Loading...
2020-03-05 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND I I N,-- ZONING COMMISSION W1 P MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance X Lisa Holland X Patricia Pitzer Andrew Seal X Nick Grove X Rhonda McCarvel Bill Cassinelli Ryan Fitzgerald, Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda - Adopted Item 3. Consent Agenda [Action Item] - Approved A. Approve Minutes of February 20, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Day Wireless(H- 2019-0115) by Day Wireless, Located at 1668 E. Franklin Rd. Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process:After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staffs report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they may be allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm North (H-2019-0134) by Martin L. Hill, Hill & Hill Properties, Located at the Southeast Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. — Continued to March 19, 2020 1. Request: Rezone of a total of 39.9 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the C-N (4.9 acres), C-C (4.35 acres), and R-15 (30.65 acres) zoning districts; 2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 137 building lots, 18 common lots and 10 other lots on 43.02 acres of land in the R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C zoning districts; 3. Request: Planned unit development for an age-restricted 55 and older gated community with deviations from certain development standards; and, 4. Request: Conditional use permit for a 73,730 square foot 443-unit self-service storage facility on 3.89 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. B. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Meridian Station (H-2019-0142) by Matt McAnulty, Located at the Southeast Corner of N. Main St. and E. Broadway Ave., North of the Railroad Tracks - Approved 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height exceeding the maximum height allowed of 75 feet in the O-T zoning district for two (2) 100-foot tall vertically integrated structures. C. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. - Approved 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height exceeding 20% of the maximum height allowed (i.e. 50 feet) in the I-L zoning district for two (2) 80-foot tall silos. D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. - Approved E. Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2019-0143) by Ryan Recla, Located at 2940 S. Mesa Way — Recommend Approval to City Council 1. Request: Development Agreement modification to remove the subject 4.35-acre property from the boundary of the existing agreement (Bannock Ridge - Inst. #2017-084176) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed development plan; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 10 building lots and 5 common lots on 4.35 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. F. Public Hearing for Andorra Senior Living (H-2019-0127) by Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 715 & 955 S. Wells St. and 971 E. Wells Circle — Recommend Approval to City Council 1. Request: Annexation of 16.99 acres of land with TN-R zoning with a conceptual development plan for a senior (age 55 and older) living community consisting of (76) single-family dwelling units and a 3-story apartment building with 88 dwelling units and a building footprint of 30,000 square feet; and, 2. Request: Request to Vacate existing ACHD right-of-way (un-named cul-de-sac) consisting of 0.45 of an acre of land that lies between the properties located at 715 and 955 S. Wells St. & 971 E. Wells Circle. Meeting Adjourned at 8:25 pm Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 5, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 5, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lisa Holland. Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer. Members Absent. Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Andrew Seal. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance X Lisa Holland X Patricia Pitzer Andrew Seal X Nick Grove X Rhonda McCarvel Bill Cassinelli Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Holland: Good evening. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of March 5th, 2020, and we will start with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Holland: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. The only note is that we will be opening Item A on the agenda for the purpose of a continuance. They are requesting a continuance. But, otherwise, the agenda is the same. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: I have got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3. Consent Agenda [ Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of February 20, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 5 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 2 of 50 B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Day Wireless(H-2019- 0115) by Day Wireless, Located at 1668 E. Franklin Rd. Holland: And, then, we have also got the Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to approve -- which has approve the minutes of the February 2020 -- February 20th, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as well as the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Day Wireless, H-2019-0115. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. At this point in time I will explain the public hearing process for the evening. We are going to open up each item individually and start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendation. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case to the Commission and -- for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant's finished we will open up the floor for public testimony. There is a sign-up in the back on an iPad as you entered. If you wish to testify tonight, please, go ahead and sign in on that iPad as you enter the room. If any individual is here and they are speaking for a larger group, such as an HOA, we will ask for a show of hands at that time for individuals that want to testify on their behalf and those folks that raise their hands will give up their time for that representative to speak for up to ten minutes representing the larger group. After all testimonies have been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have a chance to respond to public testimony and close the discussion. At that time we will close the public hearing and Commissioners will have a chance to deliberate to make a recommendation to City Council or make a decision on the application. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm North (H-2019-0134) by Martin L. Hill, Hill & Hill Properties, Located at the Southeast Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. — 1 . Request: Rezone of a total of 39.9 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the C-N ( 4.9 acres), C-C ( 4.35 acres), and R-15 (30.65 acres) zoning districts; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 6 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 3 of 50 2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 137 building lots, 18 common lots and 10 other lots on 43.02 acres of land in the R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C zoning districts; 3. Request: Planned unit development for an age-restricted 55 and older gated community with deviations from certain development standards; and, 4. Request: Conditional use permit for a 73,730 square foot 443- unit self-service storage facility on 3.89 acres of land in the C- C zoning district. Holland: So, with that we are going to open tonight the public hearing for Hill Century Farm North, which is H-2019-0134, and they are requesting a continuance. So, I don't know if staff had any additional comments, but certainly would welcome the applicant to come forward and make their request. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, director of planning for Brighton Corporation, 2929 West Navigator in Meridian. Obviously, we are not here because we want to be here asking for a continuous. Bill, if you would -- yes. And let me just -- can you give me control, so that I can -- I got control? It's not advancing. I need to go to the last slide if you could -- one -- two more. There you go. Over the course of the last 15 months we have actually had several actions. You -- you approved a modification of a development agreement about a year ago, as did the City Council. We have had three neighborhood meetings and two specifically for the projects that we currently have in queue. That was in July and in November and during those three neighborhood meetings associated with this property we have an average of five people attend and so what we did was 108 days ago today we filed an application. Staffing issues and so forth kept it from getting to you in a -- in a more timely manner, but when we posted the site and the two white red outlined arrows, so the two principal posting locations, those were posted in a timely manner. They were actually initially posted on the opposite corner and I -- the first day -- well, I happened to be in Lisbon, Portugal, and opened up my e-mails after an all night flight and I saw the pictures as they were posted and I immediately contacted staff and said they are in the wrong locations, get them moved, and they got them moved in a timely manner. The circled white and black outlined arrow shows a stub street and, quite frankly, I didn't even think about the stub street. So, we had a sign placed, but, again, the sign company put it on the opposite corner. So, by the time we got that sign in that location it was nine days in advance of the hearing. So, that's the technical issue and I met with staff on Monday when I got back and indicated that we would be requesting since the technicality kept us from this hearing, we would be requesting continuance to the next agenda and staff has indicated, as does the clerk, that it looks to be a full agenda, but just as this particular situation pulls an item off an application you never know. So, we are requesting a continuance to the next meeting, which would be I believe the 19th of March and we will take our chances, knowing that we will be the last item on the agenda, but given the fact that it took us 108 days to get here we need to move as expeditiously as we can. So, with due respect we have asked Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 7 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 4 of 50 for your continuance to the next regular meeting and we will direct our sign people to go out and re -- re-notice the dates, so that anybody in the neighborhood would be fully aware that there has been a change and at the conclusion of my comments and your decision I'm going to voluntarily meet with anybody from the neighborhood in the foyer just to bring them up to speed on what the circumstances are. But I would note that each of the neighborhood meetings that we have had we have never had any expressed opposition. There were questions that were answered for what largely is a -- an age qualified gated community. So, again, with due respect we ask for a continuance to the next regular meeting. Happy to answer any of your questions. Holland: Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you clarify for us how many items we have on the agenda for the next meeting? Weatherly: Madam Chair, for March 19th we currently have six hearings and, then, on April 2nd we currently have four hearings. Holland: Thank you. I don't have any questions. Anyone from the Commission have a question? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Holland: I'm going to look at my fellow Commissioners. I know the request is -- from the applicant is for March 19th. I know staff tries to do what they can not to have more than five or six applications, because, otherwise, they can be pretty lengthy meetings for us. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: I will look to you all. Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would not be opposed to the 19th. As the applicant said, things tend to drop occasionally and I don't see -- going into spring I mean we get six versus four -- I don't know. I think it's been a while since we have had a long meeting anyway. One -- one of the super long ones. I -- I personally wouldn't be opposed to it, so -- Holland: One of my thoughts -- I am certainly sympathetic to the applicant. It's always unfortunate when you have got a small little piece that got missed on where a sign is posted. I know we also are a little bit light on staff, so I worry a little bit about our staff load for getting some applications in for next -- next meeting. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. That was going to be my next question though. Is -- I mean is this one ready to go anyway for staff or is this an additional load for you guys? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 8 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 5 of 50 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner McCarvel, it's not an easy answer. I mean is anything ready to go these days? Everyone would like it to be ready to go as soon as it hits our desk. But we had a chance to meet with the applicant. Certainly we understand their time constraints. We have talked about it as staff. Now, certainly, our preference is -- I think our guidance to you is as meetings -- meetings get late into the evening -- we didn't know if the Commission was going to have a cutoff date at some point and want to bump things out if we start getting too late into the evening. Is 11:00 o'clock going to be your timeline and, then, eventually, they could get bumped at that point and take that chance with that, as the applicant alluded to. I can tell you that that--the 19th hearing has two multi-family projects and the Delano is coming back before you on that agenda, which was a pretty controversial hearing and so it was remanded back to you with a redesign. So, I think if-- again the decision is yours. If you guys want to -- think you can handle that -- that many projects on that hearing we will -- staff will do what we need to do to get -- get the work done and get it prepped and get it ready to go. Yes, we have the application processed. It's in the queue. We have it scheduled for hearing. Our intent was always to keep it on this hearing. But, again, we had a technicality. But, again, it is -- it's your purview. If you guys want to go and have that many items on a hearing we will -- we will re-adjust schedules and see what we can do. But, if not, the other-- I can tell you right now what we have in the queue is -- it's ramping up, too, so we are -- you are going to start seeing more and more agendas getting fuller and fuller and so we have -- we got to be cautious on what we do moving forward and how we schedule our time. McCarvel: I guess that was going to be my next question, too, is what is on the agenda? I hadn't looked. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, do you have a comment? Pitzer: Thank you. So, it looks like we have three that are conditional use permits and we have one, two, three -- two of them that are the subdivisions for the Comprehensive Plan, but the following were two -- we already have three that are all subdivisions. I -- I would not be opposed to doing a 3/19. Holland: One other thought, too, is if we did want to put it on March 19th you could always put a cap on the time, that we wouldn't go past a certain time if we got there. McCarvel: I think that's not a bad idea going forward. Sorry, Madam Chair. Holland: Any other thoughts? Commissioner Grove? With that I will let one of you take a stab at making a motion if you would like for when that gets moved to. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we -- are we -- we are continuing; right? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 9 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 6 of 50 Holland: Correct. McCarvel: --file number H-2019-0134 to the March 19th meeting due to a signage issue. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, did you want to mention anything about time restrictions on this one? McCarvel: I think we will just play it by ear, as long as it doesn't go past midnight. I mean I think that's something maybe we need to maybe set offline. I mean I think just in general going forward that's probably not a bad idea to have this set on the meetings. Holland: So, just to clarify, your motion is to move it to the hearing date of March 19th and we are not putting a time cap on it right now, but -- McCarvel: Yeah. Pending discussions on the time cap. Holland: Okay. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Holland: Okay. I have got a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for Hill Century Farm North to the hearing date of March 19th. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Meridian Station (H-2019-0142) by Matt McAnulty, Located at the Southeast Corner of N. Main St. and E. Broadway Ave., North of the Railroad Tracks 1 . Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height exceeding the maximum height allowed of 75 feet in the O-T zoning district for two (2) 100-foot tall vertically integrated structures. Holland: Next we are going to open up the public hearing for Meridian Station, which is H-2019-0142, and I know that there is a number of you in the room that are here to see what happens with this application, so I'm going to give a little bit of a brief summary of what we discussed in our last meeting and kind of where we are at right now. We had made a motion in our last meeting that we would be opening up tonight not for public comment, but we would just be opening up for Commission deliberation and that we would be able to ask the applicant questions if we had anything. But I think we would like to start with just Commission deliberation and if we have a need to bring the applicant up forward to ask questions or ask staff any questions we can certainly do that. If we do open up the hearing for the applicant to make a presentation or present anything new, we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 10 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 7 of 50 would likely have to open it up for public testimony, because typically you can't have anything new without having the public be able to comment on it. So, I would just make that note of caution. But, if possible, I believe the intent of the motion last time was to just ask questions if we had anything we wanted to clarify from the applicant. So, in front of us is a request for a conditional use permit, because there is a development project that would like to construct two hundred foot tall vertically integrated buildings, which exceeds the maximum height in the OT zoning district of 75 feet. So, really, the only thing that we are here to approve is the height variance that they are requesting. They would be allowed to do their project in 75 feet. What we discussed last time is really whether or not that height made sense for this specific downtown project and we did receive 15 new pieces of written testimony, so thank you to all those who have written in. We do read all of those -- those letters and those notes and it's very helpful as we deliberate up here. So, we really appreciate your involvement and your -- your presence being here tonight means a lot to us. Just to recap, 14 out of 15 of those were in favor of the height modification. One of those was opposed. And we did certainly have some other businesses testify last time that gave some concerns about parking. But that was the main concerns that we talked about was -- was parking and whether or not a height of 75 feet was adequate or if we should be able to allow this one to have a hundred foot height. But at this point we --we could certainly keep the hearing open if you would like to discuss, so that way we can bring the applicant up if we have any specific questions. If we need to go through the project in more depth I can certainly have staff give another overview if we would like to do that. I know, Commissioner McCarvel, you had a chance to read through the minutes from the last meeting. McCarvel: Yes. Holland: All 30 some pages of it. McCarvel: Just this -- just this one. I didn't read the whole meeting, but I did read this application. Holland: All right. I don't know if anybody would like to kick us off on that discussion or give another recap of your thoughts, but I would certainly open it up for that. Commissioner Grove? I don't have to put you on the spot yet. Grove: I don't have anything. I would like to hear from Commissioner McCarvel on -- on her thoughts of-- on what she saw in the application, since we have already had a chance to weigh in. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair, I -- I actually really like the project. I know it's something new and different from what we normally have been accustomed to. The only thing that tall we are used to seeing around here is grain elevators and silos. But I think the frontage is pretty. The open space -- the green space, the parking, I think would be a welcome idea. I -- I do think -- I saw some comments, you know, fearful that apartments would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 11 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 8 of 50 have the two and three guests and all that and while that is usually true, I think from what I have seen in other downtowns, the people that usually live downtown tend to edit their vehicles and that kind of thing. If you are going to want massive amounts of vehicles live somewhere else. I think it would be a nice change and provide a lot of things that downtown Meridian needs to make it a vibrant downtown. The walkability and having that density in the downtown is what makes I think businesses thrive. That's my two cents. Holland: Thank you. I'm just going to recap a couple of the reasons I was in favor of the project as well. When you get a project like this, the -- I think the applicant's gone above and beyond in the number of parking stalls proposed, because that's always the biggest concern we get when it comes to a big project like this, especially when there is multiple stories involved and there is lots of apartments involved. The applicant gave us a mix last time of the number of units that were going to be in there and there was primarily single family -- or one bedroom and studio apartments as kind of the main chunk of it. There were a few two bedroom apartments, but it seemed pretty reasonable for the amount of parking stalls that they were creating. But in general they only had 414 parking stalls that would be required by code and they propose 659, which is 245 stalls more than required, and in the meantime they will also have a surface lot that's kind of up in the front. So, when you look at downtowns -- I mentioned this comment last time, but I have read a lot of -- I have attended a lot of webinars on downtown development projects and what's good and bad and one of the comments made is if you have a parking problem you are doing something right in your community, because it means there is a reason for people to come to your downtown. So, this would help alleviate a challenge of having a parking problem and also give more reasons for people to come downtown to gather. But having 245 extra stalls makes me feel a lot better about the project and if-- if we were to restrict their height just back down to the 75, if I was in the developer's shoes the first thing I would get rid of is a lot of those parking stalls, because that's not where they make their money, they are doing that as a benefit to the community in my opinion. So, that was a couple of my thoughts. I -- I am in favor of a hundred foot tall building, because where you want to have the density and where you want to have the height is in your downtown core. It doesn't make sense to put it in the residential neighborhoods, it doesn't make sense to put it really anywhere else except for a few pockets like the Ten Mile development that's going up where it's -- it's planned for those office towers. But your downtown is really where you want to see the density and I would almost rather have -- if we move forward with approving this conditional use permit I would almost make a recommendation that we also ask the City Council to reconsider what the height should be in our downtown long term, because that was a question we kind of went back and forth on, too, well, if 75 was the number why don't we stick with 75, but it's been a number of years since it was set at 75 and I think there is some new design standards out there and perhaps our city would like to take a more look at that, because I remember in the Comprehensive Plan committee -- and I know the Downtown Meridian Development Corporation has put together a great plan on what they envision for downtown and there is certainly some elements of raising height so bringing it up. So, that's my summary. Commissioner Grove, do you want to add anything else? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 12 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 9 of 50 Grove: I would echo most everything you said there. I think the opportunity for this project to be able to move forward helps the downtown create the -- some of the building bones that we just lack from previous generations to really revitalize downtown. You know, when you hear about downtown revitalization there is typically something to, you know, renovate, move into, change and we just don't have a lot of those structures in our downtown. So, we are very limited in how -- how successful downtown can be based on the limited amount of space available to make those changes and taking a blighted area like the railroad property and being able to repurpose it with something to this scale I think is -- is vitally important for not only the short term, but the long-term health of our downtown and, yes, it's -- it's painful because it's change, but it's changed that will benefit the business owners of downtown and -- and the community as a whole. I really like this project and I like the idea of approving the one hundred foot height limit on this building. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, do you have any other comments you would like to make? Pitzer: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I love the concept. I was the one that was opposed to this at the last meeting, but I like the concept, I like the -- the courtyard, the open space, you know, having the additional retail space. What I was opposed to especially was asking for a 33 percent change, but I have to sit here in reflection and say is this good for Meridian. I mean that's basically what -- what -- what we are here for and that's why we make recommendations to -- to Council and I think in -- in -- in looking over everything I would have to say that, yes, this is probably in the best interest of Meridian. I don't like the height. I think it's going to eclipse everything around here, but maybe that's short term and I think that if we make -- if we set this precedent and let this go through at a hundred feet, I think we absolutely have to ask for a change in the comp plan. Holland: With that if -- if anybody wanted to ask a specific question, we certainly have the meeting open. We could -- we could ask the applicant to come forward if anyone had a specific question for them or if we feel like we are all on the same page, which it sounds like we are all heading in that same direction, I would accept a motion to close the public hearing so we could make a further motion of recommendation -- or in this case, actually, we make a -- we make a final decision on this, since it's a conditional use permit. But we would need to close the public hearing first. So, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: Okay. Moved and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. I would accept a motion at this point as well, unless there is further discussion you would all like to have on Meridian Station. