveway to E. Ustick Rd. (arterial street); no change proposed Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access None existing Existing Road Network Ustick Road is built to its ultimate configuration: 5-travel lanes, bike lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers There is sidewalk but no street buffer along E. Ustick Rd. Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application info.  WRRF Declining Balance 13.75  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water  Distance to Water Services 0  Pressure Zone Three  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application info.  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 221 of 282 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Scott Lamm, Silver Maple Farms, LLC – 1217 E. Lone Creek Dr., ID 83616 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Contact: Same as Applicant Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 222 of 282 Page 4 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper notification published 10/18/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/15/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/24/2019 Nextdoor posting 10/15/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The land proposed to be annexed is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Low Density Residential (LDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large lots where urban services are provided. Uses may include single- family homes at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. No development is proposed at this time; the existing single-family home on the property is proposed to remain. Annexation of the property into the City is requested due to the failure of the existing septic system and the need for connection to the City sanitary sewer system. The Applicant recently entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property (Inst. #2019-088366). This agreement allowed the property to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer service with disconnection from the private well and septic system. A provision of the agreement requires the property owner to apply for annexation of the property into the City. The Applicant requests an R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) zoning district for the subject property. The R-4 zoning district is consistent with the LDR designation for this site but could allow development to occur above 3 dwelling units per acre. Density is essentially dictated by the dimensional standards of the district (i.e. the minimum property size, resulting in how many lots can be developed on a property). The R-4 district requires a minimum property size of 8,000 square feet (s.f.). Because no development is proposed at this time, Staff recommends an R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district instead, which requires a minimum property size of 12,000 s.f., to ensure if/when the property redevelops in the future it’s consistent with the density envisioned for this area. With future redevelopment of the property, access via W. Ustick Rd. and access and interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accord with the provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-3; a detached sidewalk along Ustick Rd. may be required as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 17C; and a street buffer will be required along Ustick Rd. as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-4 with landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. 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 and zoning request pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because no development is proposed at this time, Staff does not believe a DA is necessary if the property is zoned R-2 as recommended by Staff. However, if Commission/Council determines the requested R-4 zoning is appropriate, Staff recommends a DA is required to ensure future density is consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. In this case, the project should be continued to a subsequent hearing date to allow for Staff to prepare recommended DA provisions. Note: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 223 of 282 Page 5 Staff discussed the R-2 zoning with the Applicant and the Applicant had no objection to the recommended zoning if a DA isn’t required. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request for annexation & zoning but instead of the requested R-4 zoning, Staff recommends an R-2 zoning district consistent with the LDR FLUM designation per the Findings in Section IX. If Commission/Council determines the requested R-4 zoning is appropriate, Staff recommends a DA is required to ensure future density is consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. In this case, the project should be continued to a subsequent hearing date to allow for Staff to prepare recommended DA provisions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 224 of 282 Page 6 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 225 of 282 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 226 of 282 Page 8 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=177307&dbid=0 B. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=177882&dbid=0 IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds annexation of the subject site with an R-2 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan LDR FLUM designation for this property (see Section V for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that a map amendment to the R-2 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts in UDC 11-2B-1 in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 227 of 282 �j1/rE IDIAN*-- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Item Title: Public Hearing for Waterwalk (H-2019-0111) By dbURBAN Communities. Generally located on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd. North of E. Franklin Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of 6.03 acres of land from the I -L to the C -G zoning district. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.C . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Waterwalk (H-2019-0111) by dbURB AN C ommunities, Generally Located on the West Side Of N. Eagle Rd., North of E . F ranklin Rd. C lic k Here for Applic atio n 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 Revised S taff Report S taf f R eport 11/5/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 228 of 282 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/7/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Waterwalk RZ Project No.: H-2019-0111 Active: ►9 Page 1 of 1 Signature HOA HOA Sign In Address For Neutral Against Name Name Represent Date/Time 10259 W Emerald, 11/7/2019 Brad Miller X Suite 100, Boise, ID 3:31:29 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=345 11/8/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 11/7/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0111 Waterwalk LOCATION: West side of N. Eagle Rd., north of E. Franklin Rd., in the SE ¼ of Section 8, Township 3N., Range 1E I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 6.03 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 5.18 acres (6.03 acres with adjacent right-of-way) Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Hotel/office Current Zoning I-L (Light Industrial) Proposed Zoning C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Lots (# and type; bldg/common) NA Amenities NA Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Hillside/topography (the property slopes down from Franklin and Eagle Roads) Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: September 9, 2019; one (1) attendee History (previous approvals) ROS #3048; Annexation Ord. 754 (1997, Michael & Michelle Murasko); ROS #8999 (adjusted boundary of site for the dedication of N. Olson Ave.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 229 of 282 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) N. Olson Ave. (local street) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access None existing Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers There is no existing sidewalk or buffers along N. Olson Ave. Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application information  WRRF Declining Balance 13.75  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water  Distance to Water Services 0  Pressure Zone Three  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality Concerns None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 230 of 282 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: dbURBAN Communities – 3070 E. Franklin Rd., Meridian, ID 83643 B. Owner: Adler AB Owner V, LLC – 10250 W. Emerald St., Boise, ID 83704-8960 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 231 of 282 Page 4 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper notification published 10/18/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/15/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/24/2019 Nextdoor posting 10/15/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The land proposed to be rezoned from the I-L (Light Industrial) to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Commercial; the proposed zoning is consistent with the FLUM designation. A legal description for the rezone area is included in Section VII.A, which includes additional land to the centerline of N. Olson Ave. and section line N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 respectively. The City may require a Development Agreement (DA) in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure future development in the C-G district is appropriate for this site develops, staff recommends a DA as a provision of the rezone with the provisions included in Section VIII. Note: The adjacent C-G zoned properties to the south (Parcel #S1108449800 & S1108449316) are also under the same ownership as the subject property. A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) The Commercial designation provides for a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. The proposed extended stay hotel will provide temporary housing options for new residents and short term visitors; offices may also be developed on the site. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) Parking lot landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C will be required with development of the site.  “Require landscape street buffers for new development along all entryway corridors.” (2.01.02E) A landscaped 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to Eagle Rd./SH-55, an entryway corridor, with development.  “Consider needed sidewalk, pathway, landscaping, and lighting improvements with all land use decisions along SH-55.” (3.03.02Q) With development, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway and pedestrian lighting will be required adjacent to Eagle Rd./SH-55 as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.3.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) Access is proposed via N. Olsen Ave., a local street; no access is proposed via a collector or arterial street. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 232 of 282 Page 5  “Implement the City’s Pathways Master Plan.” (5.03.01A) The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway along the east boundary of this site adjacent to N. Eagle Rd. C. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed hotel use is listed as a P/C (Principal/Conditional) use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-G zoning district subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-23; certain accessory uses are allowed as noted. A conditional use permit is required for any hotel use that adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. There are no adjoining residential districts or uses on adjacent properties. Note: There is an existing residential structure on the adjacent property to the south under the same ownership at 3070 E. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1108449316); however, the property owner has informed Staff that the renter recently moved out and the property will no longer be used as a residence. In addition to a hotel, office (i.e. professional service) uses are also contemplated by the Applicant to develop on this site. Professional services as well as retail and restaurant uses are listed as principal permitted uses in the C-G district. Staff is amenable to any of these uses developing on this site; however, if any other uses are proposed, Staff recommends a new conceptual development plan is submitted and a modification to the DA is required. D. Site Plan: A conceptual site plan was submitted with the rezone application that depicts how the site to be rezoned may possibly develop with two (2) 4-story hotel buildings and associated parking; office uses are also contemplated which aren’t depicted on the plan. Because this layout is highly conceptual at this point and is anticipated to change in the future, Staff does not recommend it’s included in the Development Agreement. Detailed review of the site plan will take place with the CZC and DES applications; compliance with UDC and Fire Department standards is required. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or improvements on this site. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G district. Parking lot design shall comply with the standards in UDC Table 11-3C-5. G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): One (1) full access is depicted on the conceptual development plan via N. Olsen Ave., a local street; no access is proposed or approved via E. Franklin Rd. or N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. Eagle Rd. is planned to be widened in this section in ITD fiscal year 2022 (July 2021-June 2022); additional right-of-way should be dedicated to ITD if necessary for the widening. Cross-access easements should be granted to adjacent commercial properties as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.2. H. Parking (11-3C-6) A total of 222 off-street parking spaces are depicted on the concept plan for the proposed use; a minimum of one space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area is required to be provided. Based on two (2) buildings at approximately 60,825 square feet each for a total of 121,650+/- square feet, a minimum of 243 spaces are required. Additional parking will need to be provided if the site develops as proposed on the concept plan. The design of the parking area and drive-aisles will also be required to comply with Fire Department requirements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 233 of 282 Page 6 I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3H-4C.3 requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway on or adjacent to this site along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 with a public use easement; pedestrian lighting and landscaping is also required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3. Coordinate the details of the pathway with Kim Warren, Park’s Dept. (208-888-3579). Landscaping is required to be provided adjacent to all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. 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 should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. J. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A minimum 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is required along N. Olsen Ave.; and a detached sidewalk is required along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. In lieu of the sidewalk along Eagle Rd./SH-55, a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway should be provided. K. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required to be provided with development of this site in accord with UDC standards as follows: A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, an entryway corridor; and a minimum 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along N. Olsen Ave., a local street, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-7C. All street buffers are required to be maintained by the property owner or business owner’s association as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is required to be provided adjacent to the multi-use pathway along Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A landscape plan complying with the aforementioned standards shall be submitted with the CZC and DES applications. The Applicant should contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 208-371-1755 to schedule an inspection for any existing trees that are proposed to be removed from the site; mitigation may be required for any existing healthy trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. L. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): There are no waterways on this site. M. 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. If fencing is proposed, a detail shall be submitted with the CZC and DES application. N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances with development. All development is required to be connected to the City’s water and sewer systems, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 234 of 282 Page 7 In each development, provision of underground pressurized irrigation water is required as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. O. Building Elevations Conceptual building elevations were submitted with this application as shown in Section VII.C (note: the east/west and north/south depictions are incorrect). Two (2) 4-story hotel buildings are proposed with building materials consisting of a mix of textures of cement board siding and stone veneer. The final design is required to be comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because the site layout is conceptual at this point and may require reconfiguration of the structures, Staff does not recommend future development is tied to these elevations in the Development Agreement. P. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): If approved, the applicant will be required to submit a CZC and DES application to establish the proposed use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the provisions in this report prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. A detailed site and landscape plan and elevations for future structures shall be submitted in accord with the provisions in Section VIII that comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request for a rezone with the requirement of a Development Agreement containing the provisions in Section VIII.A. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 235 of 282 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 236 of 282 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 237 of 282 Page 10 B. Conceptual Development Plan (NOT APPROVED) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 238 of 282 Page 11 C. Conceptual Building Elevations (NOT APPROVED) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 239 of 282 Page 12 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Rezone 1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of rezone 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 rezone. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall comply with the provisions contained herein. Office, hotel, retail and restaurant uses are allowed to develop on this site; any and all other uses shall require modification of this agreement and submittal of a conceptual development plan. b. Compliance with the specific use standards for hotel uses listed in UDC 11-4-3-23, Hotel or Motel, is required. The hotel use shall be consistent with the definition in Idaho Code §67- 4711. c. Direct access to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is prohibited; access shall be solely provided via N. Olsen Ave. in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Cross-access easements shall be granted to adjacent commercial properties to the south as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.2. d. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required on or adjacent to this site along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 with pedestrian lighting and landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3 and 11-3B-12C. Coordinate the details of the pathway with Kim Warren, Park’s Dept. (208-888-3579). e. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 outside of any right-of-way for future planned expansion. f. A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer shall be provided with development along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, an entryway corridor; and a 10-foot wide street buffer shall be provided with development along N. Olsen Ave., a local street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. g. All future development of the subject property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. h. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Idaho Transportation Department as needed for the expansion of Eagle Rd./SH-55. i. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval of the site design, building elevations and the use(s), prior to submittal of building permit applications. Development shall comply with the standards contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the design plans submitted to the City of Meridian. Street light plan requirements are listed in Section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 240 of 282 Page 13 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 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. 2.2 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.3 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. 2.4 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. 2.5 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.8 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.9 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.10 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. C. PARK’S DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/178844/Page1.aspx D. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/178821/Page1.aspx E. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/178833/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 241 of 282 Page 14 F. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=178372&dbid=0 G. FINDINGS 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: 2. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The proposed rezone to C-G and future development of the site with an office and/or hotel is consistent with the FLUM designation of Commercial for this site and the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan (see Section V.B. for more information). 3. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-G zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the commercial districts in UDC 11-2B-1 and is in close proximity Eagle Rd./SH-55 and I-84. 4. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 5. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 6. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the subject application is for a rezone, not an annexation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 242 of 282 0 iv CD ,y�e�� „� :fir"`"' +_•-� b6 ; r � , Ar a O C C: < m Z �_ 0 O o � N /* po l Y m m m �r M ~ O C (D 0 C CL Dv C v a � n rno (D M p O a�z� wwV CD o�`� O O °= F n 20 'J v O a -t < ocn R < Q11 M m �(qD Z O � O w (D w O m C/) `° n 3 O b", Ao W a p Ocr � CD CD CD n o (D w CD 0 O "•t rD p� m L+ OQ' pop� o�. O o O' G � r O z PI z'.3 Lnn i -r G..7 .° w n m as o o r* v n 3 N ro �f o o rt r� w p rt '� . G ,y n k3 fD vfDi p �. v b' b 3 , y n G O O 'S7 y G.. 'C7 o `C fA ��'-qS' Cs' pv�p��i rt N '� �• z O� � vii O' CD E: CrD CO � rt G O N rt O CD p G p o V)0 W C O a a�z� o < o�`� O o < �n'� G' .�7 o <T 20 'J o mQ atn'r7 < ocn R < Q11 M m �(qD Z O � O w v CID w O m t+ C ' n O `° 3 LS N Ao W 6- z O p o p� (� D � pn m o CD n o CD FD "•t rD p� m 0 Q OQ' pop� o�. p0 C)' m rye. Cni9 y Q CD PI z'.3 Lnn G..7 .° w n m G G v n 3 N ro �f o o '�' S• W Ua '� . G fD vfDi p �. v (D by CD 3 , y n G 4 Z y G.. 'C7 o `C ��'-qS' Cs' pv�p��i G z '� O� � vii O' CD E: CrD CO � 0 �7 G C') p aa� 5 0� w �� O ��' O LMA rD 1 O v a C1 N .Z. CD 0 T z O O z m a z LA a M a m z z m a x m 2 m m v O m O a 0 CD -41 co m n ni \ / E � O w A I w CD 0 Q' 0 O 0 0 lD M C Z O O M m O O O O O O O o 0 a N O (0 ory N a• " oQi• _O G lHD ;O n 0 o 00 � � � m �? o a• fl. o S � `�° n N a 3w 3 w p L7 p O � wP ID 3 r x O rr 0 r,°a $. 0 i T x p;w n N `C O ^ 3 m y o Q\ 3• �? n 0 n 0 K H m 0• w wv+ 10 a N � a 9' 0 CDs 0 a w O o ° b ° �31P w CD O w° p 7* va C 0 m On p w •�4 ° C+ w 0 h CDO w w w G. o rw+ O 110 w fD N 0 0 p w 0 e: 0 r0} M �• CD C ¢+ O 0 0 0 ° CD C° C � r [Iq VOQ r p `' a �cu �•w .e K 0 04 n C ° a N O (0 ■ is a !J O (co T O (D N !1 U3 _S C CD a m' N P. 0 CD N a d cpo mT Z o 4 o o og O p �wrp* Po N � y ° � ° 00 F1 ° O v (D P(D m n b - o oo CD ID ID ID o 0 N n N ,� 'b O �' 'p. G � D � 'O � �' �' ''� (i (D N p ti. CD N O (D N NO N '. T O y CD N P- N (D N ti o P. P. C'..r' (D 0 -• � C y to 0 � D" P. rpt R. -, '.°' (wa'p `C VOi• 'd "•�T'yr ry N O C V�Q V n p� (gyp (DNO �• 0 � 'i D zr 0 `J M CL p C O '.3 'Cl vi 'J OJ (CD 7' n 'c7 O N (D �, c'7ii N '4. n w O f. ° K O on y ,O'j CD (DDo (D Y C n C 0 n G. 0 ,-: o Np. w N (D ° `0 c a o 5 a o ° cs �. R. . O ',Y7 r4 'b rt (D P• ItDCC .. b N• rn O OmN R7 D O I ID ry 'I PL p :D (D rt w N ti ro W 41 N 0 0 y OCD N O r�i w �' 'O�- O vii N w ID ° N � iOi 'd (ID O Pp+ s �" � o a (HD wV P (o w yCD 0 0 a 0 w 0 CD N a d _S o m ' 0 3 so; m > r7 �';� � A { 5 d Z a O O � w cr P to 4 j O � y (mi( Z o w C W N m (p N `.� N Q, o fD P n CI (D�1 a _ a Z°_ a Z D µµ f 3 :3 rt O a � ID �. O 0r < C y a(D= ;a CD m 'a o a a O m O UQ j N W a OS N r* O T rt C p vO 7_. < 3 < O. d (D rD r N m T f W o N nH a < rD o' NN tCi( <Z C G o 7 O O' � C/ a, m O N c 2 rt (n (r CrEr m m Q m r m N C � 'O (n' W C < � N � d N o m ' � Z O. � A { 5 d `_ Gam}' m O. � w cr P m Z Z fD � y (mi( Z o w C o (� (Cii N 'r. m Z o %•' C A (p N `.