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 13 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 10 of 50 McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2019-0142 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5th, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Holland: I have got a motion and a second to approve the Meridian Station's request for the height variance, H-2019-0142. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. 1 . Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height exceeding 20% of the maximum height allowed ( i.e. 50 feet) in the I-L zoning district for two (2) 80-foot tall silos. D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. Holland: All right. With that we will move on to the next one. And thank you to all of you who showed up tonight. It's always great to see the public show up and -- and making comments on projects. So, we really appreciate that. So, next we are going to move on to Item C, which is a public hearing continued from February 20th, 2020, for Handy Truck Line Silos, which is H-2019-0149, and we are also going to open that with the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law. I know that's a little bit atypical for this one, but we are going to open those together and I will start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda this evening is the Handy Truck Lines conditional use permit. As you mentioned it was continued from the 2020 -- 2020 -- Planning and Zoning -- or 2/20/20 Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose -- for the reason being that they did not get the site posted within the parameters of the UDC. The applicant is here again to discuss a conditional use permit to increase the height of some silos that they want to construct on the site. The property is currently zoned industrial within the City of Meridian and you can see in the zoning map and the future land use map that a majority of the property around this site is also zoned industrial and there are also industrial uses that are occurring around it. So, it's -- it's kind of this -- it's an enclave of industrial around our railroad tracks in close proximity to our downtown area. Right now the applicant is currently operating a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 14 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 11 of 50 construction business there. These silos are primarily for the purpose of having concrete powder and housing concrete powder. The proposed silos would be located within the railroad corridor in their right of way, so there was no permission needed or the property owner doesn't own the land, but they have a lease agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad to operate and conduct their business. So, like the previous application that you just took action on, this is one of those cases where a certain height limit is allowed at an administrative level, if you are under 20 percent or up to 20 percent can be approved through the staff level, because the I-L zone has a height limit of 50 feet and they are asking me to go up to 80 feet, they exceed the 20 -- the 20 percent allowed under the administrative process. So, that's why we are really here to talk with you this evening and get your blessing of this. You can see here they provide us some elevations of what the silos would look like. Typically we have design standards that go along with all of our commercial industrial buildings, but in this particular case, if you had a chance to read the staff report, we made a finding that this is really just more of a function of the business, rather than actual habitable building and not your typical commercial building. So, the applicant's going to only have to come before staff with a certificate of zoning compliance and forego the design review process if they obtain approval of the CZC -- or this CUP application. Staff did receive written testimony from Scott Hanks, who is the applicant, and they are in agreement with all conditions in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? With that would the applicant like to come forward and share a few words with us. And if you wouldn't mind, please, state your name and address for the record. Handy: Yeah. So, I am not Scott Hanks. He, unfortunately, could not make it. My name is Branson Handy. My current address is 8364 Craydon Drive in Boise. As proposed, Madam Chairman and the Commission, these two silos will be directly adjacent to the existing ones and they will be the same height. So, the original silos that were built are about 80 feet and we are asking for permission to build two adjacent silos at that height, so -- yeah. If you have any questions I will do my best to answer. Holland: Any questions for the applicant? You got off easy. Thank you. Appreciate it. Handy: Thank you very much. Holland: Is there anyone signed in to testify on this application, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one person signed in. That's Lindsay Anderson. Holland: Lindsay, are you here? Would you like to testify? Seeing no hands. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to testify on this application? And with that I don't think the applicant has anything else to add, so I would take a motion to close the public hearing for Handy Truck Lines, 2019-0149. McCarvel: So moved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 15 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 12 of 50 Pitzer: Second. Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. We are here for deliberation and my thoughts looking at this that it seems pretty straightforward that they are just putting in two additional towers next to some existing towers that are going to be similar in height. I don't see a big concern with it being restrictive to public view. It's in an industrial area. It's next to the rail line. That's really where these kind of things fit most anyway. So, I don't know that I have any big concerns over it, but would love your thoughts. Anyone want to go next? Commissioner Grove? Grove: Madam Chair. To me it looks, like you said, pretty straightforward. It completes the -- the little block that they have of other silos, so I don't see issues with it. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I'm in support of this as well. I don't see an issue with it. It's adding to what's already there. Holland: Any other comments? Commissioner Pitzer? Pitzer: No. Holland: With that I would -- this is a conditional use permit and I would ask of anyone making the motion on this would also -- assuming we are not making any changes or modifications to it, that we could also include the approval of the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line Silos with the approval of the CUP. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2019-0149 as presented in the staff report for the hearing dated March 5th, 2020. In addition approving the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order for the same file number. Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 16 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 13 of 50 Holland: Okay. Motion and a second to approve the conditional use permit. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2019-0143) by Ryan Recla, Located at 2940 S. Mesa Way 1 . Request: Development Agreement modification to remove the subject 4.35-acre property from the boundary of the existing agreement Bannock Ridge - Inst. #2017-084176) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed development plan; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 10 building lots and 5 common lots on 4.35 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Holland: Next we will move on to the public hearing for Bannock Ridge, H-2019-0143, and we will start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Bannock Ridge Subdivision. This is a preliminary plat and development agreement modification. If -- as you are aware, you are a recommending body on the -- on the plat and the City Council will take action on the development agreement modification. This property was annexed and zoned in 2017 and platted as part of a larger project called Bannock Ridge and now the applicant wants to come forward and bifurcate this property from the original plat and boundary of that project and enter into a new development agreement, which Council will take under consideration. The property is currently zoned R-4, which is consistent with the current land use designation of low density residential for this property, so we can anticipate densities of three units or less to the acre and this project is well below that. On the graphic on your left there you can see where -- where it was the larger portion of that Bannock Ridge in 2017 and so the applicant -- and the elevations that were tied to that development agreement, so the applicant is here tonight to discuss just doing a subdivision on 4.35 acres of land, which is being removed from the additional 13.58 acres that was approved in 2017. The preliminary plat consists of ten building lots and five common lots in the R-4 district. One of the existing homes -- one of the lots will contain the existing residents and the outbuildings that are currently on Lot 10, Block 1. Staff had made mention in the staff report that some of the dimensional standards on this particular property did not meet the R-4 standards and they will have to comply with that at the time that they submit the final plan. Because this project is below the ten acre minimum there is no required open space for the project as required in the UDC, but the applicant is required to extend the ten foot multi-use pathway that's through the site. Because the existing home meets staff preferences to have the pathway along the creek, but given the site constraints and the fact that the existing residence is remaining on Lot 10, Block 1, we worked closely with our Parks Department to ensure that we could route it through the development, have an Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 17 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 14 of 50 on-street segment, and, then, run along the south boundary behind the proposed buildable lots with this subdivision. This is pretty consistent with the -- the previous approval as well. You can see here that there is a stub street on the west boundary that's going to be extended with this development and stubbed to the south for future connectivity with the adjacent properties and that's kind of the finding of what we try to do when we are working with the applicant. We worked -- staff -- when we initially started with this project we weren't keen on separating this piece from the larger piece of the property, we wanted to make sure that all of this came in and was a cohesive development plan and that's why the DA was in place to make sure all of it developed at one time, but because the applicant is extending the street and it's generally consistent to what's already in the DA, staff felt comfortable with the plat that you are seeing before you this evening. The applicant also provided some sample elevations for you. The majority of them are single story. The applicant hasn't determined whether or not they are going to do any -- any other additional two stories, but there is nothing prohibiting them to do that as a recommended DA provision or a condition of approval. I would also mention to you because -- at the time this came in -- or excuse me -- some of the lots will be taking access from a common driveway, so as you can see here the plat depicts this as a private street. It's not. It's actually a common driveway and the code allows up to six homes to take access from a common driveway. So, that's why you see the turnaround on -- on one --on the two buildable lots for Fire Department requirements. Staff did receive written testimony from Dan Lardie in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report. Staff finds that this project is consistent with the development agreement and the Comprehensive Plan and we ask for your approval or recommend approval this evening and I will stand for any questions. Holland: Any questions for staff? No questions. At this time I would ask the applicant to come forward. And if you wouldn't mind, state your name and address for us. Appreciate it. Lardie: Madam Commissioner--excuse me. Madam Chair, Commissioners, Dan Lardie. Leavitt Associates. 1324 1st Street South, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. So, Bill, thanks. I appreciate the -- the lead in here. You did a good job. The question I have -- and I did -- I did send an e-mail in and said that I agreed with the conditions. The one -- the one condition that I do have a question on is the fencing. If I do -- can I get a question for Bill on clarifying that as far as what's required there? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we will have a conversation here. So, Dan, what -- what in specific to the fencing question? Or what's the condition? Lardie: It's along -- it's along the entire path and then -- Parsons: Okay. Lardie: -- if it -- if it is along the entire path can it be -- can it be done at the time of home construction? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 18 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 15 of 50 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I can address you. So, essentially, as I said in the presentation, the pathway comes in through the site and, then, run along the back of the buildable lot. In our code we require -- the code requires the developer to put in the fencing at the time of the subdivision approval, because we don't want homeowners putting in incorrect fencing that violates our code. You probably -- some of you have had experience dealing with that throughout the years with the numerous projects that have come through and we have since changed. A few years ago we changed our fencing ordinance to be more flexible in the standards and the type of fencing that would allow along a common lot. So, a quick answer is, no, it can't go on with the buildable lots, it needs to happen with the subdivision improvement per the city code. But there are fencing options for that to happen. I think your concern is that's going to get destroyed when you are constructing homes on it. Lardie: That and the initial cost. Just the -- Parsons: The code requires the developer to put that in. Lardie: I will continue, Madam Chair, Commissioners. It is -- it is nine buildable lots, plus -- it's simple. It fits with the nature of what's there. At one point in time the development agreement was in place for the entire 13 acres, but since -- some homeowners aren't interested in developing just yet. So, with that it's a nice addition to the area and it follows the Comprehensive Plan land use. So, with that I could stand with any questions. Holland: So, one question I had. The way that the -- the middle drive aisle comes down the Mesa Court it looks like -- Lardie: Yeah. Holland: -- originally it was proposed to kind of come up from the south, not from the east, so I don't know if your group is the one that's still a part of the development that will happen to the south at some point in the future when those other homes want to redevelop, how would that affect the overall -- I mean it's not going to be part of the development agreement anymore, but would you envision that the rest of the plan would stay somewhat consistent with what was originally submitted for the Bannock Ridge Subdivision? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I believe that in order to be the most -- get the most efficient use of the land, the previous -- the previous development -- or the previous layout would still hold true and still can be done. It will look a little bit different, you know, such as it does now, but we are -- the extension of the streets to the east as it extends through and it will connect into the path like it did before and still allow for development along those north lots and so allow for a stub road down to the south. So, still completes it. Holland: Okay. And, then, one of the questions, too, is Lot No. 2 that's in that Block 2 right on the elbow curve -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 19 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 16 of 50 Lardie: Yes. Holland: -- coming down, that was I think originally proposed as an open space lot in the -- the overall concept and I know that we are -- we are taking this into consideration as a separate plat, but would that become a home site now or would that still be an open space? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioners, so on -- on that particular lot it is a buildable lot now. Before we were using it for storm drainage, because the whole site was running there. Now it's only this -- only four acres out of 13, so -- and that's the reason why it's a buildable lot. There is some -- there is some comments probably in your packet from ACHD and we are still discussing that particular area. ACHD has requested a full blown cul-de-sac there. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. So, we are taking this out of the original -- if we do that you're not required to put any amenities and green space and all that, because of the -- you're under the acreage, but would these homes still be able to use -- are they still going to be considered part of the rest of the development and be able to use their amenities? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, as far as I know they will -- they are probably not going to be developed by the same developer as far as I know. The middle development--the middle homeowner is -- is -- I don't say holding out, but is -- is resistant to -- to the development. So, I don't know. Holland: One more follow-up question for you, too. So, it's -- it's hard to see green screens on here. I know you are not required to provide any because of the size. I know you have got the pathway that comes down, but are any of these lots open space lots or are they all home sites? Lardie: Madam Commissioner, they are all home sites. Except for the pathway and the land -- and it's required landscape on both sides. Holland: Okay. Lardie: There is also Ten Mile Creek that's open. It's meant to be left open. Again, it's the creek. Holland: Sure. Grove: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 20 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 17 of 50 Holland: Commissioner Grove. Grove: In the packet and with the staff report it was indicated that an agreement needs to be in place with the HOA to the west to continue that pathway. Is that something that has been done or do you see it being an issue? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, the -- so, in order to connect to that path, yes, we do have to connect and get a -- get an agreement with the HOA. Has it been done? No, it hasn't. I am going to assume that the homeowners there would -- would appreciate the fact that it would extend and provide them connectivity to the east, other than they have now. Holland: Any other questions? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Other than the fencing, are you in agreement with all staff recommendations? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, yes. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you have a comment? Pitzer: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. What -- what size is the -- of the smallest lot that you have on -- Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Pitzer, the smallest lot as shown on this plat is 8,001 square feet. Holland: Any follow-up questions? Okay. I think that might be it for now, but we will see in a few minutes. Lardie: Thank you. Holland: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in to testify tonight on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have three people signed in, two of which wish to testify, the first being Aneke Binford. Holland: Okay. Aneke, if you want to come forward and if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address, again, for the record we would appreciate it. Binford: Aneke Binford. 3101 Mesa Way. My husband and I own the property south of this proposed subdivision and just for the record we are not resistant to development. We Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 21 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 18 of 50 are not opposed in any way. But we do have two concerns about this project. The first is the lack of substantial buffering between the public walking path and the full length of our entire property. The second is the impact on our ability to effectively irrigate our land. The pathways master plan states the city should be sensitive to private owners when trails are proposed adjacent to private property. The city acknowledges the pathway safety is a major concern -- and I'm quoting -- of both pathway users and those whose property is adjacent to the pathway. Of the eight safety concerns identified in the master plan, two issues impact us the most. Privacy and trespassing. According to the master plan one of the city's recommended improvements to address privacy of adjacent owners includes the use of good neighbor fencing and planting of landscape buffers. The city's recommended improvements to address trespassing is to clearly distinguish public pathways from private property with vegetative buffers and the use of good neighbor fencing. The current fencing will not discourage trespassing. Half of the fence is three pole fencing, which can easily be slipped through onto our property. Also much of it is being held up with wire and baling twine. This does not provide a high degree of maintenance that would discourage undesirable activity along the pathway. The pathways master plan acknowledges that loss of privacy and increased risk of trespassing are true concerns when public paths are adjacent to private property. We asked that the developer heed the city's recommended improvements as outlined in the master plan to provide good neighbor fencing and a more substantial vegetative buffer. We also have irrigation concerns. We recognize it's our responsibility to control our water. However, flood irrigation is not exact. Currently we are able to fully irrigate the high areas of the pasture by running the water for a longer time. Overflow from low areas simply waters that connecting pasture. But when that connecting pasture becomes a walking path and private homes, we will have to shut off water as -- as soon as the lower areas are saturated this will leave some of the areas literally high and dry. This will result in areas of unusable ground for us. We propose that the developer construct a berm to stop any overflow water from leaving our property so we may continue to irrigate sufficiently and responsibly. So, basically, to sum it up. For our two concerns we are requesting a good neighbor fence and more substantial vegetative buffer on the pathway. This will clearly distinguish the public property from our private property and also discourage trespassing and address privacy issues. We are also requesting a berm to allow us to continue to effectively irrigate our full property. We would also like to note that when Observation Point Subdivision was developed on our west border the city recommended that the developer construct a three foot landscape berm with a fence, which he did. When Cabella Creek was developed to our east the city recommended the landscaped berm to address headlights from the new road into our home and the developer provided that. In each case the city heard our concerns regarding development impact and we are hopeful for a similar response tonight. Holland: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Binford: I had pictures I didn't get to, but my husband is up after me, so maybe he can -- can he use those pictures? Holland: Sure. That would be great. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 22 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 19 of 50 Weatherly: Madam Chair, Matthew Binford. Holland: And, Matthew, if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record we would appreciate it. M.Binford: My name is Matt Binford. I live at 3101 Mesa Way. And we are the five acres that adjoin this property. Could we go to -- a couple more slides forward? Oh, I can do it? So, this is the west facing Observation side of what was developed. My wife referenced that there is a three foot berm here, plus a fence, and, in fact, when Observation Point went in the irrigation -- they actually added tile drainage across this back, so we could continue to flood irrigate. So, you know, the city helped push us for that and we really appreciate that. What we are hoping is something similar -- let me go forward here. This is actually the fence between the developer -- the development and our property. You can see this fence is about ready to fall down. So, my wife and I are concerned that the developer is not proposing any fence here, that we would bear the burden of kind of protecting our property versus this walking path. So, I don't know that that's a fair assessment. What we are asking for is not for the irrigation so much, but to berm this up so we can continue to irrigate, but also there needs to be something that kind of protects our property from their development and the -- as my wife quoted, the issues with a walking path. So, we would like to see -- we understand that the -- it can't be a closed fence. We would love to have just a solid vinyl fence there. But the city encourages open fences for crime and that sort of thing, but we would like to see a new fence here by the developer to kind of protect our property and people from going through this, you know, broken down fence that they are not going to improve as part of this project and I think that that -- that, you know, we shouldn't bear the burden of a development coming in and if the walking path goes along here, we are going to have to maintain this fence, because my guess is those homeowners will not. So, thank you very much. Holland: Thank you. I appreciate it. Madam Clerk, anyone else signed in to testify? Weatherly: No one else signed up to testify. Holland: Is there anyone here that would like to testify on this application? It looks like we have got a couple back here. If you want to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Blackburn: Which microphone? Holland: Just talk into one of them. Blackburn: Okay. I'm Celeste Blackburn. Address is 2978 South Novara Way. I'm in the development Cabella Creek that was put in adjacent to all these beautiful pictures. I saw my home in one of these pictures. Anyway, I don't have anything formal prepared. My only concern would be our current walking path in Cabella Creek and the current walking path in Observation Point go right along the creek. I'm not sure why we need to move a walking path up a few feet and around some houses to connect it. I don't know Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 23 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 20 of 50 why they can't just go along the creek side and keep it as it has been with both subdivisions. My other concern is that the original CC&Rs for this subdivision, which is called something estates. It starts with a K. Says that all building lots within that subdivision have to be 30 feet away from each other and I'm not sure that the plot that is proposed would met that. I know in the original proposal that was going around with just this three lots, that they did come around with a petition to lift that, but as far as I am concerned I do not know that that was lifted. Holland: Thank you. And to address those concerns real quick, I think this specific application is requesting to change the development agreement, which would take them out of whatever initial subdivision. I'm not sure what -- which subdivision you're talking about, but maybe Bill could answer that. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, she's -- she's speaking -- and I think you are talking specifically to CC&Rs; correct? Blackburn: Correct. Parsons: Yeah. This won't change that. The developer is still going to have to work on that if they haven't and get that cleared up. But trying to think of -- trying to think of the best path for her to take forward. I mean it's in the city now. CC&Rs --those were created through the county. So, something that's going to happen -- have to happen privately, not between the city and -- Blackburn: Okay. Parsons: -- and the applicant. Holland: Thanks for explaining, Bill. Blackburn: Thank you. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. And we had one other one back here that wanted to testify. State your name and address for the record for us. We would appreciate it. Clausen: Jamie Clausen. 3010 South Glacier Bay Way. So, I am -- I have never done this before. Just a couple of things. I live in -- off of the Observation Point, I'm in the Glacier Springs development, which is right behind -- or next to, however you want to view it. And this -- we had a few concerns. One of them is regarding the developer, because we did have the community meeting. They called it at a time of day when nobody could attend. They had it in a place where there was no room really. They did not provide a space for us to truly meet. They had to -- the restaurant -- the little pub restaurant had to come up with a space for us to even gather and their wording to us was, oh, we weren't expecting anybody to show up to this. They never do. Which I thought was very unprofessional. There has been just a lot of things that we heard at the meeting and I'm just kind of worried about the housing that they are intending to put in there if they do get Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 24 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 21 of 50 this. They said that they are wanting to do it equal to what's already around. Well, Observation Point and the other development are very different. So, what do they mean similar to? Are they putting in smaller homes here? Bigger homes -- you know, it's just -- it's not -- I don't know. I just -- there is a lot of things being said that just are not -- don't seem to connect and I feel like -- you know, just like the -- the postcard that came out and had the wrong acreage and stuff. My husband and I actually came in and talked to somebody in planning and developing and asked him about some things, because we wanted to get some clarification on some of this and we pointed out that and, then, noticed they put in a thing saying that they needed to fix that, but they didn't re-send out postcards or anything to anybody, so as far as everybody knows there is ten houses going on seven acres, you know, because nobody knows unless -- anyway. So, just a few things. I'm concerned about street being -- you know, he said he thinks that it would be -- you know, we would want it to go around. We do not. I'm concerned with water and sewer, because they are going to have to plumb it into that. Are they going to increase the pressure if there are houses there, because I don't want my water pressure to go down and things like that. Sewer, you know, same thing. I just -- I -- I'm worried about things -- and I'm worried about substandard things happening, instead of what's actually supposed to go in there and what -- you know. And it being equal to what's already there. And our property values and all that, too. That's kind of where I'm going to. Holland: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Last call. Anybody else that would like to testify on this one? No hands. I will have the applicant come back forward. I know we have got a few questions for you from the -- the crowd. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address again for us on the record. Lardie: Madam Chair, Stan Lardie. Leavitt Associates. 1324 1st Street South. Nampa. 83687. 1 wrote some notes, but I want to make sure that I hit all the points that were -- were added there. So, the walking path, it meets the city standard. So, it's on a 20 foot lot per their request and it only has to be 14 with landscaping on both sides and now per our earlier discussion fencing. So, the fencing is -- is going to be directed by the city. So, that's where I will leave that one. The next one -- sorry, my notes are really bad. Holland: That's all right. We can help you with a few questions if you need to. I wrote down a few notes as well. Lardie: So, there was one comment about -- about the Kachina Estates CC&Rs and as far as being 30 feet away from the existing lot. So, that would be on the existing lots. So, the parent lot of the four hundred -- or 4.35 acres. Thirty feet. And our -- we have held back 30 feet all the way around our property on that. There was another question about pathway and why we don't go along the canal -- along the Ten Mile Creek. The homeowner, Mr. -- Mr. Walsh -- or, excuse me, Mr. Marsh, is -- his home actually encroaches in on what the city and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District would want for a pathway to be -- go along there for an easement. They require -- or they request 50 feet and right now his house is actually 30 feet from the center line of the canal, which leaves no room for a pathway on that side without demolishing his home and that's why we are not there. Let's see. So, as far as substandard construction, construction is held to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 25 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 22 of 50 standards by the city. ISPWC, the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, and so the city does their inspections and they require us to do our inspections. Home types. We are probably closer with Glacier Bay as far as what is -- what we have presented as far as quality and types of home. That's what I have got for notes. Madam Commissioner -- Holland: Okay. Lardie: -- or Madam Chair. Can you help me? Did I miss anything? Holland: Yes. There was a question from the neighborhoods to your south, I believe -- and, Bill, if you wouldn't mind flipping back to the plat so we can look at that. There were some concerns about the pathway running along their fence line there and the fence that they have existing they are wondering if you might be willing to help replace that, so that they would have -- they were also wanting a buffer there for their irrigation. If you could speak to that situation. Lardie: So, the pathway will -- Madam Chair. The pathway will probably be sitting up just a little bit higher. So, probably create that natural berm that they are looking for. It's not going to be a three foot berm, but it will probably be -- you know, maybe -- maybe a foot berm. Just -- just if that -- if irrigation is really truly questioned and, then, provide landscaping along that -- their land and the fencing will have to meet code. Holland: Okay. Would you be open to doing a three foot berm there on the edge of the pathway and doing some landscaping on there and help them with their fence? Lardie: I would need to ask my client if he would be willing to do that. Holland: Sure. Parsons: Madam Chair, I don't mean to cut into the applicant's time, but I believe there is going to be a sewer -- sewer main running through -- underneath the pathway. And I am correct, Dan? Is that -- did you get that worked out with Public Works? Lardie: Madam -- Madam Chair, Bill, the -- the sewer main is not running that direction. It's going to be -- the sewer service is under the -- under that pathway and it -- well, actually, it's not under the pathway, it's in an easement along the backside of there -- those lots. Parsons: Okay. Okay. So, it's going to be outside of the pathway easement, so you could landscape in that area. Lardie: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 26 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 23 of 50 Parsons: I just wanted to make sure that if it -- it had been moved onto the buildable lots that landscaping could be prohibited if there was a sewer line in there. So, I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Holland: Thank you, Bill. I think we would be open to hearing from your -- Lardie: I'm sorry. Holland: I think we would be open to hearing from your team if they were open to working with that neighbor to the south on this request. If you wouldn't mind, when you come up state your name and address for the record for us, too. Recla: Yeah. My name is Ryan Recla and my address is 4123 West Garnet in Boise. 83703. So, as far as landscaping and the berm, I don't -- so, are they thinking three foot tall or three foot wide or what -- Holland: Well, I think what they explained to us was that they -- they flood irrigate their yard right now and so they are worried if there is not a berm there -- Recla: I don't think that's an issue to be able to build a -- I mean because there is -- how much of a buffer did we leave? We had a ten -- we have a 20 foot easement with a ten foot walking path and with five foot on each side. As you are not opposed in the five foot -- I mean we -- is this berm on their property or our property? Ours? Holland: I would assume it would be on your property. Recla: And a five -- and a five foot wide -- three foot tall seems like it would be really tall. I mean like you would have a -- you know, you would have a peak. Now, is there -- mean I don't mind at all pushing some dirt over there to try and stop it from draining over. I don't know if you necessarily would need -- three foot seems a little extreme and a little unsightly in a five foot path. But I am -- I mean if they are not opposed to having part of it on their property, too. I mean it's not like there won't be dirt to be able to be moved around. So, I don't see -- working with them on something like that would not be a problem. The fence -- so, am I getting asked to help with the fence or pay for it all? Holland: That's a great question. Recla: I mean I heard help. If -- I mean I'm more than happy to do a neighborly good neighbor thing where -- Holland: Sure. Recla: -- we each help pay for it. Holland: I believe their question was if you would be willing to pitch in and put in the fence. But certainly we could ask the applicant to -- or ask the -- that specific neighbor to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 27 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 24 of 50 meet with you ahead of City Council so you could come up with a solution, too. That might be an option. Recla: Yeah. Because if I -- if it was a joint effort I would be happy to. There -- yeah. So -- Holland: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Seeing none, think that we have answered most of the questions of the room. Anything else you would like to add? Lardie: No. Thank you, Madam Chair. Holland: Okay. Lardie: Thank you, Commission. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. With that I would accept a motion to close the public hearing for Bannock Ridge, H-2019-0143. McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. We are here for deliberation. So, I -- if I could have my choice I would rather see all three of these lots come in together than have the one piece by itself, because I think it does create some consistency challenges for sure. I'm not opposed to the R-4 lot size. I think that seems like a nice fit there. I like that -- you know, I would prefer to see the -- the pathway go along the creek as well, but with the lots the way that they are laid out and the home that's there, I see the challenge and appreciate that they were willing to reroute that to the south. Kind of an interesting little in-fill piece. I'm not sure -- I might still need a few more minutes to come up with my thoughts, but I would say at a minimum I would at least request the applicant meet with the neighbor to the south to discuss the -- what berm, landscaping, and fencing they would be willing to work on together to create that transition that they would like and I -- I see and understand their concern if there is a pathway that runs right next to their property line and a fence there. I would like to see some sort of transition of some sort at least, but those are my starting thoughts. Anyone else want to go next? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 28 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 25 of 50 McCarvel: Question for staff. Do you have a picture of where the -- the layout and where the -- how the path originally was in the DA agreement? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner McCarvel, that's it. The graphic on the left -- yeah. The green there shows you how the path would run through there on the previous version. Holland: I think one of my other concerns, too, is because of its size they are not required to do any open space and, you know, it -- certainly we can't require them to do open spaces if they are only 4.3 acres, but I worry about how the next two chunks will develop if there is not open space required here, since that's where the bulk of the open space was originally proposed was for that Block 2 and where the greenbelt pathway comes down on the north side. So, that is a concern I have about this project. Commissioner McCarvel, any other thoughts? Not yet? McCarvel: Yeah. That's -- I mean that's kind of where I was going with it. It changes -- definitely changes the landscape of everything to be built, along with what's already -- what everybody around them was expecting. Holland: Commissioner Grove? Grove: Madam Chair. I had a question for staff. In the report it mentioned something about the existing building in the south being an issue in the south -- like too close or something like that and I can't find it in the report and so, sorry, I'm kind of fumbling for -- to find exactly what I'm asking, but do you know what I'm speaking about? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah. Absolutely. You know, whenever -- whenever we keep existing structures on -- on properties as part of a subdivision they have to -- when we plat the lot the property -- when we resubdivide that property and make sure that we are creating new parcel lines around existing structures, they have to comply with the dimensional standards of the code. So, we always have a front setback, a side setback, and a rear setback and we had called that out that that building did not meet the setbacks of the district, so they are going to have to adjust the plat -- the property boundaries of that to make sure that they are complying with the R-4 setbacks and they said they can and they said they are agreed to it, so that that's -- that's addressed as a condition of approval in the staff report. So, yeah, we caught that and that's why we called it out and brought it to your attention. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Grove: Thank you. Holland: Any follow-up comments, Commissioner Grove? Not yet? Pitzer: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 29 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 26 of 50 Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: Yeah. I -- I'm having a lot of problems with this one. I'm thinking this is premature. I think it needs to -- that the existing structures that are on there -- this is just changing the entire face of the original DA and which now it's going to flow into the neighboring subdivision. I especially don't like what the -- how the walkway is coming through and taking out any open space where in the future, if that was an ACHD issue to have that there and now it's a buildable lot becomes another issue for it. Holland: And I agree, it's hard to see a pathway without the context of what's going to develop around it in the future, because we don't know what that timeline looks like either. Any other thoughts? Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Well, I'm trying to look at it from both ways, if -- if we were to recommend approval on this I would definitely want to see the berm and, yes, they -- the developer needs to do the fencing. I mean I just think that's a no go. I mean that needs to be consistent and I think if they are wanting to go while the other land is still in use the way it is, then, there needs to be some berming and -- I guess just start there. If we were to approve it as is, but -- Holland: I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to look at it from two different lenses, so what it was proposed as and what it would be if it was just coming forward to us not attached to a DA, not attached to the other development. Coming to us as a stand alone piece -- I know they are not required to have any open space and they are big enough lots that they have got their own private yards, but I certainly would like to have seen a little bit more open space in there for the future of how it would connect to other subdivisions. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: The original open space lot was that -- Holland: That Block 2 is and -- McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: -- also up north -- McCarvel: Right. Holland: -- where the pathway comes down. McCarvel: And that was mostly to -- for drainage reasons, wasn't it? Now you want to build homes on there. I mean that opens up -- I think the person who is buying that home ten years from now is -- I mean where is all that going and, then, it puts in on the other Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 30 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 27 of 50 two sections that has originally come into the DA agreement thinking that's where their drainage was going. Holland: We can certainly make a condition that they keep that block open as a drainage lot. McCarvel: Yeah. And I guess the -- oh, I see what -- so, the pathway was not going to exactly follow Ten Mile Creek in the first place, but it was going to be along a lot more open space. Holland: Correct. They moved the pathway down south to where that red line is -- McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: --and, then, they added homes between the existing home site and the pathway. We will reconfigure how to -- anymore discussion or -- certainly happy to take a motion if anyone is close there. This is a tough one for sure. McCarvel: It's a tough one. Yeah. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I just -- you know, as we talked about your discretion and the authority that you have, obviously, in my presentation I said that Council would be acting on the DA modification, but you always can add DA provisions and change DA provisions. So, if it is your pleasure that the developer construct fencing and berming along the pathway, certainly I would -- in your recommendation include it as a DA provision, rather than a plat condition, because it really needs -- if you are going to require something more than what code requires it really needs to be captured in a development agreement, not in a plat. With a plat we are just looking at conformance with the code. So, keep that in mind as you deliberate. And also know that if -- this plat is what's tied to the current development agreement, so if Council doesn't approve the DA mod, the project's a no go, so -- and the applicant was made aware of that from the very -- very early on in the process. We -- a lot of the discussions that I hear you having this evening are the same things we had with them. So, I just wanted to give you some of that context, too, as you deliberate up there. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Yeah, again -- so, we don't get to decide on the development agreement modification, we are just making recommendation, but we can certainly put some of those provisions in there we would like to see. I would say that we definitely should add a provision that, you know, perhaps the -- the applicant could meet with the property owner to the south to discuss what options are available, but I don't see it as unreasonable that they have to work on at least putting in a significant portion of the landscaping, berm, and fence. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 31 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 28 of 50 McCarvel: I would agree. I mean it's their change that's going to most affect the property, so it should be I think their obligation to protect the property. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you have another comment? Pitzer: Yes, Madam Chair. I also think that it should be in the provision for Lot 2 to be held as -- as an open lot, rather than as a buildable lot. Holland: Okay. I would entertain a motion if someone is close to making one. Or if there is anymore discussion we need to have on this. Right now what I have heard is that we would like to see a DA provision adding landscaping, berm and fence between the pathway and the neighboring parcel to the south and that we would recommend Block 2, Lot 2, would remain as an open lot for a future retention pond or retention space. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file H-2019-0143 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5th, 2020, with the following modification to the DA approval, adding landscaping, berm, and fencing along the perimeter and retaining Block 2, Lot 2, as remaining as an open lot. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, can I clarify your motion on the DA? Your recommendation is for a DA provision to add landscaping, berm, and a fence to the property that's to the south between the pathway and the lot to the south; is that correct? Pitzer: That's correct. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just some more clarification. Holland: Yes, please, Bill. Parsons: It's a little vague with landscaping, berm, and fencing. Obviously, the code is going to require fencing. It's going to require a certain amount of landscaping. What -- as the applicant discussed, you are not going to get -- with a five foot landscape strip you are not going to get much of a berm. Probably the largest you are going to get is maybe 18 inches, unless the applicant and the adjacent properly owner can agree to different terms. So, if it's your desire, then, I would say -- the other thing is the code only requires one tree for every one hundred linear feet of pathway. So, you can see here what they have there -- if it's your desire for a certain tree count, I would probably come up with a number or pick something more than just landscaping. You are to have shrubs, to have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 32 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 29 of 50 -- and trees there. Deciduous trees. I mean how -- I will leave it up to your discussion, but just something more than just landscaping, berm, and -- and fencing. Fencing I can get. They put in the fencing on both sides of the pathway of that common lot. But what look are you going for there? A berm -- 18 inch berm, 24 inch berm -- certainly the code allows--through alternative compliance the applicant can meander the pathway and have it wider and so he has the ability to do some nicer landscaping along the pathway. So, just throwing out ideas. Just need more than just landscaping. We have that now in the plan that we have in front of you. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Pitzer: Bill, would we be able to add the provision that they work with the property owners as part of that? Parsons: Certainly. That's within your prerogative to include that as part of the motion, that they come up with some kind of treatment for that area prior to City Council. You have that purview, too. And we can get that on the record and make sure that not only what the neighbors testified to, but the adjacent property owner gets what they are kind of -- I mentioned to you as far as the drainage issues, making sure they don't trespass onto adjacent properties and they get the privacy that they are afforded under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Holland: The one thing we could look at -- a suggestion is we could put more specific requirements in there of what we would like to see on the landscaping and the buffering. I would agree that three foot might be significant there. It might be challenging to do on a pathway there, but perhaps we tell them to do a two foot berm there and they would work with -- they would meet with the neighbor to the south prior to the City Council meeting to see if they can come up with some sort of compromise for that, but our recommendation is if they can't come to a compromise they would at least be required to put in -- whatever we decide, whether that's one foot, two foot buffer, and X number of trees or shrubs along the pathway and fencing on both sides of the pathway. Open for discussion if anyone else has comments. Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair. I think, kind of summarizing, so if we put in language the berm no less than 18 inches with fencing consistent with the standards on both sides of the pathway and -- I don't know if-- I really don't want to start counting shrubs right now, so I don't know if I -- I want to add anything specific in that -- in that term, but I think those -- at least those conditions and kind of putting it in those terms would -- would make the most sense moving forward. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: The word I keep coming -- I'm with Commissioner Grove, I do not want to -- I am the world's worse landscaper, so to visualize exactly how many trees and shrubs -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 33 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 30 of 50 the word I keep coming up with is enhanced. I don't know if that does enough for a motion though. And I think enhanced landscaping -- Holland: I think we could perhaps say enhanced landscaping, but that maybe the property owner to the south and this developer could work together on what that looks like and present that to Council. Pitzer: Madam Chair? I do like the idea of the meandering fence, other than the straight as well. I hope that they would take that into consideration as well. Holland: So, with that we either need a new motion or I think at this point, to make it clean, we need a new motion. So, I would entertain a motion from someone if they would like to and I can try to recap what we just talked about if you would like. The couple of things we talked about was for a DA provision that would create a berm of no less than 18 inches between the property to the south and this development near where the pathway intersections. That we would require fencing to be constructed on both sides of the pathway and that they would work with the neighbor to the south to come up with an enhanced landscaping solution and present that back to Council and that Lot 2 would remain an open lot, rather than a buildable lot. Those are the things I have written down. McCarvel: And now so does Commissioner Pitzer, so -- Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you need anything or are you good? Pitzer: Pardon? Holland: Do you need a recap on anything else. Are you okay? Pitzer: Well, we will give it a try. Holland: All right. Pitzer: All right. Let's do this. Okay. After consideration -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council on file number H-2019-0143, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date March 5th, 2020, with the following modification: That DA provision creating no less than an 18 inch berm along the southern property, with fencing on both sides of the walkway and work with the property owner for the southside to provide enhanced landscaping with a -- and berm. Holland: Do you want to add Lot 2 as an open space lot? Pitzer: That was the one. Yes. And have Lot 2, Block 2, remain an open lot. Holland: Okay. I have got a motion. The motion primarily is to adjust the boundary between the south property owner and the development related to where the pathway Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 34 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 31 of 50 comes in and building a berm, building additional fencing on both sides of the pathway, an 18 inch minimum berm and enhanced landscape -- enhanced landscaping. Do I have a second? Parsons: Sorry, Madam Chair. And that's prior to City Council I take it? Holland: What was that? Parsons: Changes prior to City Council. Holland: Yes. Correct. That those recommendations would come forward to City Council and that they would meet prior to City Council. And also that Lot 2 remained open. Do I have a second? McCarvel: Second. Holland: All those in favor. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing for Andorra Senior Living (H-2019-0127) by Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 715 & 955 S. Wells St. and 971 E. Wells Circle 1 . Request: Annexation of 16.99 acres of land with TN-R zoning with a conceptual development plan for a senior ( age 55 and older) living community consisting of (76) single-family dwelling units and a 3-story apartment building with 88 dwelling units and a building footprint of 30,000 square feet; and, 2. Request: Request to Vacate existing ACHD right-of-way (un- named cul-de-sac) consisting of 0.45 of an acre of land that lies between the properties located at 715 and 955 S. Wells St. & 971 E. Wells Circle Holland: Last, but not least, we will open the public hearing for Andorra Senior Living, H- 2019-0127 and we will began with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Last item on the agenda this evening is the Andorra Senior Living annexation and vacation application before you. Just like the previous application, the vacation is the responsibility of the City Council and they will be the recommend body that forwards on a recommendation to ACHD, who is the final decision making on the vacation application. The subject property consists of 16.99 acres of land. Currently it's zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada county. It's located at 715, 955 South Wells Street and 971 East Wells Circle at the southwest corner Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 35 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 32 of 50 of East Magic View and South Wells Street. Adjacent land uses. To the north we have single family residents, zoned RUT. South we have an office park, zoned L-O. To the east we have vacant and single family residents. Vacant land and single family residents zoned L-O and RUT in Ada County. And, then, on the west we have Woodbridge and Locust View Heights Subdivisions, zoned R-4 in the city and R-1 in Ada county. It's interesting, this is the first application that I have had a chance to process since the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan and this was from what I remember one of the areas that was pretty contentious on what the proposed land -- land uses would be moving forward. Tonight we have a unique opportunity where we have residents supporting a plan just after we adopted a new plan, so I think that's certainly an accommodation to not only the citizens that participated in that plan, but also accommodation to -- and recognition of your hard work as you sit here and volunteer sitting here every Thursday -- two Thursdays a month listening and making sure that we are providing a premier community for our citizens. The applicant is here tonight, again, to discuss developing the site with a senior living community, which consists of 76 single and duplex units along the north and west boundaries and, then, in the southeast corner you will notice that they have a three story apartment building, which will have components such as a spa, a salon, a restaurant. As we updated our Comprehensive Plan we spent quite a bit of time adjusting our mixed use standards to make sure that they were better and more understandable for not only you, staff, but also our residents and this is one of those cases where typically in an MUN designated area we anticipate smaller footprints, but there are provisions in the Comprehensive Plan to allow the applicant to increase that square footage based on the design and how well it integrates with adjacent properties. We know this is one component of a larger mixed use neighborhood area and moving forward -- so -- and when we look at these on a case-by-case basis we are going to take that under consideration. As I mentioned to you, there is already office in the area. There is hotels in the area. There is existing single family homes in the area. And this will be one integrated component of that mixed use area. Looking at the open space that they are proposing and that public amenity of the pathway coming through the central location of the site, staff felt it was prudent to allow the application that increase in -- from 20,000 square foot building -- per footprint to the 30,000 for the three story apartment complex. Also make mention that the restaurant is on the end -- the north side of that building as well and that's approximately 6,000. So, if we were looking at the aggregate of that footprint we are talking 36,000 square feet. And, again, we feel this is within the right context and meets the mixed use standards of the Comprehensive Plan. The other unique thing about this property, as you saw on that map, is there is two different land use designations. A portion of it, approximately nine acres, is medium density residential. A portion where this larger structure sits is that eight acres, approximately, mixed -- or eight acres of mixed use neighborhood. Again, looking at the overall entire development, staff finds that it is consistent with that newly adopted future land use map. Access to this site is unique as well. As you heard through the Comprehensive Plan update, there have been some access challenges with this development in this area and this particular use is -- is no different. The good thing about this -- and it's typically this type and this style of development has less trip generation, which we have all heard over the years and years how much -- how limited access is here, but we do want to preserve connectivity in the area. So, one of staff's recommended changes to the concept plan that's before you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 36 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 33 of 50 this evening is to actually stub at Wells Circle, which is the cul-de-sac along the south boundary. It's where you can see my cursor. You can see currently that there is a hammerhead turnaround at the terminus of that road and, then, some greenspace. Staff did not receive -- does not have ACHD's staff report on this application. I know the applicant has been working in conjunction with ACHD's staff to determine how that would -- how that road would terminate in the future with this project. He did communicate to me this evening that they are agreeable to deviating from their standards and allow this configuration that's before you this evening. I don't have written confirmation of that, nor have I received an e-mail to that effect, but in our -- as a recommended DA provision we have required the applicant extend this road in accordance with ACHD's requirements. Also as part of this application there is some right of way that's being vacated. It doesn't show up very well on this particular concept plan, but if I can step back I can show you what -- the general proximity of that. It's basically right in the middle of the project. There was some unnamed right of way that was dedicated with the subdivision back in 1983 in the county. As I alluded to it in the staff report, this is not required for access to this proposed development, so staff is supportive of the right of way being vacated and we have made that recommendation to City Council. Access for this particular property will come from the adjacent local streets and, then, for internal circulation, actually, the applicant's actually proposing gated private streets, which is consistent with the UD -- it's allowed under the UDC. What the applicant wants to do moving forward -- this is one of those unique situations with the TN-R zone that they are requesting to be annexed in with, the multi-family -- or all of these uses are principally permitted. So, once the DA is in place, the zoning is in place, the applicant would only have to go through staff approvals and that's why it's critical that the applicant worked with the neighborhood, because there won't be another chance to talk about this development once zoning is in place. In the staff report I made mention of multiple alternative compliance applications that the applicant will have to go through. Specifically there is some common drives that take access off the private streets. That's apparently prohibited, unless approved by alternative compliance. There is more than 50 units obligated access, which will require that alternate compliance through our private street standards and, then, in the narrative of the application and on this concept plan the -- the applicant had specified that they may want to provide lesser -- or smaller balconies for the residents in the apartment portion of the development. And, again, that is also eligible for alternative compliance, which are all staff level approvals. So, again, the use itself at staff level. Any deviations from those standards would only require staff level approval. The applicant also went into great detail as far as what the architecture is going to look at -- look -- look -- be as part of the development. So, giving you a representation of what the apartment complex is going to look. The restaurant component, which fronts onto that open space in the Five Mile Creek and the pathway and, then, here is some of the attached units and the single family units with, again, that cohesive design theme that we envision in a mixed use area. One of the items that I did point out to you in your staff report is this -- again, this is part of a subdivision that was recorded in the county. There are parcel boundary lines that need to be shifted to, again, a property boundary adjustment, which is a staff level approval, and there is platted easements that were created with that subdivision. Because the applicant's not subdividing the property at this time and only requesting annexation, those platted easements that were created with that subdivision in 1983 had to be vacated. So, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 37 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 34 of 50 although we are vacating the right of way, we have a vacation application to vacate right of way tonight, that vacation is separate -- a different vacation process from vacating a right of way process. So, there is a DA provision that they need to get that completed prior to getting any approvals from the city moving forward. Because this property's been here for a while and the city has some -- it's -- what's interesting about this property is there is some existing sewer easements on some of the parcels as well and that does impact some of the site design and the applicant's been informed of that and been asked to reach out to Public Works prior to the City Council hearing, so that we can make sure that what they are proposing will work for not only you, but also the city. So, if I can just highlight -- if you can see my cursor here. So, currently there is an easement that runs east-west through the property here. It goes across one of the lots and, then, when it's in that unnamed right of way it's in right of way, so the applicant's going to have to work with the city. If the right of way is vacated he is going to have to create a separate easement document in favor of the city to maintain access to our utilities and, then, also along the west boundary of the site, a portion of it right about midway up to the site along this west boundary here, there is an existing trunk line that runs through the development that serves portions of south Meridian. So, that can't -- it's going to be difficult and expensive to move that trunk line and so that was conveyed to the applicant that we need to -- typically on those types of easements we would like a gravel road, so that the vac truck can get to the manholes. But the applicant's going to work and see if they can landscape that -- somehow enhance that as part of the development, realizing that they have to maintain that access for Public Works. You also notice in the staff report I also noted that the applicant's proposing 22.8 percent open space. Again, this is conceptual at this point. Don't have any open space exhibits to demonstrate that. But moving forward and a recommended provision in the development agreement is that the applicant comply with the UDC standards as far as open space and site amenities. Some of that -- and amenities that they called on the concept plan include a clubhouse, a fitness facility, restaurant, spa, salon, internal walking trails, a pool, open grassy areas, a community garden and also various sports courts, bocce ball, putting greens. So, you can see that they are actually gearing towards that retirement lifestyle, if you will, and trying to provide a rich amenity package for this proposed development, which staff is, again, supportive of. The applicant will have to go through that process and comply with standards and make sure -- we will verify all that with the certificate of zoning compliance process. So, one thing unique about this development is it is still classified as multi-family in our -- in our zoning code and so the one thing that I want the Commission to at least take under advisement this evening is the amenity package and the open space, because that is a very critical component of our multi-family developments that we hear over time and time again at these hearings is what's the open space, is there enough, and certainly when we get into 164 units, like this particular development, it doesn't fall on the staff to make that determination, it falls onto this body to make that determination and that's why I highlight that for you this evening, because I can tell you the open space and, then, amenities is greater than what code allows, but we want to make sure that the applicant does have some sort of commitment to what they want to do on the site, not just, well, we may want to do this, we are thinking about that. We at least want to have something -- some certainty from the developer as to what they are really going to commit to as far as open space and that amenity as we transition to staff level approvals. In the staff report I did Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 38 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 35 of 50 note that there was some public testimony for you to take under consideration and, hopefully, you had a chance. Again, a lot of it -- most of it was in support of the project. Staff did not receive any written testimony from the applicant on -- on the application, but we are recommending approval with a development agreement and with that I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Holland: Bill, one question. So, on the -- the slide you just flipped from with the individual units, they would be for rent, not for sale? Is that my understanding? Because, otherwise, they would have to go through a plat process? Or because it's multi-family they are exempt from doing that? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the way the code defines multi-family is just the number of units on a single parcel. It doesn't speak to design. Holland: Sure. Parsons: So, in this particular case, yeah, those would be for rent. We have discussed the possibility of them coming back later and subdividing it and, then, selling off the units and the concept plan that they provided had some preliminary lot lines on there with setbacks, because they want to make sure what they are proposing here works -- Holland: Right. Parsons: -- and if they wanted to subdivide it, but at this point it's not their intent to sell these off at this time, but they will, as far as I know, rent those out to 55 and older demographic. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair. Bill, during a lot of the Comprehensive -- that whole 18 months or whatever, a lot of time was spent on this section and one of the biggest pieces of conversation was about connecting Locust Grove to Eagle in some form or fashion with a -- with roadways and being able to address how that is considered over the long term. With this development it looks like it eats up a major portion of where -- where that would be possible moving forward. Did staff take a look at that concept in relation to this development? Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Grove, we did and that's -- and we were very upfront with the developer that our primary purpose -- one of the objectives with this development is to make sure that that stub street -- if you see the concept plan here -- this mouse isn't going down there, but that -- that is going to be a stub street. He is going to dedicate right of way to make sure that when -- if and when that adjacent subdivision redevelops in the future, consistent with our plan, and they -- they -- something else happens there other than a county development, that that road would punch through and tie back into Locust Grove. That is a critical component to this development and the applicant is going to work with ACHD. As I mentioned to you, this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 39 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 36 of 50 is probably the design that it's going to look like, but through a license agreement they are still going to dedicate the right of way and, then, through a license agreement they will be able to do some of these improvements and use that until such time as the road is extended is how that usually works. Grove: Thank you. Holland: So, the one follow up to that, if -- if that was the case that Wells would get extended in the future, could we make a condition that no lots would have driveways facing Wells? Parsons: Certainly. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, absolutely. We don't want anything fronting on that, because it will become essentially -- essentially a de facto collector. At that point you open that up to Eagle and Locust Grove you are going to get some traffic through there. So, yeah, I don't think -- I can see what you are saying with those one units fronting on there, they could maybe orient them differently. Something the applicant could maybe address for you this evening. Holland: Sure. Parsons: It's a good thought. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Any other questions for staff? With that I will have the applicant come forward and share with us a little bit. Is the applicant here? Trying to decide who is going to speak. You drew the short stick. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for us I would appreciate it. Sammis: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Clay Sammis. I live at 133 Simpson, in Ketchum -- Ketchum, Idaho. I didn't -- I apologize, I was talking to my architect. So, I'm here to answer questions. But if -- is that -- is that what your -- did you have questions? Holland: We would allow you to -- you have got up to 15 minutes if you have anything else you want to share beyond what staff shared with us. Sammis: We are going to tag team this together. Holland: Perfect. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record for us as well. Garner: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thanks for letting us be here tonight. Jeremy Garner. My address is 489 East Lockhart here in Meridian. Before I forget, though, my partner reminded me -- I want to thank the homeowners that we have been working with in both Woodbridge and Locust View Heights. They have been very supportive of us. We did go through the process of doing several neighborhood meetings and we have been the beneficiaries of becoming what we hope to be really good neighbors within -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 40 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 37 of 50 through this project. So, obviously, the concept for this plan -- Meridian continues to be a destination for retirement with the mild climate and we feel that this project here is -- is very well suited for what we want to do and how much we feel strongly about this particular product and how well it will do here. So, obviously, the -- Bill did a good job laying out exactly what we want to try to accomplish with this -- with this product and you will notice that -- I'm glad he talked about the open space and the amenities, which I think hit on what really is needed in this -- in this valley and for this particular target market, which we feel very strongly about as well. So, stand for any other questions that you may have. Unless we are missing something, but -- Holland: Any questions for the applicant? I believe we will have some public testimony, So, we will give you guys a chance to come back up in a little bit if we have more questions for you. Garner: Sounds good. Thanks. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Madam Clerk, I believe we have several sign-ins for testimony tonight. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do. We have seven people signed up to -- that signed in, but none wish to testify. Holland: Is there anyone in here that would like to testify? I see one hand in the back. If you want to come forward. That's okay. If you didn't sign in you can still come forward and we will just have you put your name and address on the record and you have got three minutes to share with us. McKinley: Okay. Maybe it will take longer, since I don't know how to work this. I can't really see this very well, but I would like to -- I would like to try. Could somebody -- Holland: If you wouldn't mind go ahead -- if you wouldn't mind pulling the microphone down towards you and, then, saying your name and address for the record. McKinley: Monica McKinley. 1080 South Torino Avenue and I'm in Meridian. Holland: Okay. McKinley: I would like to start out by showing you where I live, but I don't know how to work this. Could somebody please tell me how to click back into the -- the bigger picture? Hopefully this won't take away from my three minutes. Nope. Nope. Right there. That one right there. Okay. This -- this piece of -- this R1 that is right here that is adjacent to here, I believe this is the subdivision that they said that they had contacted and may -- and that they were working with it. Am I correct in saying that? Okay. This is my house right here. I have lived here for 25 years. We have not been contacted by them whatsoever. He just stood up and stated that they -- they have had neighborhood meetings with us. That is not true. We have not had a single neighborhood meeting with Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 41 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 38 of 50 them. He has not contacted anybody in -- in -- in my neighborhood. As far as I know they have contacted these four homes right here and that's it. So, we were not given any notification at all about what they were doing. Tonight is the first time that I have been -- that I have seen any of the development. This is the first-- I haven't even been contacted. The only reason that I know about this is because I was told by one of these four people that this meeting was coming. So, for them to stand up here and say that they have had meetings with our neighborhood, that's not true. For them to say that they have been working with us, that's not true. They may have had contact with -- with maybe one or two people on this back lot, but that's not -- that's not true at all. I would specifically like to talk about this stub street -- this stub right here. I am not necessarily opposed to any of this, other than the -- other than the rental part. If -- if it's rentals versus people purchasing -- seniors purchasing, that's a different story. But this stub street right here is very important to me, because in the Comprehensive Plan -- how do I go back? I don't know what I did. Holland: Bill, can you click back two slides for her. One more. McKinley: One more. Yeah. Thank you. So, in the Comprehensive Plan they have a provision to put a road right through my front yard that goes as a frontage road right through 1-84 that would -- that would connect and go right here. So, if our neighborhood were to have a meeting with the developers, we would -- we would want to make sure that there would not be any stub roads out this direction, because we do not want to be annexed into the city. We do not want to be -- we want to remain R1 and this has been a big contention as -- as Mr. Parsons probably is very well aware of and as he stated -- he stated that -- you also stated that there were empty lots. Could you, please, tell me where the empty lots are? When you made your -- when you made your statement you said that there was empty lots to the west. Parsons: Sure. No, ma'am. I just to the north. I said the north had single family residents, but to the east were the vacant lots and the single family residents. McKinley: Okay. Okay. All right. All right. I misunderstood then. I thought you meant -- so, anyway. So, my public testimony is that -- is that we were not -- we weren't -- we weren't -- we were not given any kind of notification that this project was being done at all. We weren't notified and -- and if this is to be approved this evening at least some of us in here that we would like to be notified and we would like those stub -- the stub roads removed in the plans and we want to make sure that -- that the -- this -- this portion here -- oops. What -- this -- this -- why does it keep doing that? I'm trying to -- this -- this -- this portion right here remains open space and not a road, because we don't want a road here through our subdivision and we do not want these --this stub road here. That affects our house. Holland: We are past time and I really appreciate your -- McKinley: All right. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 42 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 39 of 50 Holland: -- your comments and -- McKinley: Do you have any questions? Holland: I will answer a couple of-- of the questions that you had. So, if you are located on the -- the west side of the Locust View Subdivision -- McKinley: I'm in Locust View Subdivision. Holland: Correct. So, they have -- whenever there is a development that comes forward they have certain noticing requirements they have to meet by code. So, they are required to post signage on their sites and they are also required to do a 300 foot radius of the proposed property -- proposed development boundaries. So, it's likely that you were outside of that 300 feet, which is probably why you didn't receive any notification. McKinley: Well, they are only -- we are all one acre parcels. So, there are 60 -- there is 63 parcels in -- in this square. Holland: Right. McKinley: There is 63. So, when they say that they have notified our subdivision, that's not true. And when he says that they were working with our subdivision that's not true either. Holland: They are required to hold a neighborhood meeting for anybody that receives a postcard within the 300 feet. McKinley: We did -- they did not have any -- they did not have that. Holland: Well -- McKinley: There was no neighborhood meeting. Holland: I appreciate your comments. McKinley: Thank you. Holland: Thanks for being here. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please come forward. Rennison: My name is Pat Rennison and I live at 990 Mustang Street. My backyard is adjacent to this development and I have written a letter in support of them. It is true that people on the west side were not sent the cards, only the Mustang Street, we are the only ones that received postcards for this and they have had two meetings and some of us did attend -- on Mustang Street we did attend those meetings and so that has -- also Ryan and Glenna Newby that are about three doors down from Mrs. McKinley, they sent out a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 43 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 40 of 50 news e-mail that this was going to happen tonight and several people have come tonight in support of this subdivision. We are happy and we do agree with Mrs. Newby, though, that -- Mrs. Newby. Oops. Mrs. McKinley that that stub street we do not wish that to go through and we don't -- eventually I know that was in the Comprehensive Plan, we have been very active for over a year now since February 12th of last year of not having a through street come through our subdivision. Because at this point we are a contained subdivision with only the one street in period and it has made it a very cohesive neighborhood. We have four families that are three generations in our neighborhood, where the children have grown up, their children have married, come back and are now raising their children in the neighborhood and that is one reason we don't want it to be a thoroughfare. So, thank you very much. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Last call. Anyone else like to testify? We have got one more hand in the back. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record. Valdez: My name is Barbara Valdez. I live at 2220 East Continental. I live in Locust View Heights Subdivision. About the middle of the subdivision. I would withdraw my letter of -- of approving of the subdivision based on the fact that this sub road would, as Pat has said, destroy our subdivision. We indicated our approval for the subdivision, because Cadillac Drive would not have been extended with this development. We were unaware, either in the presentation or in our maybe failure to study the development, but a stub road was included in it. It was not emphasized and I emphasized to developers that we wanted to preserve our subdivision. No notice was made. No attention called to the stub road, which was a major feature changing our entire subdivision. So, as much as I'm able to approve of that subdivision or support it for environmental reasons, for preserving stream, for construction of buildings themselves, I cannot support it because of the effect on traffic, of quiet neighborhoods, and the fact that the diversity that's represented by their piece, Woodbridge piece and our piece is -- would be lost and it would become a victim of commercial development, which none of us really buffering one another would benefit from. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Before the applicant comes back I might just take a second to answer a couple of the questions that were -- were concerned here. One note is having this development come in does not change the zoning of the neighborhood in Locust View Heights and nor does it put a road through there. The stub road is something that's typically required from ACHD and they certainly would have to -- this development would have to meet whatever standards ACHD would require, but it's -- it's simply that it would be a stub road that would end and the road would not go through unless there was another redevelopment to happen. So, if the neighbors decided they wanted to stay in their one acre lots, there would be nothing that would change that in the future, unless they were to sell and a new developer would come in to build something there. So, just wanted to put that out there. This doesn't mean -- putting a stub road there doesn't mean that it's going to be a road that goes through Locust View Heights, it just means that if it was ever to redevelop a hundred years from now, there would be the ability to have interconnectivity with the road to the east. So, I just wanted to -- to point that out there Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 44 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 41 of 50 as a comment. And I know I talked a little bit about the public noticing process, but developments are required to do a 300 foot radius for where the postcards go to. They do have to have their neighborhood meetings. They have signs posted on the property saying that they are going to come forward for a rezone or for an annexation. So, it's always unfortunate if you live outside of that boundary and you haven't heard about it, but I'm glad you were able to be here today so you could share some of your thoughts with us, so we appreciate that. With that I will ask the applicant to come back forward if they would like to address any other further concerns, have other comments that they would like to share with us. And if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record again we would appreciate it. Garner: Yes. Jeremy Garner. 489 East Lockhart, Meridian. Sammis: Clay Sammis at 133 Simpson, Ketchum, Idaho. I'm feeling horrible, actually, because our proposal is exactly kind of what the -- what the neighbors at Locust were talking about. We have a cul-de-sac currently in the southern portion -- if we could pull up the site plan. I don't know if I go back one or forward. But there is a current cul-de- sac not shown here in order to access our site. I have always represented -- we have been representing that there is an extension of the right of way for extending the cul-de- sac. We are trying to get it to be a hammerhead. ACHD -- to just elaborate on the deal points with ACHD, they have just today agreed to do a cul-de-sac with a hammerhead within it. So, the hammerhead meets the fire code, which we already worked out with the building fire marshal and -- and, then, the cul-de-sac will meet ACHD. So, I, too, believe a fence at the end and a little bit of landscaping right at the end, because of the unforeseen time that this would be extended, if it would be extended when -- 30, 40 or a hundred lots get purchased and a road gets put through all at once. Again, that's --that's where we landed. That's what I have always represented. So, we have extended our cul-de-sac to access the houses on the west side of the property and I think, again, you have already elaborated on a couple meetings we had and I believe my last statement addresses my representation to Mrs. Valdez and, then, also for Mrs. McKinley. Do you have any -- Garner: If I could just say as well, we -- we followed all the regulatory guidelines for noticing through the whole process. So, I apologize if we -- if we weren't clear on -- on any of that, but I think we have --we have met those standards in our application process, so -- Holland: Appreciate that. Sammis: Do you have any other questions for us while we are here or -- Holland: Any questions for the applicant? No one's jumping up and down to ask questions, so I think you guys are set. Garner: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 45 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 42 of 50 Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Sammis: Thank you very much. And, again, thank you for staff and Bill. I didn't get a chance to -- to thank both the Commissioners and staff for working on this project with us. And the neighbors. Thank you. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing on H-2019-0127. Holland: Got a motion. Pitzer: Second. Holland: Motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, do you want to go first? McCarvel: Sure. I love this. I think this looks like a great addition into this area. Kind of just exactly what it needs. It is -- I know we have had some, quote, multi-family proposals in this area before, but this is night and day from what was proposed a few years ago up around the corner. Even though it's technically multi-family, I think it's beautiful. I think it's in the right location. I love the amount of green space and close to everything. I mean having senior living arrangements close to all the medical and a lot self contained as far as activities and even a restaurant limits traffic even more going from back there. I do think it is important. I -- you know, that street that is going to be a dead end street, but preparing for what may happen 20, 40, 60, 80 years in the future. I think it's important to keep those -- those ways open for potential, otherwise, you close everything off permanently. But I love it. With the -- and with the open space and especially our Chair's comments about putting in the --that no lots face Wells,just for those exact future options. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: I -- I agree with Commissioner McCarvel. I love this. I mean this is a great concept plan, not only that it's -- it's close to medical. I think I want to move there myself. You know, it's -- it's beautiful. I -- I -- as far as the stub street. Don't sell your property then it won't go through. But, yeah, we need to plan for the future. But this is -- I -- I have no negative comments for this project as I see it. Holland: Thank you. Commissioner Grove. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 46 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 43 of 50 Grove: I'm pretty interested in this. I mean, you know, sat through a lot of the Comprehensive Plan, seeing the mixed use designation used, in particular in this fashion, that fits with the dynamic around it in terms of other residential, commercial, hospital roads. I -- I think this makes sense and it's well laid out, well thought through. I really like how they have thought of the different aspects to make this function as an entire concept coming in and I like the open space as well, especially along Five Mile Creek. So, I'm definitely in favor of this project. Holland: I would echo a lot of the comments made. I always like seeing mixed use concepts and I like that there is a lot of amenities here. One thing Bill mentioned in his staff report is that he would like us to give some specifics on what amenities and open space we would like to see if this moves forward, because if they are -- the only -- it will not come back in front of us as a plat, it will just be this development. So, that might be something we want to consider. I would still stand on -- on not wanting to have any lots face Wells, just for long term planning sake, but, again, I stand by the comments I made earlier that there is no intention for that road to go through right now. There is no -- I mean I don't see that road going through in even five to ten years, unless somebody was to sell their lots and see something else come through there. It's not going to be immediate. It's just planning for future in case that ever happens at some point. So, again, same -- same comment, if, you know, those one acre lots stay in place there is not going to be a need for a road to go through there, it's only in case that there would be a development that happens at some point in the future, whether that's 50 years from now, a hundred years from now, two hundred years from now. They could stay exactly the same with no -- no changes there. So, I -- I always appreciate when we get comments from the public. I want to thank you for the letters of testimony we got. I want to thank you for the folks that have shown up here to wait it out with us until 8:00 o'clock in the evening on a Thursday night. Overall I like the concepts as well. I like that there is lots of walking paths throughout the neighborhood. It seems like an adequate transition from residential that's there. It's not going to be a -- it's targeted at 55 and older, I believe, for the entire development. So, it's not going to be a super active area with lots of kids running around. It will -- it will be a quieter subdivision and I think it's a nice transition for what's in the vicinity. So, with that -- I don't know how we quantify what amenities and open space we want to see in there, but I know in the staff report there was a list of what types of amenities are required in multi-family developments and some comments that perhaps we could give a recommendation of how many of those we wanted to see come forward. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: I think Bill had a -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of -- of the Commission, certainly you can do it multiple ways. One is -- and I was hoping you would ask the applicant what they would commit to, but you can open it up and ask what they are willing to commit to as part of the record and we will move forward with that or you can look at the list there and say you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 47 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 44 of 50 like all of them or the ones that got to be there they have to be there and we can include that in the development agreement. Holland: So, yeah, I wish I had asked that question before, too. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. I'm sorry. Commissioner Pitzer I think had a comment earlier, too. Pitzer: Thank you. Madam Chair, can I ask Bill. Is -- is keeping the balconies and the patios, is that something that we could put in as part of it? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly. I mean the way the code is written right now the multi-family units have to have a minimum square footage of private patio or open yard -- some kind of front porch patio and it's 80 square feet. So, if you want all the units to have that or comply with the -- right now the code -- the way I have the DA structured says you comply, unless you go through the alternative compliance. So, if you want to strike that from the DA provision you are welcome to do that and I can tell you what DA provision that is and what -- and what to get rid of if you don't want them to seek that. Pitzer: Okay. And for the multi-story that -- that -- that holds true for the multi-story? Parsons: Yeah. It would be for -- for -- all the units have to meet that standard. Pitzer: Okay. Parsons: The single family style and the apartment style. Let me look that up for you really quick. Pitzer: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would be open to opening the hearing again to -- some commitments from the applicant on amenities and open space. Holland: I would certainly entertain a motion if you would like to do so. McCarvel: I -- so moved. Holland: Motion to reopen the public hearing to hear just from the applicants on open space. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 48 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 45 of 50 Holland: Do I have a second. McCarvel: I will second it. Holland: You can't second. McCarvel: I know. Holland: It's seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Would the applicant, please, come back forward and speak with us a little bit about open space. Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, while the applicant comes back up for some additional testimony, it looks like it's DA provision E and it would be item number three, multi-family private usable open space standards. You would want to strike that from that DA provision if you want them to comply with the 80 square feet. Sammis: I could speak to the -- the open space, which I guess addresses -- really it's intended for -- but I like the term open space, because -- Holland: Would you mind stating your name one more time just for the recorder. I appreciate it. Sammis: Yeah. No. Thank you. Clay Sammis. Holland: Thank you. Sammis: We -- we are near double the open space. So, we have taken some areas that would normally be on balconies and created gatherings -- I'm going to speak specifically to the apartments, because I believe we can meet the 80 square feet on all the cottages. It's just the apartment, if you think of 80 square feet where you might have a four foot deck -- that's a 20 foot long deck. I think -- we can't afford 20 foot long decks per unit. We do have a deck per unit. So, we -- we can -- we can have a deck for each unit and many of them are on the ground floor that -- that may spill out to become more than 80 square feet, but -- but I think the design in my mind reads well. It's broken up well with balconies and we don't have an entire line of -- the whole frontage being balconies. So, I -- I would ask you to consider allowing us to work with staff to come up with good design and decks that work functionally for these seniors, but aren't, you know, four by 20 feet long, because typically on this type of multi-story building you don't cantilever out or go out, you know, ten -- ten feet for a deck. So, the other was on the amenities. It's probably a number, because we -- I can't -- we won't commit to, you know, doubling the amenities, but -- but just by the nature of the senior housing and our -- and our use and our 55 plus and the way we have laid out this, that's what's going to separate us from the competitors. That's what's important to us is fitness, the hiking trails for the outdoor, for just mindful awareness and good health and -- and so including -- and typically we would have a spa and salon and you can speak to -- the fitness center is its own building. So, yes, that's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 49 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 46 of 50 intended to be a fitness center and clubhouse for -- for the north. I know that we can meet and exceed the amenities, but specifically which ones I would love some flexibility and -- Holland: Sure. Sammis: Maybe it's a quantity that we are talking about. Garner: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Jeremy Garner. 489 East Lockhart. Meridian. Having been in the industry -- senior living industry and -- and knowing on an apartment style, multi-family style complex like this, you will have a certain number of residents who -- who don't want or would rather have the space inside per se than to have an actual outside patio. But for those folks we have on -- on particular floors we will have surveillance decks or -- or outdoor areas that they can actually go out and look over certain parts of the area north of there. So, there will be public access to places in the building where they can actually go out and look and not necessarily have one in their individual unit per se and we would like the flexibility to be able to offer that. And, then, as far as amenities go in order for us to be competitive I think we -- we go well beyond what the requirements are in the development agreement -- or what's in the code currently with what we are trying to offer here and I think the open space, obviously, is one that we really feel strongly about. It kind of goes back to what our vision mission statement is for -- for what we want Andorra to be and we really do feel very strongly about the fact that there is a therapeutic concept to having outdoor space and to being outdoors and so it really does play into what we want to utilize as our marketing strategies and having this be a place for people to really want to be a part of. Holland: And I think all of us see that you have got an interest in having really nice amenities and a really nice subdivision or concept here. What would you feel comfortable with on number of amenities that we would put in there? And I think it's just to have a safeguard moving forward that things wouldn't change after it moves out of here. Sammis: Offhand at six to eight. Garner: Yeah. I think-- I mean if you are -- if we are calling like the spa, salon, the fitness area, the, you know, outdoor pickleball, walking paths -- I think six to eight is probably -- I think we can exceed that, actually, but if you could keep it at that, then, we can really probably work with you on that. Holland: So, would you feel comfortable if we said we wanted to make sure we saw 20 percent open space and six amenities, that would be reasonable to you? Sammis: We have always represented the way we understand the code to be, to hit like 20 percent. Not having done an exhibit I guess I can look back at the architects, you know, and -- but -- but, again, they have done just the exhibit based on the site plan. So, we haven't -- you know, for all the areas that count or don't count or-- and it's back to the amenities. Like our amenities might be -- you know, might have 12, but you -- per the code you might only call those eight. So, that's kind of where I'm -- I kind of -- I kind of -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 50 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 47 of 50 1 would want to say we can do near double, but to say absolutely we have 20, 1 mean that's -- it's -- Holland: Sure. Sammis: -- we should have ten percent cushion from what we have calculated, but I would -- I would ask for something in between, if you could consider that, so we have a safety net and we will strive for 20. We are currently sitting at 22. If it's calculated the same way we did it, well, then, we made it, because we don't intend to peel back that open space. Holland: Great. Any other questions for the applicant? I think that's it. Thank you, gentlemen. Garner: Thank you. Sammis: Thank you very much. Holland: With that I need a motion to close the public hearing again. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Move to close the public hearing on H-2019-0127. Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Pitzer: Second. Holland: All those in favor? No opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: I think after hearing what they -- they said, I don't know that I need -- I feel like we need to strike the DA -- E-3 requirement. I think letting them work with staff to find packages that would be appropriate or -- it seems fine to me. Because I think having an 800 foot balcony on each unit seems like a lot -- McCarvel: Eighty. Holland: That's what I meant. Eight hundred feet would be really a lot. That would be quite some engineering, so -- I would love to see what that would look like. Yeah. Eighty feet would be -- I would say let's just let them work with staff on the decking per unit, because it sounds like their intent is to have a deck on each unit and have some other viewing areas and I would much rather see larger -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 51 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 48 of 50 Pitzer: Yeah. Madam Chair, I -- I agree. I was just concerned about another development we went through and we didn't have anything in there and it was zero. Holland: We could certainly look at putting a condition that says we would like every unit to have a deck and leave that at that. I don't know that I even want to get that close. But I would just say I would rather have them work with staff to find an appropriate solution that meets code and creates a nice product. Pitzer: I agree. I think if we follow the concept that we are looking I -- I would feel pretty good about that. Holland: Yeah. McCarvel Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I agree. I think they know their market and I think working with staff and to have some apartments -- I mean that just have -- maybe have more indoor space rather than outdoor and use of the common and I agree -- the representation of this -- I think the only reason to have to put in the number of amenities and open space is -- just to safeguard. I think they are going to do a fabulous job and just since we don't get another stab at this, then, I think that's the only reason. Holland: And I struggled on whether or not we should put a percentage on the open space. I said 20, because they have proposed 22.8, but, again, that wasn't calculated with an actual plat, so I'm not sure what would count as acceptable open space. But, Bill, if you have any thoughts there. Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. My spider sense went off, so I figured I better chime in. Difficult for 20 percent and I'm going to tell you why. It's because the calculations. There is a ratio there and don't have all of those details yet, so I don't know if they are going to come in at 18 percent, 15 percent, 22 percent -- it just -- it's -- it's up in the air right now. That's why in the DA provision I said they just need to comply with code, because we don't know what that number is. I don't know what's qualified as open space and what isn't at this point. In the multi-family standards it has to be 20 by 20 and 400 square feet to count. So, we are going to have to measure between each of the units and figure out what that is. So, I don't want to commit to a solid number. All I wanted to do is just bring it to your attention that we do have a higher quality development and -- and a very rich amenity package for this development. We are talking a clubhouse, multiple sports courts, all of those things meet the criteria of a multi-family development. I just don't want things to happen where -- for example, we have -- we have an expectation for a clubhouse and all of a sudden we are getting a plaza with a gazebo. That's not an equal life or like amenity and that's happened and we want to make sure that doesn't happen in this particular case. I --yes, I have a -- I have worked with the developer, I understand their commitment here, but I wanted something definitive. We are going to do a fitness facility. We are Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 52 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 49 of 50 going to do a clubhouse. We are going to do a pool. We are going to do -- and they have to do the pathway. They are going to do inter-connected walkways. I agree. They have to do that. They want to link -- that's part -- part of the mixed use standards. You have got to connect this development and make it integrated. I don't see that changing. What I get concerned with is just watering down things once they start crunching numbers and figuring the actual costs out and this -- like you said, this is a pretty -- pretty nice project and if you guys are comfortable with what --just saying as proposed, we can do that and we can figure it out later and work with staff or work with staff -- or say even ten or 12 amenities isn't going to get it done for me. I mean I -- their concept plan calls out these amenities and so I'm not sure where the salon and spa falls into that. To me that's just more of a function of the use for -- for that. So, I don't know if I would classify those as amenities per the multi-use standards or multi-family standards and open space standards. But certainly all the other things that they are proposing I certainly would classify as that. Again, the concept plan calls out those things. If you want to tie them to that it's certainly within your purview. If you are comfortable with what I have, them just complying with code, and we can work those out, I'm happy with that as well. I have got it covered either way. Holland: Thanks, Bill. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Bill, is saying some verbiage such as amenities and open space as represented by the applicant, does that get you close enough to some teeth into this or not? Parsons: I don't want to get in a situation where staff has to go back to the public record to figure out what your interpretation was. We need -- we need to have black and white on these -- this development agreement, because we don't have another bite at the apple unless it gets -- I mean, obviously, the agreement can be amended. What we can do is moving forward to City Council the applicant can bring forward a more detailed list for them to take under consideration. That may be the more flexible route to go at this point. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: And I think one thing we could do is, you know, with certain amenities that they have listed here that we think are non-negotiables, so I would say I feel comfortable saying we would like to make sure that they come back with at least six amenities, including a clubhouse, a fitness facility, walking trails, open grassy areas and if we wanted to name a couple other things, whether you want the restaurant, the pool -- I know restaurants can be tough in a development like this, so I don't know that I want to necessarily tie them to that. It could end up being that they just do a coffee shop there at some point. Or, you know, maybe they find that a neighborhood store makes more sense Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 53 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 50 of 50 for some of the residents -- some sort of convenience location. I want to leave that up to their interpretation, too, but -- Parsons: Exactly. It could be a business center if somebody wants to run a business out of there. You just don't know at this point. There is a -- there is a lot of options here that they just don't know -- the market is going to drive that a little bit and they are going to know that better than we will. Holland: But I think if we want to be specific in including a couple of those things, I would say making sure we have a clubhouse, fitness facility listed, connected walking trails with open grassy areas, those are the ones that seem most important to me and that they would have a minimum of six to eight amenities. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Do we have a thought on the amount of open space you want to tie this to? Holland: I don't think so. I think you leave it to what code requires and have them work with staff. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Any other thoughts? I would certainly entertain a motion if someone wants to try one. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council file number H-2019-0127 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5th, 2020, with the following modifications: That no lots -- with the addition of no lots facing Wells and that the open space meet minimum code and close to represented by the applicant, along with six to eight amenities, including clubhouse, fitness center, and trails with open grassy areas. To work with staff on the remainder. Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Holland: All right. All those in favor? Any opposed? Andorra Senior Living is moving forward to Council. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 54 of 266 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 5,2020 Page 51 of 50 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: With that I believe we just have one more motion of the evening. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we -- we adjourn. Grove: Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED LISA HOLLAND - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 19,2020— Page 55 of 266 E IDIAN IDAHO 100row PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA March 19, 2020 Agenda Item Number: 3 B Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian Station (H- 2019-0142) Meeting Notes: WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item - 3.A. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 Title of Item -Approve M inutes of February 20, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting mosok A ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Upload Meeting Minutes Minutes 2/25/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 4 of 214 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 20,2020 Page 60 of 60 Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we call it a night and adjourn. Grove: Second. Holland: All those in favor. All right. Meeting adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:13 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 03 1 05 2020 LISA HOLLAND - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 64 of 214 WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item - 3.B. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: Title of Item - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Day Wireless(H-2019-0115) by Day Wireless, Located at 1668 E. Franklin Rd. A,&w AL ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Upload Findings Findings/Orders 2/24/2020 Exhibit A Exhibit 2/24/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 65 of 214 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 1DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility, Located at 1668 E.Franklin Rd.in the I-L Zoning District,by Day Wireless. Case No(s).H-2019-0115 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 20,2020(Findings on March 5, 2020) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 2/20/2020, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 2/20/2020, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 2/20/2020, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 2/20/2020,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. 11-7 84 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 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0115 Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 66 of 214 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of February 20,2020,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 20, 2020, 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 11-513-6F.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 11-513-617.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.17.1,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 2/20/2020 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0115 Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 67 of 214 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 5th day of March ,2020. COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED Aye COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL VOTED Aye COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICIA PITZER VOTED Aye COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED --- COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED Aye Lisa Holland,Vice Chairperson Attest: Chris Johnson,City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 3-5-2020 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2019-0115 Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 68 of 214 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 2/20/2020 Legend DATE: a Project Location 0 qmgtr r TO: Planning&Zoning Commission , FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 8 Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager ® _ 208-887-2211 ' ,x EH SUBJECT: H-2019-0115 `'� `- m ` �' � Day Wireless Systems,Wireless TTT Communication Facility LOCATION: The site is located at 1668 E. Franklin Road,in the SW 1/4 of Section 8, - --- Township 3N.,Range IE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a new 125-foot tall(self-support steel lattice tower)wireless communication facility in the I-L zoning district that doesn't comply with UDC 11-4-3-43C.8,which prohibits lattice designed structures, as required by UDC 11-4-3-43C-10,by Day Wireless. II. PROJECT SUMMARY Description Details Page Acreage 2.5 Future Land Use Designation General Industrial Existing Land Use 1 Industrial/Flex Building with associated parking lots. Proposed Land Use(s) Wireless communication facility(125'tall self-supporting steel tower for emergency responder radio antennae) Current Zoning I-L Proposed Zoning N/A _ Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of attendees: August 13,2019; 6 attendees History(previous approvals) H-2017-0121; DA Instrument#2017-119617; CZC & DES A-2018-0370. Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 69 of 214 1 1 1 :rill. - • - • -�` . LU Will �' A►. ANKLIN — I` _ — • — sons -111-111 ■...� A K ...� 1 MEN 0 MEN NJ IN - 1.11.. - I.I.f �fllryllllll _ . - . . . ' `�� ®=PINE' % . - . . . ���■ w FRANKLIN *���FRANKL=IN '— n■ son■■u■ �' - ■■■■■ l!! on ■■■■ !!! a ion _ .�f■ ....■ ■ioii�i�■■■■■ ■■ f... ■on ■\ �•r err .....■ :. .o III ICI � = ■.r.n.��� ■■■■■■■■� 11 r�� .► ....�� rlll 1,- Il ♦. - 1,- I.N ♦ 1 1 , • , i- 1 • 1.1 � �. 1 � • • i 1. 1 1 1 1 •. �. 4700 SE International Way,Milwaukie, OR 97222 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Postin Date Legal notice published in newspaper 1/31/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 1000 feet 1/28/2020 Nextdoor posting 1/28/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted on property 2/7/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan(Comprehensive Plan) The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the subject property as General Industrial. The purpose of the General Industrial designation is to allow a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units,light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and office uses. In some cases uses may include processing,manufacturing,warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The proposed development demonstrates compliance with the following policies of the Plan: • "Provide facilities and services that keep up with growth."(3.01.01 &3.01.01H) Day Wireless Systems provides radio communication services (two-way radios) that are used by first responders and for pagers in hospitals. The proposed facility will help provide these types of communication services to their service populations. • "Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets."(3.06.02D) The property already utilizes two existing access points to this site; one via E. Franklin Road, and one via NLocust Grove Road. No new accesses via the arterial streets are proposed. • "Encourage industrial development to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses."(3.06.01C) The proposed wireless facility is adjacent to multiple existing industrial uses and Staff believes it is compatible in general design and function to the existing facilities surrounding this parcel. • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels."(3.06.01F) The closest residential property to the project site is separated by an arterial street and Fivemile Creek and is approximately 500'south of the project site in the Shallow Creek Subdivision. Page 3 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 71 of 214 B. Existing Structure(s)/Site Improvements: The majority of this 2.5 acre site is developed with a multi-tenant flex building and associated parking, design, and landscaping. Day Wireless Systems has a network operations center in one of the tenant spaces. C. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted with this application that depicts how the northeast corner of the subject parcel is proposed to develop with a 24.5' x 24.5' (600 square feet)tower foundation for a 125-foot tall steel lattice self-supported tower and associated equipment for Day Wireless Systems (see Section VII.A). The tower will be co-locatable for at least one(1) additional user and will support panel antennas;there is no ground mounted equipment being proposed with this application. The project site is part of a larger 2.5 acre parcel on which a multi-tenant flex building and related improvements have been approved. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed wireless communication facility is listed as a permitted use in the I-L zoning district. With conditional use permit approval, the tower may be of alternative design and is always subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43: Wireless Communication Facility(see below analysis).A monopole wireless tower is permitted by right and would only require a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application.However, the proposed tower design (steel lattice)is only allowed through a conditional use permit as stated in UDC 11-4-3-43. The applicant states the additional support from a steel lattice design offers better long-term sustainability for towers at the 125'height proposed. The proposed facility will allow for continued service to support first responders and internal hospital communications;this facility will help provide service for two-way radio and is the companies'replacement of two (2)facilities in Boise,ID. Due to the type of wireless communication this tower provides(radio antennae for life-safety two-way radios),propagation maps are not required at this time.If other wireless communication equipment is collocated onto this tower,propagation maps will be required. Note that Ada County has issued a denial letter to Day Wireless Systems regarding their request to collocate on their existing tower,located at 963 E. Pine Ave., approximately%mile away from this site.Ada County dispatch center received CUP approval in 2014(CUP-14-018) for their new facility and a 180'steel lattice tower for the same type of life-safety radio communications.In the CUP approved for Ada County Dispatch, it was agreed upon to allow for future collocation of wireless communication equipment. Other than a letter,Ada County did not provide any other reasoning for their denial of this collocation. However,Day Wireless has submitted letters stating that surrounding towers do not have the available mounting space at the height required for their equipment to function properly;the Applicant's Radio Frequency Engineer has also issued a letter supporting this new tower and its capacities that are needed by Day Wireless Systems and their new operations center located at this site. (see section VILF and VIL G). Staff is providing this additional detail to the Commission for their consideration. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-43): (Staffs comments in italics) Process(11-4-3-43C): 1. All proposed communication towers shall be designed(structurally and electrically)to accommodate the applicant's antennas as well as collocation for at least one additional user. Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 72 of 214 The proposed tower will accommodate at least one additional user using the proposed steel lattice design. 2. A proposal for a new commercial communication tower shall not be approved unless the decision making body finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved structure and/or tower. The Applicant submitted a letter from the closest tower owner stating denial of collocation. Please see additional analysis above. 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate the proposed tower or antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or structure. One or more of the following documentation shall be provided as proof that the new tower is necessary: a. Unwillingness of other tower or facility owners to entertain shared use. The applicant has provided a letter from Ada County stating they are choosing not to collocate the additional equipment at their site. b. The proposed collocation of an existing tower or facility would be in violation of any state or federal law. c. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing towers,as documented by a qualified and licensed structural engineer. d. The planned equipment would cause interference,materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment on the tower as documented by a qualified and licensed engineer. e. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer. The Applicant has submitted a response letter stating the existing towers in the area do not have available mounting space for their equipment at the height(minimum 120 feet) required to function and serve reasonably(see section VII.F) Required Documentation: 1. For all wireless communication facilities, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his,her or its successors to allow the shared use of the tower, as required by this section,if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use.A Letter of Intent was submitted with this application as required and is included in Section VII.C. 2. Propagation charts showing existing and proposed transmission coverage at the subject site and within an area large enough to provide an understanding of why the facility needs to be in the chosen location.Propagation maps were not required with this submittal due to the type of wireless communication equipment being proposed. 3. A statement regarding compliance with regulations administered and enforced by the federal communications commission(FCC) and/or the federal aviation administration(FAA).A statement was submitted with this application as required and is included in Section VII.D. Design Standards(11-4-3-43EZ All new communication towers shall meet the following minimum design standards: 1. All towers shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings and land uses in the zoning district,or otherwise integrated to blend in with existing characteristics of the site.Staff believes the existing landscape buffer on the property to the Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 73 of 214 north, the existence of a warehouse storage building directly to the east, and the existing flex building on site match the characteristics of the proposed tower and surrounding areas. 2. The facility shall be painted a neutral,non-reflective color that will blend with the surrounding landscape. Recommended shades are gray,beige, sand,taupe,or light brown.All metal shall be corrosive resistant or treated to prevent corrosion. The proposed tower will be neutral in color and all metal will be corrosive resistant. 3. All new communication tower facilities shall be of stealth or monopole design,unless the decision making body determines that an alternative design would be appropriate because of location or necessity. The applicant is applying for this conditional use permit for the proposed wireless facility to be of a steel lattice design rather than a stealth monopole design; a monopole design would not require a conditional use permit in the I-L zoning district. 4. No part of any antenna,disk, array or other such item attached to a communications tower shall be permitted to overhang any part of the right of way or property line.No part of any antenna, disk, array or other equipment attached to the communications tower is proposed to overhang any part of the property line. 5. The facility shall not be allowed within any required street landscape buffer. The facility is proposed outside of any required street buffers. 6. All new communication tower facility structures require administrative design review approval,in addition to any other necessary permits. Structures contained within an underground vault are exempt from this standard. The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Design Review application concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the facility prior to application for a building permit. 7. Any equipment at ground level shall be screened by a sight obscuring fence or structure. The facility is proposed to be screened by a sight obscuring fence; any ground level equipment will be contained within the fenced area. 8. All tower facilities shall include a landscape buffer. The buffer shall consist of a landscape strip of at least five feet(5)wide outside the perimeter of the compound. A minimum of fifty percent(50%) of the plant material shall be of an evergreen variety. In locations where the visual impact of the tower is minimal,the applicant may request a reduction to these standards through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5, "Administration",of this title. The Applicant submitted a request for Director approval of alternative compliance to these landscape standards based on the location of the existing flex building in relation to this tower and property line and the existing uses of the surrounding parcels. The applicant states that requiring this landscape buffer would interfere with future development and required truck paths on the property around the existing flex building. The Applicant doesn't feel a landscape buffer is necessary for the north and east sides of this site as the adjacent parcels are also zoned I-L and is proposing to erect a minimum 6'high vinyl privacy fence to offer additional screening. An existing auto body repair shop exists on the parcel to the east with a storage building at the lot line directly adjacent to the foundation of this proposed tower. The parcel to the north is developed with a 60,000 square foot warehouse and includes a landscape buffer on the shared property line with this parcel. The location of the proposed tower is also screened from the arterial roadways with the existing closed vision fencing and landscaping that was approved with the flex building on site(A-2018-0370).Staff supports the applicants request for alternative compliance with two conditions of approval to comply with the intent of the landscape buffer:1) The applicant shall correct the submitted plans Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 74 of 214 to show a vinyl privacy fence instead of a chain-link fence with vinyl slats at the time of CZC and DES and construct the fence to UDC standards;and 2) The applicant shall construct a landscape planter in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C.2 generally located behind the existing closed vision fence on the east side of the flex building to offer landscape screening(see Section VIM). 9. All climbing pegs within the bottom twenty feet(20')of the tower shall be removed except when the tower is being serviced. The Applicant's narrative states that the bottom 20'of this tower will have the climbing pegs removed except with the tower is being serviced. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC Table 11-2C-3): Development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed below for the I-L district.Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and deems it in compliance with the required dimensional standards. TABLE 11-2C-3 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IN THE INDl1STRUIL DISTRICTS Dimensional Standards I-L And I-H Front setback(in feet) 0 Rear setback(in feet) 0 Interior side setback(in feet) 0 Street setback'(in feet) 35 Street landscape buffer(in feet): ❑ Local 10 ❑ Collector 20 ❑ Arterial 25 ❑ Entryway corridor 35 ❑ Interstate so Landscape buffer to residential use (in feet} 25 I-L and 40 1-H Landscape buffer to nonindustrial uses(in feet) 0 I-L and 40 I-H Maximum building height(in feet) 50 Parking requirements See chapter 3.article C of this title Landscaping requirements See ch apt or3,article B of this title Note: 1_All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. (Ord_05-1170,9-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005;amd.Ord.10-1439,1-12-2010,eff_1-18-2010) G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via the two existing access points; one on N. Locust Grove Road, and one on E. Franklin Road that is a right-in,right-out only access. H. Parking(UDC Table 11-3C-6): The proposed use does not require parking; there is available parking that was built with the flex building on-site. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 75 of 214 I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8, 11-3B-12C): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan across this site;therefore,no pathways are required. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks were approved and installed at this project site with previous approvals;therefore,no additional sidewalk is required. K. Waterways(UDC 11-3A--A): There are no waterways that cross this site. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): Any new fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 7-foot tall chain-link fence with vinyl slats and barbed wire along the top as a security feature is proposed to be constructed around the perimeter of the tower foundation to add additional screening. There is approved closed vision fencing is already approved and built with the existing flex building. Chain-link fencing with vinyl slats is not an acceptable form of screening per UDC 11-3A-7,the applicant shall correct the submitted plans to show a vinyl privacy fence instead of a chain-link fence with vinyl slats at the time of CZC and DES and construct the fence to UDC standards. M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Sewer and water are not needed for the communication facility. N. Pressure Irrigation(UDC I1-3A-1 S An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. The Applicant may be able to tie into Idaho Power's irrigation system with their consent. The project site is already connected to the pressurized irrigation system in accordance with the landscape requirements of the approved CZC and DES. O. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-I8): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments; design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. P. Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11) All outdoor lighting provided on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Q. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were submitted for the proposed steel lattice tower as shown in Section VII.B. R. Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)/Design Review(DR): An application for a CZC and DR is required to be submitted for review and approval of the site design and structure to ensure consistency with UDC standards,design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and provisions in this report prior to submittal of building permit applications for the development. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 76 of 214 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed use complies with the applicable UDC standards; therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has also requested alternative compliance for the landscape requirements in UDC 11-4-3-43. Due to the adjacent land uses, existing landscape buffers and fencing, and existing buildings adjacent to this parcel, the Director approves the applicant's request for alternative compliance to the landscape buffer requirement with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall correct the submitted plans to show a vinyl privacy fence instead of a chain-link fence with vinyl slats at the time of CZC and DES and construct the fence to UDC standards, as proposed in their alternative compliance narrative(see section VII.H). 2) The applicant shall construct a landscape planter in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C.2 generally located behind the existing closed vision fence on the east side of the flex building to offer landscape screening(see Section VII.I). B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on 02/20/2020.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing_: a. In favor: b. In opposition:None c. Commenting None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson f Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Tower height and tower design. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the request for CUP with the change of removing condition 1.1 B of Section Vlll of the staff report. Page 9 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 77 of 214 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan ❑El A r-1L I -J I i i 0 i 0 MERIDIAN _ r _ 1668 EAST FRANKLIN ROAC NERIOAN,ID 83642 6� • , seLrsuPPaRr rawsR TTT a �' s / Lij ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i _ ®� SITE PLAN E FRANKLIN ROAD Am SITE PLAN \\1VVV���YYY000""1fffVViV!!! A- Page 10 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 78 of 214 I L ®e MERIDLAN 1668 EAST FRAMIN ROAC RERIDIAN,10 M2 -% g m SE.FFPDRT TOWER s j�•l � �� II z$ � tit X e ENLARGED SITE ' PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAN 'I Page 11 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 79 of 214 B. Elevations A „5 4��E 14THTEF TIOHU WAY NILNkYA(E;{)N 9-rSc2 !VD tl],IIr P TGTJL� PNW YAWET-0FFICE r1I111R NIIPYWk1 GY -I'-!,W B-,'=LY D onus 9LTTE ]1 '0F2+7kC,CR 9: na$rn�Csn�cr TM[�usl u�'_owax� r,9RNllp�l t a,�mRTdr M1.a MERIDIAN 1668 EAST FRANKLIN ROA MERIDIAN,ID U642 APO RT 7 J1NE O� Cj 4� P -0L P:G,Y�STLL': Px oar�°t.Tn 40 4/1 srffr mLe rwv, ELEVATIONS SHEET HMO" PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION „.,: ,,,..,. �.. 2 A=3 Page 12 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 80 of 214 C. Letter of Intent .t• DAYL WIRELESS SYSTEMS Idaho Communications, I.LC dbn Day Wireless Systcjns 110 Box 22289,Mil«,aukie.Dft 97269 Tel#'.(503)659-1240 Fax 0:(503)659-4723 Sonya Allen Assoclate Planner City of Meridian Community Development Dept. 33 CastHroadway Avenuc, Suite#142 Meridian,Idaho 93642 October 23,20 l9 Ms. Allen, The intent of this letter is to advise the City of Meridian that Idaho Coin muni cat ions, 1.LLC dba Day Wireless Systems and our successors will a]Iow the shared use of the proposed tower - located at 1068 East Franklin Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 - given that the additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. Respectfully, I--- t Shawn 14ankins Tower Sites Manager Day Wireless Systems Page 13 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 81 of 214 D. FAA/FCC Compliance Letter �tf DAYAw �k WIRELESS SYSTEMS Idaho Communications, LLC dba Day Wireless Systems PO 13os 12289,MiIwsuikic,OR 97269 '1'c1#:(503)65 9-124 0 I1as#:(503)659.4721 Sonya Allen Associate Planner City of Meridian Community Development Dept. 33East Broadway Avenue, Suite#1a2 Meridian,Idaho 83442 October 23,2a 19 Ms.Allen, T'he purpose of thi§ letter is to advise the City of Meridian that Idaho Communications, LLC dba Day Wireless SYslems will comply with all regulations administered and enforced by both the Pederal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). kespeetfully, Shawn Hankins 'Power Sites Manager Day Wireless Systems Page 14 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 82 of 214 E. Letter from Ada County regarding collocation I I COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE 200 W.Front Street ADA COUNT Y 13(20 )287-0002 [208]Z87-7000 U Fax!1208)287-7004 bocel[7adawrlh,uct wwwMacounty.id,gev December 17,2019 Annie Wynier,Real Estate Coordinator Technology Associates EC,lnc. 7117 SW Beveland Rd,Suite 101 Tigard,OR 97223 RC: Day Wireless Systems' Request to Collocate Equipment on Ada County Dispatch Center's Tower in Meridian,Idaho Dear Ms.Wyrner: We received your October 29,2019,letter that you submitted to Ada County on behalf of Day Wireless Systems. Based on your letter,it is our understanding that Day Wireless Systems wants to know whether Ada County will allow them to Collocate equipment on the Ada County Dispatch Center's tower in Meridian,Idaho. We regret to inform you that, although we appreciate the service that Day Wireless Systems provides to the community,we believe it is in the hest interest of Ada County not to CoIloeate this equipment at this time. Thank you for taking [lie time to express interest in this matter. We wish you well in your endeavors. If you have any questions,please feel free to reach out to us. Sincerely, ADA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Kend iyon,Chan Page 15 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 83 of 214 F. Day Wireless Response Letter i t Associates I October 23,2019 City of Meridian—Community Development Attn:Planning Division 33 E.Broadway Ave.Suite 102 Meridian,ID 83642 Re. Planner Questions and Response far Conditional Use Permit Submittal Site Information:bay Wireless 1668 E.Franklin St.MerldIan,ID 83642 RESPONSE TO PLANNER INQUIRY❑ATEa 1012312019 1NQUIRY#1,"You mentioned in your narrative that there are several existing self-support lattice towers nearby the site that appear to be in excess of 100'tall;could these towers accommodate the proposed equipment?If not,you need to submit documentation demonstrating the proposed Fawner or antenna can't be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or structure as noted in UDC 11-4-3-43C.3. httos:Ilwww.sterlingcodifiers.comlcodebooklindex.php?hook id=306" RESPONSE:Day Wireless is unable to collocate on any of the existing Self-Support Lattice Towers that appear to be In excess of 100'due to there being no available mounting space for our equipment at the centerline(height)required for coverage.The Lot Line maps provided within the Conditional Use Application show that Day Wireless's equipment will need to be placed at a minimum of 120'in order to continue servicing the populations identified in Nampa,Mora and Mercy. INQUIRY#2."The proposed tower is requires{to be designed (structurally&electrically)to accommodate the applicant's antennas as well as collocation for at least one additional user per UDC 11- 4-3-43C.1;the plans should reflect note this" RE5 PC)NSE.,The proposed tower is designed both structurally and electrically to accommodate a future collocation far at least one additional user.Our drawings have been revised to more clearly depict this standard and are attached to this inquiry response. r Page 16 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 84 of 214 G. Radio Frequency Engineer Letter DAYI WIRELESS SYSTEMS RE: 1668 East Franklin Road Proposed Day Wireless Communications Tower October 28"1,2019 To Whom it May Concern: The proposed 125'Self Support lattice Tower on the Day Wireless Systems property is an essential part of the Day Wireless Network and Day Wireless Network Operations Center Facility to be located on the some property at 1668 East Franklin Road In Meridian, A 125'lattice tower Is needed to provide a stable platform to support current and Future Microwave, Point to Point,line of sight coverage,and other antenna systems that will he deployed now and in the future. I believe future and long--term capacity Is critical and a responsible design, This facility will support coloration(design attached)for Future tenants--including cellular/wireless carriers along with many other types of users should they be interested In collocating at our facility. This 125'lattice tower is designed in accordarice with ANSI/TIA as a Class III structure rated for use by Essential Services if the need arises. A monopole s2mpiy does not supply the capacity or stability this self-support lattice tower will,however If a lattice tower is not approved,we will still need a structure on the property of some kind to mount antennas to. It may also be likely we would need to build additional structures nearby to provide the same capacity, If the proposed 125'lattice tower is approved For construction,it would provide all the capacity and height needed in the foreseeable future for Day Wireless and potential future tenants in the Meridian area. Feel free to contact our office I you have any questions. Best Regards, � f� Arnold Ragsdale Radio Frequency Engineer Day Wireless Systems Manager 503.659.1240 x 2249 4700 SE International Way Mllwaukle,OR 97222 A R agrsd a l e@ d avwireless.co m Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 85 of 214 H. Alternative Compliance Narrative Technology Associates February 12,2020 City of Meridian—Community Development Attn:Planning Division 33 E.Broadway Ave.Suite 102 Meridian,ID 83642 Re: Written Narrative for Alternative Compliance Checklist Site Information:Day Wireless 1668 E.Franklin St.Meridian,ID 83642 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Proposal is for construction of a 125'self-supporting steel tower for use as a support structure for radio antennae and transmission lines. Location of proposed tower will be at 1668 E.Franklin Road,on Day Wireless Property near the new multi-tenant flex building on 2.5 acres of land in the I-L Zoning District. DESIGN STANDARDS PER UDC11-4-3-43E 8.All tower facilities shall include a landscape buffer.The buffer shall consist of a landscape strip of at least five feet(5')wide outside the perimeter of the compound.A minimum of fifty percent (50%)of the plant material shall be of an evergreen variety.In locations where the visual impact of the tower is minimal,the applicant may request a reduction to these standards through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5,"Administration",of this title.lfyou aren't proposing landscaping,you need to submit an application for Altemotive Compliance to this standard(see UDC 11-58-5 for more info—the application fee is$160) EXPLANATION OF REQUEST Day Wireless is requesting alternative means for compliance regarding Design Standards per UDC 11-4-3- 43E at the location of the proposed tower.Strict Adherence to the above landscaping requirements will not be feasible as part of Day wireless'proposal for the below reasons: Page 18 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 86 of 214 Technology Associates A buffer of landscape strip of 5'wide outside the perimeter of the tower compound or any additional landscaping surround the compound area could prevent/obstruct future development on the property.In addition,this type of landscaping would potentially interfere with the current proposed tenant truck path that is required to service the new multi-tenant flex building located on the premises.The tower area also sits where potential future parking spaces to a future building would be.A 5'landscape buffer would prevent additional parking spaces from being available and would interfere with the future retail use of the property. As there is limited space between the future multi-tenant flex building areas and the proposed Day Wireless area,this space will be utilized in order to minimize the visual impact of the proposed tower.Day Wireless is proposing this as an alternative means for compliance with the above landscaping requirement to screen the proposed wireless compound from view using a vinyl privacy fence. Page 19 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 87 of 214 I. Future Landscape Planter Location Exhibit(example) ------------------- C07; ears„ 7 7 7 EM .&F40r FUTURE FUTURE DAYWIRELESS 7 I V S; SP 7ENRNTSPACE M11 4.=F 73 CALLOUT LEGEND E17 TIT LOT 2 FUTURE LANDSCAPE rPLANTER LOCATION VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Conditional Use Permit 1.1 Site Specific Conditions A. The applicant shall correct the submitted plans to show a vinyl privacy fence instead of a chain-link fence with vinyl slats at the time of CZC and DES and construct the fence to UDC standards, as proposed in their alternative compliance narrative(see section VILH). B. The appheant sholi eenstrues a landseapeplankr in aeeard ip" UDC-11 3B 8G2 generally loeated behind the ex-&d4ig elosed v&ion fenee on the east side of theflex-budding to-�Iffi-er land-seape sereening(see Seedon 14TI)-. 1.1.1 The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43: Wireless Communication Facility. 1.1.2 The site plan included in Section VII.A is approved with the following condition:See Site Specific Condition "A." 1.1.3 No part of any antenna,disk,array or other such item attached to a communications tower shall be permitted to overhang any part of the right of way or property line as set forth in UDC 11-4-3- 43E.4.Any future subdivision of land shall allow for compliance with this standard. 1.1.4 All climbing pegs within the bottom twenty feet(20')of the tower shall be removed except when the tower is being serviced as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-43.E.9. Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020- Page 88 of 214 1.1.5 An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments; design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. 1.1.6 The Applicant/use shall comply with regulations administered and enforced by the federal communications commission(FCC) and/or the federal aviation administration(FAA).A statement of compliance with these regulations was submitted with this application and is included in Section VILD. 1.1.10 The Applicant shall allow shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use as required by UDC 11-4-3-43D.1 as agreed upon in the Letter of Intent included in Section VII.C.If an additional user is denied to collocate on this tower, Day Wireless Systems is required to provide justification in the form of a letter or report from a licensed network engineer(or equivalent)stating why the additional user cannot be accommodated. 1.1.11 The conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the city. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. 1.1.12 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted prior to submittal of a building permit application for review and approval of the proposed site design and structure to ensure consistency with Unified Development Code standards,design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, and provisions in this report. B. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=182767&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=182143&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-5B-6) Required Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the subject property will be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional&development regulations of the I-L district and those listed in the specific use standards for 11-4-3-43 (see Analysis Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds that the proposed use will be consistent and harmonious with the UDC Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 89 of 214 and the Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant develops the site consistent with the conditions of approval included in Section HIT 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. Further, the existing landscape buffers and nearby structures offer adequate concealment of the base of the tower. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. The wireless site will be serviced and maintained by the existing Day Wireless Systems Network Operations Center located in the approved flex building on-site. The existing access will accommodate fire trucks in the event of an emergency. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use should not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. B. Alternative Compliance Required Findings: In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: (Ord. 10-1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010) 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds compliance with the requirements listed in UDC 11-4-3-43E.8 can be accommodated through the subsequent findings of Alternative Compliance. Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 90 of 214 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the proposed alternative and the existing site conditions of the surrounding parcels to be of equal or superior means for meeting the landscape buffer requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds the proposed alternative is not detrimental to the public welfare and will not impair the intended uses or character of the surrounding properties because the surrounding properties share the same character as the subject property and the location of the tower will be adequately screened from public view through existing street landscaping, closed vision fencing, and surrounding property improvements. In addition, the applicant has agreed to meet the intent of the required landscape buffer by providing an additional vinyl privacy fence directly surrounding the tower foundation. and.,..n..*m et a Page 23 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 91 of 214 E IDIAN --- IDAHO PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: b �. 111� �.\• '. � __ _ _ � y€.c�Y� ���3R-•?fit 43 41 Cv , w [ r a' �`'T��•�t'�..�,��n!."i - cfwri. ,�� � S � 1 ':� - �A, re a°'ba -i�� �r r. 41+ R-4, � 3.� ,i 7 �� i - � r�rl ^T.3A-�',v' `�� �,�a? ��,�,,f'y�/• �/ t�-�-�1lFv ,NT �: ,�� i,�rtr-�_eF. �, D ,i. f[ ._ _ ,y L:�[ �,� �v .y p7r �Fl "" �• PJ�F.-�.i +y � � \��y� �.����~,r"._. � .Y. r. ,. �,s T �• i:, _ s =` �� t �k�. � •�` i � JL� ..� � f��� ��4 vi y�. � ��� �\ j •TST. '} � i 2 �y. � � ! Y f Y fxY` al k- l' f �� _ ,h� T..�• ~ ',dr '<,�, ,t t-�'`-� ���..... I�I�, �;.� it r! 1 'r� rr' �'` � �,�_ e h ,t 1 _ r . iowi mac : , +; { ,`A ��': Sly. � l� f .� 99 •�;'14.� '� y !;a`� �x l :JT�' Y',{j ��'i �• ,�: , /4 y �. ��,��� ny•'FY:. a t--is°'�� :. w.:- � :3r[� _.�. is✓/ice } ffi� �\ 1�.. � ,�l <.\F^•Pr� � r I i ■ • • ■ ■ 1 � r • _4 r ■ �■ ■ ■■� �� ■Illl■ � � ■■ ■. � • ■ . � ..'4' -r•:. :, .i,i�,. 1 I • �i� ?�� 3 '''� ��w;.,y ��r�•S'J'1 ■ � 11111 — � ■ 11■1 1=!! Ns� •�;.:,' !� _ 3 _: I�.gib �' •., ., . �:.. !■■■■ ■� ■ ■l11� �11■1 1■ ■ ■■■■■ w ■ IIIII NI=1 �Hn 1 .. ... cV .;kl c : ;:.■ 1;: ""`' . K` .f. ... .;'' ._. A..:,• 11■■11■ ■■■ - 111111 ■■■ ■i Itti11l Iltif alllli w w.■IIq 11 :'S1F�t:. F - '■ . 1111111■ oil 1.■ ■III ■Ii1 +� r son ■ 1111111 111■ IIII. n111 ■II■ ■ 111 ■III 111� ■■ ■ .m. 11111111 mill; ■IH IIIII. .1■ ■■■ .. 111. ■■ !11 Y 1 Ir �'r ,..i', ,,. :l er' i r , ■ IFS }`F _ r, ■ - - .. , III.IIIlllllli•. i. 11■ ■ 1� ■� ■■ If■I�11 i11Yi 11"' 1111 111+ wm�m�� 11 II ,wfr�, I ;4 ��I�4J. _ • — ■■Il�u� 1 III PI.N E — - ,,, ; _ PdI N E- �� IIIII ■■� ■swim Emil. I) 111. ��� ■ ' .�„i :: ,.• .. j� I �` i■ ... _ ^y if' ��■■1■1111 11�: Ire ' :■ �i. Iltl■li II[II[I ■� ;IIIII ■1111■■ '■ py __ :.J��::.' �' I�Iw� rl �'� ^+,In■'�11111 !1��w r1111 i :� ■II .! ,� -- - - r! IR _■1. lull ■In 'll■1 1= 1■11■.■■111 .1'■.:. 11111'I"�i _Irll1 ■ 1.: 4�., : .. ,* r ; .,. :,11E '■�� __Imo. mill loll �Ilill IIIII 11■III �nll �.,.;�, .- 1..1 � Arm I �■5 : 0 III■• 11I1II�I 1 HIM ■II■ ti• _ 11■ ;, f.' 't; '"° '"'�' ,.r,s= > _ ! Q ■ri �. a_ W 1�■� Arid■ ■r10■I _ ■ !tf:�4. �,`.��H:Grp, _ N���:� � .%�3 ,�, m111 I■!1 I■!I �� 1,� 1rFi l� ►~ cE;lir :,rt 11: ■�y`'� ■. �4 w- FRAN1(LIN FRANK --IN - • � 9 ]lam I - S.. �� �-' .. R� � a _ • ■ �I - _ .,,. ,I a .,,. I• . . .I� I IIIII III 'il�,' � _���,,§.,.�..«..,,,,��■R': •'_��.� -. = ' _} .` [r - - - - - E BRD,I�qVAeVE - - - - -- . -.1w S — "--i— � P Le 4YRP9CA. �AYJNGf - �orveeaui rsWPav�r<r Prnur+c � I 1 *aruPusuc sruu:los I _ � 1 � I IF / ' = = Landscape Plan A 1 N I WEST SU[l4ING lu - E.BROADWAY AVE. I 'S e I TpULrA[[ING IfA1L411d I ���[��5 _ I I o1• :•R: •:e'.♦ ... ':s. r.,,�a .,,xe,��.,,,� �� ram° ews oeAwrsPux - - 1� — I ' u:u os==.somtcY Accra wrin�ieluEee I � wn�e•Lw� .u_�.., :: � a� ��''' _ �`_"Y _._--------------- -- - o --: -i _... ------- ------- - ---' -- —'_------- � i -._._.-.�----- I enuL I w UNION PACIFIC RAIL z EST B -'I - - SIT Kok-91 Site Plan a am ewm �'•�:Dad � I � Q � �� V[{^'!'I o• Lam.,-,un»c L�..,�,�.,.� o 0 o I I - log yl,•n*I Perspective Views -0 Ell RIM _�-r•. ..- roc_ I � 11 tif.'J�hl'•i1._ ® Y� •f BROADWAY LOOKING AT COURTYARD RAILROAD&3RD AERIAL _ r 1 r �o AII1 rol ■ ■ ■ ® �' rim ply 1 �M�li�ll � � ■ r�I O M r� ® _ ■ t- Q�� ® / M p — — -- — — ���r . i •-f r=, S ■■ ■■t IBM�■rrr,allnr r4rr.R�� � ` � WEST-WEST allILDLNG .BROADWAY&3RD LOOKING SOUTHEAST I+U,iN d&ROADWAY AERIAL I du ff � Ai ■��, ■ i� ® II Jim Not �1 M Ngal 11 Ain RA0.ROAP LOOKING NORTH EAST APARTMENT LEGEND EAST APARTMENT LEGEND I'LV:�Li7Ci1+1 VNT OTY gH. IPEkfLOC'kl yJ•y`jlt SOFT ❑SluuiO u•nl 12 Sp21 Slup6 Lent 12 51021 CIL..0 OOMuNIT 24 I3,%2 �OHE!®B4Ol,4 VNR 34 I3,442 ■CNEBEUNOOMU"WEUWl 3 x13P OeIE EE6ACSOnLurvquE urll 3 2,139 ■rwo BEL oom UN1 11 I0,I44 1w6 6EOR06M urll 11 ID,I W ❑CB1 .SPACE $,PI3 CCwunOR 3PnCE $,213 ■GREENSPnCE IT,ABO GCEEN�nCE I1,IB0 FOU UM FLOOV IA.TE w194 IIIILIMMO IEYH FLbO[=1P1' 30 Se,514 POINUM FLOWLAM 5094 Bull IDI NGL LROOAFLATf 5o Se,514 TOIAL WIMNG{4 F'::'PS XL 156)jSd TOTAL BUILHNGO FLOOLS� 2W 1stom Fl M- 1-11-11-11-11 -1 n -m- — I1-1 lial 1-11 1 1 FI 1-k.-I I-ILI I-L-1 — I c�5 v a :Hl cal, — ll 11I2 — ulw 2t2 I I I I 1-11 -11 -1 li'll 1- 1 1-11-1 1 _ I:IL 7 z L L F F i WEST BUILDING APARTMENT LEGEND IPEk FiOLrii � _ �OV.V:.:N ■5111[IID IINR .'.018 !l[3 pC !l — — — — — — ■CNE eECROOM urR I6 4a7! 1 IG �G.]��.I! lei ~ T25E3iaa ■Orf EBhfaOCvn unique uraT 2 IA56 MIWIIN G8IAE4 . ■T1vDEEhR0Cr,uNR 7 4454 CONSUETAM ❑COMMON SPICE 4JU PoNuN fto-WWI E7Jl} euuANG IEY9 FEOC1RMiF 37 ull"? iblll eullpMG(5 a001te� INS 11{E}i �au�gmerx V Z Z m uj 7W7 F— Q F Q LEVEFL 7 RN z Q < 1 d w � vi sa — 1 H I-d 1-1 EEI tl PROFE$$IOILLL5E.4 ,•t _ C.C1`M,N '..Y.VA4 22 Ot AF. N$-M. ;REA PLANS GVV102 LEVEL 5 - = LEVEL 3 vR9Cu � 1QA� �� v�iC I I W 1 1lill IL I I I I Qeudesi9n Parking Plan o� • I li — Iris ii — J Z m ��)tl E2eSr a Z — 1 C tlC'JS II ��t1�1 WEST BUILDING PODIUM LEGEND " ■�-rn�� i.laa � I li I ' arxncw I � ' � I I � � ' ,... - �ix��.r�gx ❑ � i �� ■rF.a„c,u s,ssP Z m HOOM.iR 21d14 IL W IrFVF1�l PwRurC 3lau SSR } 7� .ql H LEVELS %_ i;ROIIND ■PM—G 100 w.w Z ■,rtmlCAlpRl.Wf 11 s.a9] EAST BUILDING PODIUM LEGEND �..1 _ .ar�ra;sru. awn uaaPn�IP xeu O d ..xrrwecieaP.awx - � - �.ciecuwrx m zss+ Z 0 � AREA PLANS 4 w 4 P P�nw sFl „s 1 7 A KI S L S a l} ❑unf¢.1G 166 55.119 M,pPP � MNtleldu.5l4 .�+R 29W }plum EI! INiL CiACIII..IiCry S� ��� nap..un en seen GE101 �'N'' Q�4 o� �OSf t/� N N N to N Yry N F F F Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Z z Z Z : 2 4 N N N N O AREA PLANS 1 P R 1 G T L a K N S A LS GW101 rr / r � � � 1 a • m ��■�a �1�111 ■�1 Legend � Il�■. �If111 Legend - r Legend . nnmlr�. • • �� • rrrrrrrrr • • N ,,.:F. , .:■ rrr rr � :■ rrr - T . •�,'.` !m Project Location Project Location Project Location ■. 1 r rr111 ■ i IIII III r .f r _ ti...:r. Illlll 11 ■ IIII■■ . Ili!■ �. . ■ � ^ �.. 111111� - IN 111■ . _ e _ o Ir r m 11■ : ■� - . ., '■■IIII • • on 21■Ili ■ .. - ■9 ■■ ■1 I- 1■IIAI ■ 1 ry Ilfll`II � 1 IIII �• a'lll!I IIII�II �a + :�; ■_ 1� nn 1P-INE W PINE 1 � PINE = - - 1 ■ ■ Illr ��■I�rf.■�'� , I Illr 1;!„11�+,1i1 "� S '� _� �....� �� - t i. Ifi I :IIf11 IIII■■IIIlllll �= � � ifll■■■■IIII � �•_, . � •� ' ,�-� k', IIII I: : 11111 ■11 .Il■1 � ; _ ' ■11 _, " a.. _ 11■11 ! 11■III a _ �� Q - � I o 111 1 2 111 ■A■ 1 ■IIII :IIII 4 ■ IIII< IIII■� � � � � IIII■�� � 1'•'-I a "'�-���..ra -- >�i - r�. �_ III■ 1■■� IIII■ �■1! , ■ ir� �. 1� '"> I M: it ■IIII �� 11� � � = t ,�.LI"p �� •� � i, FRANKL-IN ■ensi _ FRANI(LhN �y� ` : - ' FRQNKLI•N - — —. %.IIII Tn= ..��;.�� ... •`'� I�_ _ kti _ c g Am WPM 411 � R - 1Pc ` MoirictVALSite Plan and ry Existing Silo Elevations Proposed i ■ i ■ I ■ r � ■ 1 � ■ � r � r SEEMS ■■ Olson ■■ SEES ■■ ■■IO ■■ IS ■■ on, SEES■ 111 ■ IF - Monson III NINE ' t „ ■■■ f ■11 ■■■ _ F - ■ ■I1flIII ■ ninon I Monson llllll ■ �• � II 1111 - N■■■■ ■ � II 1111 � IfIOOO■ � x�-�~ �5.�• } - - - ■llllll ■ m■■■■■I INN III 11111E I 11111E 1■ uuuul :■ ■I�I * luuw :■ 1 , ti { 7■ 7■ led . k • •f•_. 11 III11111 �■ SEISE■ Z=== I11 I1111111 R■ ■■1■■■ . apt s =�•' u ■■I SEES ■�■■■■SEMI■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■1■ r ■ 5 OEM ■■ ■l■ ■ IIIINI ��l--I I '� _ -. �."' ti ■ � � t � - � ,■r■� IIIINI ■� ■ ■O■ ,■ ■■ --' IN ■ - ■ ■1■ ■ 1 I1! �_W � ■ ■i �� ..milli �■ ■i a 1111j II 'M ` ■ � III ■ � ■_ ■ III � ■ _ � - - - ; , _. ,.,,-. - . ,,,,,,,,, 111� ` .` i�i �� �.�� * I hull , •_ '. � ■■Silt■ � _ I I Irl _ -- - � -- - ■OOHS i ■ _ ��� _SI I Irl _� � = IIIII =_ ■■lam _ ___ - __ ,,,,1, ■OI�OII■ = �� _ - ■ 111 = I I 111111111��■� ;F %- moll I'm r■ ■Hill = = - • : = IIIII =� NINE 11■1■ ■■'ill = T#�: I ■ - ■ 1 111 III,119 1 iIIIII -111 1 111 11 iIIIII -111 � ,y_1 + IIIII11,1: - IIIIIIIII EEI■ail■ I1111111 _ -I1111111■_ ' II IIIIIIII _ I MIN III■ llll IIIIIIRi 1111 �S Illllllll -—� 1111 11,1 1, �S 111111111 -=� � �" ' .