� N Q, o fD P 0 Z Z D µµ .. W -iLn (� y CD r* CD a nH r o Vi o o' s c 2 ZZ:C s CA 00 C 61 f3 (A rD N a O n a m o �rD Q � Q 0 O w rDD A R� N 1 Zi � M LA Ln Q' m 7 N C) T. r N T m m f rD rD0 2. c 3 io a a oa a r) n n m y m r m n _i O CD UQ rD 04 M cr O CIL i� CD f i m m D m m _T 1 S ((D m a 0 a 0 0 c a Z 0 3 m m 0 Z8 91R 3 r. m tA D a v < M n v s w n a_ o D w c W 0'3 ° n C D a < co c 6 1 Mn _ o a O o L J O D n' a Z Z f1 (D o LA m < O N r r m I f1 m -C a Ln y Jti -i m Ln3 O T Ln m a n m m s m m o a o o D C c a a O L J D f1 < O r f1 -C -i m Ln3 O T Ln m a n m /�E IDA- (IN+- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 D Item Title: Public Hearing for Percy Subdivision (H-2019-0097) By Schultz Development. Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd. and South of E. Amity Rd. 1. Request: To de -annex 0.42 acres of land currently zoned R-4 for the purpose of combining the property with the adjacent County RUT parcel to the south; and 2. Request: A Rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district; and 3. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 113 single-family residential lots and 11 common lots on approximately 28.51 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district; and 4. Request: A Modification to the Development Agreement (Instrument No. 2016-007091) to incorporate the requested Preliminary Plat Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.D . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Percy Subdivision (H-2019-0097) by Schultz Development, L ocated on the East S ide of S. M eridian Rd. and S outh of E . Amity Rd. C lic k Here for Applic atio n 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 taf f R eport 11/4/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 243 of 282 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/7/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-D Project Name: Percy Subdivision MDA, PP, RZ Project No.: H-2019-0097 Active: ►9 Page 1 of 1 Signature HOA HOA Sign In Address For Neutral Against Name Name Represent Date/Time Ron 710 e lake 11/7/2019 X galloway hazel rd 5:54:54 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=337 11/8/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: November 7, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0097 Percy Subdivision LOCATION: East side of S. Meridian Rd., south of E. Amity Rd., in the NW ¼ of Section 31, T.3N., R.1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION  De-annex 0.42 acres of land currently zoned R-4 to consolidate the property with the adjacent parcel to the south zoned RUT in Ada County;  Modification to the existing development agreement (Instrument No. 2016-007091) to incorporate the requested preliminary plat and replace the terms of the agreement;  Rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district; and  Preliminary plat consisting of 113 single-family residential lots and 11 common lots on approximately 28.51 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 28.51 Future Land Use Designation Mostly LDR with some MDR (5.58 acres) on north end Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Current Zoning R-4 Proposed Zoning R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg./common) 113 building/11 common Phasing Plan (# of phases) 2 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 244 of 282 Page 2 Description Details Page Number of Residential Units (type of units) 113 single family detached dwellings Density (gross & net) 3.96 units/acre (gross); 6.02 (net) Open Space (acres, total [%]/buffer/qualified) 3.52 acres, 12.35% Amenities Children’s play structure, gazebo Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: May 13, 2019; 2 attendees excluding the Applicant History (previous approvals) South Meridian Annexation (H-2015-0019); DA Instrument No. 2016-007091 Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Staff report (yes/no) Yes Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) E. Quartz Creek St., collector street, via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69; consistent with the MSM Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Five (5) stub streets are proposed ( 1-north, 1-south and 3- east) Existing Road Network None Proposed Road Improvements With development, the applicant will be constructing several local streets for interconnectivity and a collector street at the mid-mile mark consistent with the MSM, the UDC and ITD policies. NOTE: A portion of the collector street is an off-site improvement. Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Nearest City Park is Discovery Park which is approximately 2 miles from the proposed development Distance to other key services Nearest services are several miles north of the proposed development Fire Service Distance to Fire Station Fire Station #1 – 3.8 miles Fire Response Time 7 minutes Resource Reliability 81% - goal is 85% Risk Identification 1 - Residential Accessibility Limited to 30 homes until a secondary emergency access is provided Special/resource needs None Water Supply 1000 GPM Other Resources None Police Service Distance to Police Station Approximately 4.5 miles Police Response Time Between 5-6 minutes Calls for Service 41 % of calls for service split by priority Priority 1 – 22% Priority 2 – 75.6% Priority 3 – 2.4% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 245 of 282 Page 3 Description Details Page Accessibility Access to Meridian Road limited to left-in and right- in/right-out only (no left out) Specialty/resource needs None Crimes 10 Crashes 9 Wastewater Distance to Sewer Services 0 Sewer Shed South Black Cat Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 113 WRRF Declining Balance 13.73 Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes Water Distance to Water Services 1500 feet Pressure Zone 5 Estimated Project Water ERU’s 113 Water Quality Yes – lack of supply redundancy Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes Impacts/Concerns None B. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 246 of 282 Page 4 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Schultz Development PO Box 1115 Meridian, ID 83680 B. Owner: Percy Farms, LLC 1250 Stegerman Ct. Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/18/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/15/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 10/24/2019 Nextdoor posting 10/15/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS DE-ANNEXATION: The applicant request to de-annex 0.42 acres of land currently zoned R-4 to consolidate the property with the adjacent County RUT parcel to the south in exchange for easement to construct the off-site portion of the collector street to Meridian Road consistent with ACHD Master Street Map. Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, the applicant must submit and obtain approval of a County Zoning Map Planned Development Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 247 of 282 Page 5 rezone and property boundary application to ensure the de-annexed portion of the property is assigned a County zoning designation and consolidated with the adjacent southern parcel. REZONE: The Applicant requests to rezone 30.02 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district for the development of 113 single-family detached residential homes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates approximately 5.58 acres of this site as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and approximately 22.93 acres as Low Density Residential (LDR). The purpose of the residential designations is to provide a variety of housing types. MDR designated areas allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). 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 applicant proposes to develop the 28.51 acre site with 113 single-family homes on various lot sizes to promote housing diversity. Because this property does have two (2) land use designation (not parcel specific), the gross density is on the lower end of the MDR density range and the recorded DA contemplated a future rezone request, staff finds the proposed development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan without a request for a “step-up.” 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) Only one housing type, single-family detached homes, is proposed within this development; however, there are a mix of four (4) different lot sizes proposed (i.e. 5,000-8,000); Staff is unaware if the homes will be owner occupied or rental units.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) An open space exhibit is included in Section VII.C that complies with the minimum UDC standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. However, the project is located in an under-developed area of Meridian with limited access to City parks. Further, a majority of the open space is situated along S. Meridian Road and W. Quartz Creek Street. Therefore, Staff recommends that the applicant convert lots 6 and 7, Block 4 into common lots to create more useable internal open space within 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) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development.  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) The proposed plat depicts an east/west collector street along the south boundary consistent with the MSM. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 248 of 282 Page 6  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) The Applicant has been working with ACHD and ITD on the collector street connection to S. Meridian Rd. (SH 69). The proposed collector street is in the desired location as required by ITD however; they have required controlled access into the site and restricted the turning movements to a right-in/right-out/left-in only. The applicant should comply with all ITD mitigation measures per the TIS study.  “Develop alternative modes of transportation through pedestrian improvements, bicycle lanes, off-street pathways, and transit-oriented development as appropriate.” (3.03.03D) Pedestrian walkways are proposed internally throughout the development and a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed off-street along S. Meridian Rd. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION The applicant is requesting to modify the recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #2016- 007091). Originally, this property was annexed in with the South Meridian annexation. As part of the annexation approval, the recorded development agreement granted the landowner the authority to rezone and modify the DA at no charge to the applicant. The amendment is desired so the applicant can develop the property consistent with the proposed single-family development. The new terms of the agreement will supersede the previous provisions. Staff’s recommended DA provisions are include in Exhibit VIII. below. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 113 building lots and 8 common lots on 28.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone. The minimum lot size for the development is 5,250 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 7,239 s.f. Four (4) different sizes of lots are proposed (i.e. 5K, 6K, 7K, and 8K square feet) for the development of traditional front-loaded lots. A lot size rendering is included in Section VII.E that demonstrates the variety of lots proposed within the development. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in two (2) phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.C. The first phase is the eastern half of the development consisting of 56 lots. The second phase is the remaining western portion of the development and consists of the other 57 lots. The main useable open space in the development is proposed to be constructed with the second phase. Staff is concerned that the phasing plan does not take in account the traffic noise generated from S. Meridian Road/SH69. If the eastern portion of the property is developed first as proposed, the residents living in the first phase will not have the required noise mitigation (10-foot tall berm/wall combination) from SH 69. Therefore, the applicant should revise the phasing plan to develop the second phase first or install the Meridian Road frontage improvements with the first phase. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (11-6C-3): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required, which includes streets, common driveways, pedestrian connections, easements and block face. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 249 of 282 Page 7 The proposed plat appears to comply with these standards except for Block 1 that fronts on the west side of S. Ventura Ave. (800’+/-). The UDC allows for City Council to approve block faces up to 1,200’ in length where block design is constrained by site conditions that include an abutting highway, which is the case. Staff recommends Council approve the longer block face with the inclusion that the applicant incorporate traffic calming at the vicinity of the mid-block micropath to assist with slowing vehicle traffic. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D): One common driveway is proposed on Lot 29, Block 3 providing access to Lots 30 and 31, Block 3. Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 as follows: The driveway for Lot 28 is required to be located 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 landscape buffer; an exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application depicting the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures accessed by the common driveway; lots abutting the common driveway that aren’t taking access from the driveway should also be depicted with driveways on the opposite side of the lot from the common driveway; a perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. Access (UDC 11-3A-3 and 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via a collector street, E. Quartz Creek Street via S. Meridian Road at the half mile consistent with ITD, the MSM and the UDC. ITD mitigation for the mid-mile access requires the applicant to restrict the access to a right-in/right-out/left-in only access. Direct lot access is prohibited to both the proposed collector street and S. Meridian Road. As noted above, a portion of the collector street is an off-site improvement to facilitate a Meridian Road access to this property. The applicant is going to exchange a small sliver of de-annexed (north boundary) property to the adjacent property owner in order to construct a portion of this roadway. The 50-foot permanent easement will be constructed to ACHD standards as a 30-foot paved street section, 3-foot gravel shoulders and 7-foot drainage ditches on each side. If a WASD bus stop for this development is located adjacent to Meridian Road, staff recommends that the applicant coordinate with ACHD to construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along the entire north side of the E. Quartz Creek with the first phase to ensure safe passage to the school bus stop. Internal local streets provide access to the residential lots. The applicant is also proposing five (5) stub streets along the north, south and east boundary for future extension. A secondary emergency access is proposed in the northwest corner of the development to S. Meridian Road. MFD has limited the number of homes in this development to 30 until the secondary access is provided. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 20-foot wide buffer is required along E. Quartz Creek Street, a collector street; and a 35-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to S. Meridian Rd. (SH 16), an entryway corridor as proposed. The street buffer landscaping depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.C far exceeds UDC standards. Any landscaping within the ITD shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.5. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 250 of 282 Page 8 Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G-3): A minimum of 10% (or 2.85 acres) of the developed site is required to be provided for qualified open space based on 28.51 acres per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.D that depicts 3.52 acres (or 12.36%) of open space; however a majority of the open space is located adjacent to major roadways (Meridian Road and E. Quartz Creek Street). Staff recommends that the applicant consolidate Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 with Lot 5 to provide a larger central open space within the development. All stormwater detention facilities counted toward qualified open space are required to be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. Open pond on Lot 4, Block 8 must comply with UDC 11-3G-3 and cannot exceed 25% of the proposed open space lot in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.8. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of two (2) qualified site amenities are required to be provided for the development based on 28.51 acres of land per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Amenities are proposed as follows: a covered seating area, tot lot with seating benches, micropaths and a segment of the City’s 10-foot multi-use pathway in excess of UDC standards. 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. Each of the units are required to comply with the parking standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7, 11-3H-4D): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. A 4-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall concrete wall on top is proposed along the west boundary of the site adjacent to S. Meridian Road as noise abatement for residential properties from the future state highway as required by UDC 11-3H-4D (see exhibit in Section VII.D). An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat applications for Phase 1 that depicts the centerline SH-69 to ensure the top of the berm/wall combination is a minimum of 10 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway as required. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 17. A 10-foot multi-use pathway is required along S. Meridian Road in accord with UDC 11-3H-4C.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 November 7, 2019 – Page 251 of 282 Page 9 Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family detached dwellings as shown in Section VII.F. A variety of 1- and 2-story homes are proposed in an assortment of building materials. Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face S. Meridian Rd., an entryway corridor, will be highly visible, Staff recommends they incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed de-annexation, rezone, development agreement modification and preliminary plat per the conditions included in Section VIII. in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 252 of 282 Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. De-Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 253 of 282 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 254 of 282 Page 12 B. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 255 of 282 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 256 of 282 Page 14 C. Preliminary Plat (date: 10/30/2019) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 257 of 282 Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 258 of 282 Page 16 D. Open Space Exhibit and Landscape Plan (date: 10/30/2019) & Amenities Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 259 of 282 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 260 of 282 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 261 of 282 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 262 of 282 Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 263 of 282 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 264 of 282 Page 22 E. Lot Size Exhibit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 265 of 282 Page 23 F. Conceptual Building Elevations (Photos) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 266 of 282 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 267 of 282 Page 25 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a County rezone and property boundary application to ensure the de- annexed portion of the property (0.42 acres) is assigned a County zoning designation and consolidated with the adjacent southern parcel. 2. Within six (6) months of Council’s approval of the findings for the rezone and prior to submittal of a final plat application, the developer shall sign and obtain Council approval of the development agreement with the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall comply with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The applicant shall revise the phasing plan to construct all of the Meridian Road frontage improvements (10-foot wall/berm combination, landscaping and 10-foot multi-use pathway) with the first phase. c. The applicant shall coordinate with ACHD on the construction of the entire length of E. Quartz Creek Street with the first phase of development, including a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on the north boundary. If Western Ada School District does not require a school bus stop at the intersection of Meridian Road and E. Quartz Creek Street, the 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is not required to be constructed along the off-site portion of the roadway. d. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face S. Meridian Rd., an entryway corridor, 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 that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 10/30/2019 shall be revised as follows: a. Lot 6 and 7, Block 4 shall be consolidated with Lot 5 to provide more central open space within the development. b. Applicant shall construct traffic calming in S. Ventura Ave. to mitigate for the extended block length. c. Direct lot access to S. Merdian Road and E. Quartz Creek Street is prohibited. d. Access to S. Meridian Road at the mid-mile (E. Quartz Creek Street) shall be limited to a right-in/right-out/left-in only. The applicant shall comply with all ITD mitigation measures per the TIS study. e. No more than 30 homes are allowed to be constructed in the development until the secondary emergency access is provided. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated 10/30/2019 shall be revised as follows: a. Applicant shall consolidate lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4 per site specific condition 2a. above. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 268 of 282 Page 26 b. Open pond on Lot 4, Block 8 must comply with the standards set forth in UDC 11- 3G-3B.8. The pond cannot exceed 25 percent of the common lot. c. All fencing constructed in the development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7. d. An exhibit must be submitted with the final plat application for Phase 1 that depicts the centerline SH-69 to ensure the top of the berm/wall combination is a minimum of 10 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway as required. e. All stormwater detention facilities counted toward qualified open space are required to be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. f. Any landscaping within the ITD right-of-way shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.5. 4. Off-street parking shall be provided for this site as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-5 and 11-3C-6. 5. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway; coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren, Park’s Department. The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application for the lots (Lots 30 and 31, Block 3) accessed by the common driveway that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. Driveways for abutting properties that are not 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. 7. Applicant shall comply with all ACHD site specific conditions of approval. 8. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveway, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division OR a note placed on the face of the plat prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 9. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 10. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances. 11. Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. 12. The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 269 of 282 Page 27 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The current plan depicts a single water main serving the entire development, which does cause a concern for water quality. This concern will be mitigated by looping the water mains together with future developments. General Conditions of Approval 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 270 of 282 Page 28 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 16. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 17. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 271 of 282 Page 29 which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 24. 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. 2. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/177698/Page1.aspx 3. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=177692 4. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/178324/Page1.aspx 5. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/178370/Page1.aspx 6. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=177671 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/178806/Page1.aspx 8. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Police Response Time- The proposed Percy development application is approximately 4.5 miles from the Meridian Police Department. The expected response time to this area in an emergency is about 5-6 minutes. The average response time in the City of Meridian is just over 4 minutes. Between 9/1/2018- 8/31/2019, the Meridian Police Department responded to 41 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. Between 9/1/2018- 8/31/2019, the Meridian Police Department responded to 9 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. 2. Accessibility – The Meridian Police Department would request that IF any access to the proposed development is off of State Highway 69 that it be limited to left-in and right-in/right-out only (no left out). Ultimately the police department would prefer a traffic signal at the mid-mile prior to the development construction. This would allow for safer left-out traffic and reduce or eliminate high speed broadside accidents. 3. Resource needs This proposed development is on the edge of the city limits. The Meridian Police Department will be servicing Gray Cliff Estates and Stapleton Subdivision to the north when finished. As of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 272 of 282 Page 30 now no additional resources are needed at this time. Once all the surrounding areas come on line it may require future additional police resources in this geographic area. 4. Other comments- The Meridian Police Department has no outstanding issues concerning this development application. All qualified open space provided in the development, to include all amenities, must be in an open area in order to allow for natural observation opportunities. Pathways and landscaping should not create hiding spots or blind spots that would promote criminal opportunities. The Meridian Police Department will support all Community Development Staff recommendations, Traffic Impact Studies from ITD and or ACHD to improve access, roadways, intersections, pathways and sidewalks before the project if fully completed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 273 of 282 Page 31 IX. FINDINGS A. 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; Staff finds the proposed density and associated R-8 zoning designation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the LDR and MDR future land use map designations for this site. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the northern portion of the City. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Because this application is for a rezone, this finding is not applicable. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT (UDC 11-6B-6) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 274 of 282 Page 32 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 275 of 282 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.E . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Street L ength for Cul-de-S acs (H-2019-0107) by Todd C ampbell C lic k Here for Applic atio n 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 taf f R eport 11/4/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 276 of 282 EIDIAN,+ -- DAHJ PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 E Item Title: Public Hearing for Street Length for Cul -de -Sacs (H-2019-0107) By Todd Campbell Meeting Notes: City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 11/7/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-E Project Name: Cul -de -Sac Street Length UDC Text Amendment Project No.: H-2019-0107 Active: ►9 Page 1 of 1 Signature Name Address HOA Name HOA Represent For Neutral Against Sign In Date/Time 11/7/2019 Dean Waite 4283 Nystrom X 5:53:34 PM Dave 14254 w 11/7/2019 X Yorgason battenberg drive 7:33:58 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=341 11/8/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 11/7/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0107 Street Length for Cul-de-Sacs LOCATION: Citywide A. DESCRIPTION The applicant, Todd Campbell, has requested an amendment to the maximum street length for dead-end streets (cul-de-sacs) allowed by Meridian City Code. The Unified Development Code (UDC) currently limits cul-de-sacs to no more than 450 feet in length (UDC 11-6C- 3B4). The applicant is proposing to increase the maximum cul-de-sac length to 500 feet, or up to 750 feet with City Council approval. B. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Todd Campbell, Todd Campbell Construction, PO Box 140298, Boise, ID 83714 C. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/18/2019 Public Service Announcement 10/14/2019 Nextdoor Posting 10/15/2019 D. STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION Meridian City Code, 11-1A-1 definition of terms is as follows: STREET, CUL-DE-SAC: A dead end street provided with a turnaround at its terminus. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 277 of 282 Page 2 STREET: A private or public right of way that provides vehicular access to adjacent properties. The term street shall include, but not be limited to, a road, thoroughfare, parkway, avenue, boulevard, lane, place, or highway. NOTE: Historically, the City has not applied the term “street” to commercial driveways or drive aisles for multi-family projects where private streets were not proposed. The City generally discourages the use of dead-end streets. However, cul-de-sacs are appropriate in certain situations. For instance, topography may dictate that a road should not be extended up or down a hillside. Proximity to arterial and collector streets or other barriers like canals or railroad tracks may also provide some justification for not extending streets. These instances are limited in Meridian, however and in most cases other design options and layouts of the streets and lots are feasible. The Applicant is proposing a change to the maximum allowable length of a dead end street so Council can approve development projects that have been well thought out and designed, but, because of access limitations or other challenges specific to the parcel, would not be able to be fully developed because of the current code limitations. This change will allow property owners and the Meridian City Council more flexibility when developing parcels with access limitations. (See Applicant’s Narrative for more information). When cul-de-sacs are allowed, the length is limited for a handful of reasons. First, there is a life- safety component. Historically, fire hydrants were located at intersections and the length from the hydrant to a structure at the end of a cul-de-sac was a concern. That concern can be mitigated, however by installing a hydrant down the cul-de-sac. Cul-de-sacs and the length is also a concern for emergency vehicles themselves. It can be time consuming and difficult to maneuver larger vehicles on dead-end roadways. There are standards for radii though, somewhat mitigating this concern as well. However, the longer the dead-end, the longer it takes for emergency vehicles to turn-around; the longer the cul-de-sac, the more time wasted turning around. If roads are connected, it provides emergency service providers (and others) multiple access points – two ways in, two ways out. Parking can also be a concern on cul-de-sacs. When cars are parked on a cul-de-sac it can be even more difficult for large vehicles to turn around. Maintenance of long cul-de-sacs is another concern. Similar to emergency service vehicles, it is difficult for snowplows to not only maneuver in cul-de-sacs, but it also limits where snow can be stored; residential driveways on cul-de-sacs typically take up a lot of the area at the curb and there is more surface area to plow – if they get plowed at all. During inclement weather, this can further exacerbate emergency services access to these properties (snow/ice covered roadways). The asphalt maintenance of cul-de-sacs is also costly to the public for the same reasons of maneuvering large machinery on curves. Nationally, and even locally, the maximum length for cul-de-sacs varies greatly. In researching this issue, Staff found the maximum length varies greatly; determining the maximum length for a community seems to be more of an art than a science. The context (rural or urban) is an important factor to consider though when determining an appropriate maximum length. The City’s current standard of 450 feet is somewhat subjective, but is largely tied to the desire for shorter, connected blocks. The applicant’s proposal, however, to increase the standard maximum length to 500 feet, seems to be in-line with what other cities allow. Further, this request does not seem to cause any concern for emergency service providers. In addition to changing the maximum cul-de-sac length to 500 feet, the applicant is proposing to allow up to 750-foot long cul-de-sacs with Council approval. A connected street network allows traffic to disperse thereby easing congestion. It is anticipated that each single-family home generates approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. If there are several homes on a cul-de-sac, it could create Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 278 of 282 Page 3 congestion concerns. Again, Staff is not overly supportive of dead-ends and can think of no on-the- ground situation where a 750-foot long cul-de-sac would be needed. However, Staff is willing to support this request as it does afford flexibility in design, provided two conditions exist: 1) there are not more than 20 dwellings that have frontage or access to the cul-de-sac street, and 2) there is a bicycle and pedestrian connection provided from the cul-de-sac street. Just because the above design criteria may be provided does not necessarily mean a cul-de-sac over 500 feet is in the City’s best interest. However, if the design criteria are present, it provides for some of the flexibility the Applicant is seeking while also providing the connectivity and neighborhood integration elements desired by policy. Developers and Council should use cul-de-sacs over 500 feet sparingly, and only when there is topographic or other physical barrier constraint. Staff finds that the following action items from th e City’s Comprehensive Plan apply to the subject Unified Development Code Text Amendment request (Staff analysis in italics ): • “Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan.” (7.01.01A) The City wants to ensure that its policies and codes reflect the will and want of the community. The proposed UDC amendment intends to keep the UDC relevant by reflecting current development trends in the City without compromising life, safety or the general welfare of the community. • “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) All new public streets in Meridian are required to have sidewalks. This sidewalk network often serves as part of the overall pedestrian system, connecting neighborhoods to the pathway system and services. Cul-de-sacs diminish the ability to link properties. • “Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.” (3.03.03C) Dead end streets directly conflict with this policy. Staff looks for opportunities to connect not only subdivisions to each other, but also blocks within the same development. • “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets.)” (3.03.02O) Staff performs this task with each new development proposed. It is not uncommon for Staff to require proposed cul-de-sacs to be extended to adjacent properties. • “Require the public street system to be continuous through each mile section. This does not preclude the use of traffic calming measures, nor does it imply the roadway have a straight alignment.” (3.03.03F) While not directly tied to the subject request, this policy shows the importance of having continuous streets through neighborhoods. Cul-de-sacs can serve a purpose, but they should not be overly common. • “Provide the most efficient transportation network possible.” (3.03.03) Staff is of the opinion that long dead end streets do not further the objective of having the most Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 279 of 282 Page 4 efficient transportation network. A healthy community is one that has good connectivity between residential areas and community gathering places as well as streets that serve multiple users (City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, pg. 8). Residential areas should be interconnected to one another so roadway users – motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists – needs are met. Interconnected streets and subdivisions, reducing long isolated streets, help create neighborhoods. In summary, other design options can, and should, be used more frequently than long cul-de-sacs. That said, the Applicant’s proposal to extend the maximum length up to 500 feet does not seem to cause any life-safety concerns for emergency service providers or overly compromise the connectivity or livability factors contained in City policies. Current City Code, the Applicant’s request, and Staff’s recommendation is listed below. Current City Code is as follows: 11-6C-3B4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty feet (450'). The Applicant’s proposed text is as follows: 11-6C-3B4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred feet (500'), or up to seven hundred fifty feet (750') with City Council approval. Staff’s recommended text is as follows: 11-6C-3B4. Cul-De-Sacs: a. No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty feet (450').five hundred feet (500’) except as allowed in subsection b of this section. b. The City Council may approve a dead end street up to seven hundred fifty feet (750’) in length where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope, railroad tracks or a large waterway, that prevents extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. c. Cul-de-sac streets shall serve a maximum of twenty (20) dwelling units. d. The length of a cul-de-sac street shall be measured from the near edge of right-of-way to the center of the turnaround. NOTE: An exhibit (or two) depicting cul-de-sac design may be appropriate to include in the UDC as well. Staff will bring some exhibits to the public hearings. E. DECISION a. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC, as amended by Staff and shown in Section IV above, based on the analysis provided above and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII below. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 280 of 282 Page 5 b. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. c. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 281 of 282 Page 6 F. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS As of the print deadline for this report, only the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) provided comment; ITD provided a “no comment” letter. G. FINDINGS Unified Development Code Text Amendments: 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. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies section 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 text amendment, as modified in the Staff Report, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 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 text amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 7, 2019 – Page 282 of 282 UDC Text Amendment Request UDC-11-6C-3 We are proposing a change to the text of the Meridian Unified Development Code that limits streets ending in cul-de-sacs to 450 feet in length. The purpose of this change would be to allow the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council some flexibility in approval of development projects that have been well thought out and designed, but, because of access limitations specific to the parcel, would not be able to be fully developed because of the current code limitations. This change will allow property owners, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and the Meridian City Council more flexibility when developing parcels with access limitations. Silver Springs Preliminary Plat Proposals Plan A Plan B Current code is stated as follows: 11-6C-3 B. 4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty feet (450’). Our proposed change to the text: B.4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred feet (500’), or up to seven hundred fifty feet (750’) with City Council approval. What are other jurisdictions doing?: •ACHD code does not limit the length of cul-de-sacs. It states that cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets should be limited to serving dwelling units that generate no more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The 500’ cul-de-sac we are proposing would generate around 180 trips per day. •The City of Boise does not have a limitation in their code. They have a hard limit of 750’ based on Boise Fire Departments recommendation. They also can limit length further on a case by case basis. They most often prefer that cul-de-sac length be limited to 500’ depending on location and surrounding development pattern. •The City of Kuna limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 500’. •Meridian Fire Department indicated that they did not have an issue with the increased cul-de-sac length. Conclusion: We were asked by Meridian City Council to make a proposal that would allow them the flexibility to approve a better subdivision design. We have considered what other local jurisdictions were doing. We have consulted first responders to make sure the proposed changes do not create undue risk. In order to satisfy the request of Meridian City Council we propose this amendment to the current text of the Meridian Unified Development Code. Our proposed change to the text: B.4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty (450’). five hundred feet (500’), or up to seven hundred fifty feet (750’) with City Council approval.