�;11,111,11,1, Illllll�•_i llllll llllll llllll■I 111111111E llllll �: llllll IIIIIIII - ¢` ti� _ _. NINO1111111� ;,1■1...■1i • lll•.■l I11111 111■■ �I ��11■...Eli_ _aimmirm■l Ol llllllll■' Existing Approved Development Plan BANNOCK RIDGE SUBI]IVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT C) r. f'r A 1 •°n t1] -- 3 Proposed Preliminary Plat & Landscape Plan BANNOCK RIDGE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT T.3N,RJE,SEC.19,ADA COUNTY,MERIDIAN,IDAHO 2019 lel PROJECT SFFE PARCEL "0. R4814130225 A"' rb I- LOCC-ERS PASS NZ. vi M� r f'v Ek 44 44 @4%, Ta WE MUL71 USE PATHW WaTMN t t 77 iff CREEK hu�- mox;IN TrPr�;ZF SECT10N TEN M " n p Proposed Conceptual Elevations vmZO Y'f xk'i'MM'-kW ii sae o,u,ww �� UB Ruh FRonr e:.�vATON REAR ELEVATION PR PR mm ' a FRONT ELEVATION ens �^P REAR ELEVATION =r ----- ----------- —--- -- - --- FRONT ELEVATON FRONT ELEVATION IE ecw.�va•.ne• scau..v.•a•.a• 0 rya.vd eK eax FRONT EL✓VATION REAR ELEVATION (�AIP V4Y,p' • • AL • • --E.RA `, I _ ONE am I IN HIM qL - '�'� ■ ■■■�■■� 1■ 111111 s �r ■■■■ IN 1■ Im 11 .1.■ NINE� ■1.�■ 111111-1 111111�.1.■ ■il■o■li■i 11 dill --mill Cr.1 =11111LU ice■ C� i�� df � -� IF ■1■N TV 84 GIL Conceptual Site Plan 00 11 0l: 1 1 I0 ail 1 1 es= 1 1 1 1 . E �� 1 1 � au i 11 1 1� � i i 0 upIrII 1 �1. r � 1#� 1 1 �i� i 1 1 1 �— ��-- 1 1 - • 1 1 it li 1 1 1 1� iL i 1 � al ll 1 1 mFEW- LL I� f ' ', ' f� �� _■ill �1 D EI 00 00ir�1l �� 7�i ■■■ �� II] ET . . i i _ r � �I'�•� �I ai �R! I■ n Y■■ 1 c. �; - �• �II!III lu: I I -- _... !�� w1 ;��' � � � � •'' •III Ilu i igP,Jn a ■. �� ■��� 1 � 11 I� � l I I a� n I III � � ��j ,i� I!11!: �� Iwo - — — __ --�� !. .- stiiia■:. - -- -------------- Changes to Agenda: th  Item #4A: Hill’s Century Farm North (H-2019-0134) – Applicant requests continuance to March 19 (if possible) due to the site not being posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in accord with UDC standards. Item #4B: Meridian Station (H-2019-0142) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.13 acres of land, zoned O-T, located at the SEC of N. Main St. & E. Broadway Ave., north of the railroad tracks. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: A variety of uses exist in this area, including a restaurant/drinking establishment, offices, industrial & residential uses in the O-T, R-15 and I-L zoning districts. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) 100’ tall vertically integrated buildings which exceed the maximum height in the O-T zoning district of 75’; a CUP is requested to exceed the height limit of the zone as required by the UDC. Phase 1 of the proposed development will consist of two (2) vertically integrated buildings as follows:  West Building: 7,748 sq. ft. of retail; 185 residential units (studio, 1 and 2-bedrooms); 168 parking garage spaces and 4,713 square feet of common open space.  East Building: 17,656 sq. ft. of retail; 200 residential units (studio, 1 and 2-bedrooms); 382 parking garage spaces and 8,213 square feet of common open space.  Interim surface parking with 109 parking stalls. With Phase 2, the applicant is proposing to convert the interim surface parking (western third of the site) and intensify the use further, by constructing two (2) office towers which will require additional land use approvals from the City. rd Access is proposed to the site from Main St., an arterial street, & NE 3 St., a collector street. Because the UDC restricts access to arterial streets when local street access is available, Staff recommends access is provided via E. Broadway Ave. instead of Main St. Off-street parking is provided for the overall development in excess of UDC standards (414 required; 659 proposed). However, the west building does not contain the required off-street parking on its own, which would present a problem if the structures were under different ownership – now they are under the same ownership. With a future phase of the two office towers, the parking ratio for the site will have to be re-evaluated to determine if parking is adequate for the site. rd This development is required to construct an on-street multi-use pathway along Main St., Broadway Ave., and NE 3 St. and along the rail corridor. Conceptual renderings were provided to provide representation of the scale and mass of the two (2) structures on the property to determine if the requested height is appropriate for the subject property. Specifics on building materials and color are not depicted. The UDC requires the proposed vertically integrated buildings to comply with the standards in the Architectural Design Manual. Staff does not have specific information with the submitted elevations to inform the Commission if the Buildings conform to the ASM. Staff is supportive of the requested increase in the height however, staff believes the East Building should incorporate additional architectural features to hold the corner (Broadway/3rd St. Intersection) to create a prominent focal point. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and UDC 11-3A-19. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/ conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0142, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0142, as presented during the hearing on March 5, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0142 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: Handy Truck Lines (H-2019-0149) Application(s):  CUP Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site is zoned I-L and is located along the northern boundary of the property at 630 E. King St. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The site is surrounded by industrial property/businesses, zoned I-L; the UPRR tracks run along the northern boundary. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial Summary of Request: A CUP is requested for additional height exceeding 20% of the maximum height allowed in the I-L zoning district of 50’ for (2) new 80’ tall silos. The silos are used for the storage of powder cement for the associated freight/truck terminal, warehousing and shipping business, Handy Truck Line. They are to be located within the railroad ROW on each end of the existing 80’ tall silos as shown on the site plan. The material to be stored in the silos will be delivered by rail and distributed by truck. There are currently (6) existing silos within the UPRR ROW adjacent to this site that were constructed in 1996; the (4) closest to the tracks are 75’ tall while the other (2) just to the south are 80’ tall. Written Testimony: Scott Hanks, Applicant – In agreement w/staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0149, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0149, as presented during the hearing on March 5, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0149 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: Bannock Ridge (H-2019-0143) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat  Development Agreement Modification (does not require action from the Commission) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.35 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 2940 S. Mesa Way. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: This property is surrounded by rural & urban residential properties, zoned R-4 to the west, east & south and RUT to the north. History: This property was previously platted as Lot 3, Block 2, Kachina Estates Subdivision. It was annexed in 2017 as part of a larger 13.58 acre project, also called Bannock Ridge, and is governed by a DA approved for that project. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (3 or fewer units/acre) Summary of Request: Development Agreement modification to remove the subject 4.35 acre property from the 13.58 acre boundary of the existing agreement for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed development plan – this application does not require action from the Commission, only City Council. A Preliminary Plat is proposed consisting of 10 building lots & 5 common lots on 4.35 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district for the construction of SFR detached homes. There is an existing home & accessory structures that are proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision; the southern-most accessory structure on Lot 10, Block 1 does not comply with the minimum 15’ rear setback, the plat will need to be revised to comply or the structure will need to be removed. Access is proposed via the extension of an existing stub street, E. Loggers Pass St. at the west boundary of the site which is proposed to stub to the south boundary of the subdivision for future extension; and from S. Mesa Way at the east boundary. A 10’ wide segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed along the frontage of this site adjacent to S. Mesa Way, extending along the southern boundary to the NWC of the site for connection to the existing pathway in Glacier Springs Subdivision to the west along the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. There is a short segment (10’+/-) of the pathway in Glacier Springs Sub at the NWC of the site that didn’t get constructed with that development leaving a gap in the pathway system; the current DA contains a provision for the missing section to be completed with this development if approval can be obtained from the Glacier Springs HOA – staff recommends this provision is carried over to the new DA. Because the area of the proposed plat is below 5 acres in size, the qualified open space & site amenity standards listed in the UDC do not apply. However, common area is proposed where a segment of the City’s regional pathway system is planned through the subdivision and where the Ten Mile Creek is located totaling 11% of common open space. Concept building elevations were submitted for future homes proposed within this development as shown. Homes depicted are a single-story & a single-story with a bonus room over the garage with a variety and mix of finish materials consisting of horizontal and vertical siding, and stucco with stone/brick veneer accents; 2-story homes aren’t shown but may also be constructed. Written Testimony: Dan Lardie, in agreement with the conditions in the staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval with a new DA per 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- 2019-0143, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5, 2020, 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- 0143, as presented during the hearing on March 5, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0143 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4F: Andorra Senior Living (H-2019-0127) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Vacation of ROW (does not require action from the Commission) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 16.99 acres of land, zoned RUT & R1 in Ada County, located at 715 & 955 S. Wells St. & 971 E. Wells Circle at the SWC of E. Magic View Dr. & S. Wells St. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: 1. North: Single family residence, zoned RUT 2. South: Office park, zoned L-O 3. East: Vacant land and single family residence, zoned L-O and RUT in Ada County 4. West: Woodbridge and Locust View Heights Subdivisions, zoned R-4 and R1 in Ada County History: In 1983 the property was platted in the County as Amended Magic View Subdivision Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-N (8ac) and MDR (9ac) Summary of Request: Annexation and zoning of 16.99 acres of land with the TN-R zoning district with a conceptual development plan for a senior living community consisting of 76 single family style dwelling units and a 3-story apartment building with 88 dwelling units AND vacate existing un-named ACHD right-of-way (0.45 of an acre) between the 715 and 955 S. Wells St. properties. This roadway is not needed to provide access for the development. Therefore, staff is supportive of vacating the ROW. The City Council is only a recommending body on the vacation request, final approval is subject to ACHD approval. ACHD comments have not been received on this application. This property is designated MU-N (Mixed Use – Neighborhood) (approximately 8 acres) and MDR (approximately 9 acres) on the Future Land Use Map. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with an age restricted (55+) multi-family residential development consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting to construct a building footprint of 30,000 square feet. Staff finds the applicant has provided ample open space with a public use and the building will include commercial uses as defined by the MU-N guidelines. The project will consist of 76 independent living units (single family detach and duplex style single-level units on one parcel) and a 3- story apartment building consisting of 88 units. Several commercial components will be integrated with the apartment building, including but not limited to a spa, salon and a restaurant for residents and the public during events. Access to this development is proposed from the adjacent local streets (S. Wells St. and E. Wells Circle) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. For internal connectivity, the applicant is proposing gated private streets and drive aisles. Further, some of the units are proposed to take access from common driveways. The private street standards strictly prohibit common driveways from private streets unless approved through alternative compliance. All private streets within the proposed development should comply with the standards set forth on UDC 11-3F-4; common driveways shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. The applicant is proposing 22.8% of the site as common open space including the following amenities: clubhouse, fitness facility, restaurant, spa, salon, walking trails, pool, open grassy areas, community gardens and various sport courts. Although, some of these amenities are conceptual at this time, staff finds the proposed amenity package for the development is commensurate to the size of the proposed development. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures on the site. All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Submittal and approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications are required prior to submittal of building permit application(s). Written Testimony: Woodbridge Homeowners Association and 7 others submitted written testimony in support of the proposed project. Staff Recommendation: Approval per the DA provisions in the staff report Notes: � IN — ■ � � poi — - ® 4 loxV Nor - Q 1 - Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0127, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5, 2020, 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- 0127, as presented during the hearing on March 5, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0127 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item -4.A. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: Title of Item - Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm North (H-2019-0134) by Martin L. Hill, Hill & Hill Properties, Located at the Southeast Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E.Amity Rd. Click Here for Application Materials Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 92 of 214 City of Meridian -Public Hearing Sign In Form ToolsPage 1 of 1 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 3/5/2020 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4- Project Name: Hill's Century Farm North CUP, PUD, PP, RZ Project No.: H-2019-0134 Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To ListExport To Excel © 2020 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=4083/6/2020 + Hill Properties DA Modification BRIGHTION - coRTooN Neighborhood Meeting Notice _—�l, . AMI — Ociober 2-4,2018 M®ROAD - 0 PROPOSED POWERSubject: HillPropertiesDet-elopmentAgreementWodification ceLL Tnw�R suesrATION CENTURY FARM Ai. ArequestformodificationofdwHillProperdesde%Tlopmenta tConceptPian(backofthissheet) --- ----1 COMMERCIAL and The "Condirians Governing Deveiopinenr'•applicable to that portion of the previously-annexed and 1 1 zoned property west ofCeirhioi Fann Conan ercial and Herrltlrs'Liring(YIVICAf1UlsdaleScho&?aik) SUBDIVSION Srrhdn-Woos depicted below and on the back will soon be submitted to the City of Meridian Proposals for I �ZQN1 C-N) a wireless conmumicatians facility adjacent to the Idaho Powers Eagle Road substation and future self- 1; . storage and offioc4etail along the AnutyRoad frontage prompt this development agreement modificatioa MEDIUM[ DENSITY RESIDENTIAL j 4 TO 8 OWELLINGS I ACRE AMM 1 (Zoning: R•81R-15) Q Y W j "HEALTHY LIVING f1iLL'S CiNTYRY FARId SUBDIVISION" PropertiesHill COMMfFIGIAL5l1B01VI51ON. ; i (WESTADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. 1 YMCA, CITYPARK LIBRARY, Development Agreement i HEALTH CENTER COMPLEX} ModificationYSEGA ...L.----------------- - MEETING N IlLSRA L G LOCAT 19 N r�nK a HILL'S �71LL'S CENTURY FARM SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVISION: OCTOBER22,2018 y - Page ' of FALL*5 CENTURY FAKIR SUBDIVISION } ' Neighborhood Meeting Sign-in Sheet f I - Hill Properties DA Modification November I, 2018 6:00-6:30 PM A meeting has been scheduled for you to review the proposed modification: NAME(printed) AI3BRE55 TELEPHONE Date 77mrsdgr,Noventber 1,2018 Time &00-b:30pne(you oars•core ails'fibre drrriug drat period) � otrtot I� l��L � '�� � I� t 1 xw 7_ca ci i- 312 ei Location South Weridiarr EWCALobbs'-5155 S.Hillsdale Are{Library corner to the left) W12 M e-L i tar, dU =a S171& 32-76 r lfyou have questionsprior to the meeting,please contactMike Wardle, at 287-0512 C Tw`, t e Zc:�o Q[f1 -Q Brighlam Corporeiiva 12601 W.ExplerrrDriue,Suite 20,Boise,7deka 81713 CENTURY FARM NORTH wl W MEW +! - (CONCEPTUAL. SUB,lECT TO CHANGE} BRIGHTON , CORPORATION AMJTY RD sail9do Neighborhood Meeting Notice July 12,2019 10�s1° SELF STORAGE OFF E f R AIL Ttt ■ tit (C-C ZONING) l N z0 jt d) APPROVED �. Subject: Century Farin North—Re;one,Preliminary Plat,Planned lnit air■ CENTURY FARM Development and Det-eloptnettt.4greenreitt,iiodificatiotr COMMERGIAI. . Applications for preliminary plat.planned cunt development.development agreement modification and S U B D I V S I O N rezoning.will soon be submitted to the City of Meridian for Century Farm,Vorth—a mixed-use project(see w concephtal site plan on the back)with 13 conventional single-family residential lots.122 age-qualified 55+ single-fancily residential dwellings.six conunercial'professional office lots and a parcel for a self-storage f facility ctiithin the area depicted below. FIED o4 . ■ � � MrTY AD COMPLETED YMCA, } * CDHILLSDALE PARK s AND HILLSDALE ■0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � . ■ to SCHOOL ttiwr. - HILL'S CENTURY CENTURY FARM SUBDIVISION s�ootacon '�t 7r t Page of l Neighborhood Meeting Sign-in Sheet MurtMt:tocanoty • ` ' Century Farm North Subdivision/Rezone I PUD IDA Mod Google EarthJuly 24,2019 / 6:00 PM PRMTED NAME STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE A meeting has been scheduled to provide the opportunity for you to revicw this proposal in greater detail: Dote Wednesday,July 24,2017 ArA' 5b7 S a 2oa zH�l�sy Time 6:00 PM rr Location Century Farm pat•ilion at the AE corner of Taconic Dr.and Eagle Rd so,144TIMV/fl/z 20*-70g_5 rId If you!tare questions prior to Cite in Ming,please contact Mike Wardle at 108-187--0511 2929 W.Nasigator Dr.,Suite 400.Meridiaa ID 93642 www,bnghtoncorp.com p.208-378-4000 f 208-377-8962 AMITY RO Terry r�+� t�T w' HILL'S GEI TURY FARM COPOORAMOly SELF-SERVICE STORAGE 1R� I,1lIfpRAI ESSI 1. � COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION Neighborhood Meeting Notice IN6EAEryl7ENT U14t November A,2019 .'_�awu .5ubjeci: Mii Properties Re:ouhig,preltrxixnre Plat,Planned Brit Der•elopiueni,DA Site Plan& Te-cr � �-�� iw � �. 4� VERANDA ASSISTED `] Modifrcnfion,Prn`ate Streets,_-tlteriintrre Compliance, Coudiiional Uie Peryidt for Self-Ser'ke Sror age x I CADENCE •. LI5�1N1,The Hill Properties applications cited above(Concepi on brick)for the previously-annexed and zoned ' I area outlined below will soon be submitted to the City of Meridian. This proposal up-dates the uses M 14'k AGE QI�1*IFIED and site plan presented at the July 24'�neighborhood meeting,including: Cadence.a eased- 134-imi# { age-qualified community; 10 conventional single-family lots;3 estate single-family lots:independent living cottages associated u°ith a T�srairda assisted living complex,8 professional office and retail rn 1 ESTATE - building sites;and a 413-unit self-senace storage facility. D 1�LL 1z, _ LOTS �• r'` �� � I � � I k 1 +� a - Hillsdale '? r _ - CItV Park '. }r w. r< folio ONVE ALLOTS rf riarLscEN WY FARM � ` l • ' f171�5 d1 �h _ t� L + 4V rfr{tRC1AL SUsaLYrf10H _ a ^ =i ^ ` i i it + l U e 0 ~ h t{ YMCAVi 11,11 a MEETING D LrkcA7faN * X O Ry FARM NoRTH R9 H ILL5VALE #'i�/ _ M1ARKR e• . SORML ,Mm: WNLF.PTLIAt -sug1}c.r lit_mMbE _ Page L of 1 HILL'S CENTURY FARM SUBDIVISION _° a !Neighborhood Meeting Sigel-in Sheet Hill's Century Farm North November 14,2019 1 6:30-7:00 PM A meeting has been scheduled for you to review thi2 proposals- PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE Dare 77mTsdgt',N-oremberld,2019 A�r, (,a•� y�q5 S tar,•- e A.r r;1; kph UL$-,A Ky L_ Thue 6,36— T-00piu[yntr rrtrrt-come in(s-tixre during rlrnt period) Locrrtiorr South_Weridirrrr IV14 LobAr—5155 S.Hillsdale Are"(Library corner to ilre ieJt1 kav� If}-ou have questions prior to the meeting,please contact kfike Wardle,at 208-287-0512 L c.�( `i � �c�c +th � Se Brighton Cargaranon 2929 W-Nanirarar Drive,Shire 400 Meridian,Idaho 83642 I milli • Iloill1111111IR611 I l 1 � l IM sells "NOTICED" for 11.14.19 neighborhood meeting =_ IM :i all IM 11�1 �� "' Togo I A1111� ■ iiF• S SIGN LOCATIONS _=- --- _ AMITY RD a T a HILL'S CENTURY " W FARM NORTH W h/ I ' I 4 � r i} ell " I a 6 19 dr �I WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item -4.B. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 Title of Item - Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Meridian Station (H-2019- 0142) by Matt McAnulty, Located at the Southeast Corner of N. Main St. and E. Broadway Ave., North of the Railroad Tracks Click Here for Application Materials ATTACHMENTS: Description Type uploa Staff Report Staff Report 2/18/202 M Minutes from 2-20-2020 PZ Meeting Minutes 3/2/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 93 of 214 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 2/20/2020 Legend DATE: - 0 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning FFM Supervisor 208-884-5533a Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager '' 1 — 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0142 Meridian Station '- 71 f i1 ®E LOCATION: SEC of N. Main St. and E. Broadway ------ Ave.,north of the railroad tracks. ' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum height allowed of 75 feet in the O-T zoning district for the purpose of constructing two (2) 100-foot tall vertically integrated structures. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 6.13 Future Land Use Designation Old Town Existing Land Use(s) Outdoor storage and vacant industrial buildings Proposed Land Use(s) Vertically Integrated Buildings Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/30/2019; 13 attendees attendees: B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access to the site is proposed from Main St. and NE.#rd Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Street. Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 94 of 214 1 1 1 r r ■■ �n SI• '� its : I. d ,, ■■■ ■ Illy 111■I -�E `�� ~+� a��. son NIEMEN II iE nlpm ju u Z PINE Z PINE Illln■111711:1i L' � - lIII.A11l111■e--an a nm nn rnN � 1 s .x�.,,y � �. ,,,:� 1 ■.dlll:1:��nlr F.y �[�u■u•Itll;nn L'llllllll��� '.: 1 • FRANKLIN '�� �" `� FRANKLIN 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a.- • 1 - . - • in i■u■. • • • 11��• ■ ■.. i�■ I� ■■ ■� v =yM � Illl u= 1 �+i1■SI nm ■=■ • i ' • '■ •• mn n=■ i111u IIII■ ■.�■�- ll 1■■11•Ill•rlEll i:■.I■F■1■N Il p •��••� ■ IIII IIII■lu 111■� i� • �,� Z • IIII■ mm nm �u nm:m-nlr ��I,,,,mnmx ■■■■��i it—' =._..nEl■PI N En nn.nnn nn• �-.�� PI'N E Ir IIIIIIII nu 1_�:■„z�a Y �� 111:IIII!PI[�11[I II' ,,y 1111■■Enll�11..•.■ -�. n�..oum■�:nm l■u■■11111111 �J I 0 IIII-�11111111■--.IIII'�II� 1�11!■■IIII 11111.11.!ILY I I;;r • In■.■un:IS■■ m n'� �-I■III �nliii unl auu- l■S■ LY�■MINIM I■■■Ir■S■ Ennis 11111 FRANKLIN_-- • IIIII Illlla ♦ ♦ 11 i C. Representative: NeUdesign Architecture—725 E 2nd St.,Meridian ID, 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published 1/31/2020 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/28/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 2/9/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 1/28/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map(FLUM)Designation(https://www.meridianciU.or /�compplan) This property is designated Old Town on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(FLUM). Per the Comprehensive Plan,this designation includes the historic downtown and the true community center. The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas, both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings. Sample uses include offices,retail and lodging,theatres,restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses are also envisioned and could include reuse of existing buildings, new construction of multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. In order to provide and accommodate preservation of the historic character,the City has developed specific Design Guidelines for this area. Pedestrian amenities are emphasized in Old Town. The applicant is proposing to construct two (2)vertically integrated buildings consisting of 29,000 square feet of retail space and a total of 385 residential units on approximately 6.13 acres of land in the Old Town District consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the following policies that support the applicant's proposed development: • "Improve ingress and egress (both pedestrian and vehicle) in Old Town."(3.03.01C) • "Promote high density residential development in Old Town."(3.07.01 C) • "Locate high-density development,where possible,near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares."(3.07.02L) • "Develop continuous pedestrian walkways within the downtown area."(3.03.02E) • "Pursue construction of the City's pathway network to and through downtown."(3.03.0117) • "Encourage infill development."(3.04.02B) B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: All of the uses have ceased on the property. With the development of this property,the existing buildings will be removed to make way for the proposed vertically integrated development. - Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 96 of 214 Further,the east building is proposed to be constructed over public right-of way dedicated with the Amended Plat of Rowan Addition.Prior to the submitting a certificate of zoning compliance for the east building,the applicant should submit and obtain approval of a vacation application to vacate the public alley and Railroad Ave.ROW. C. Proposed Use Analysis: Phase 1 of the proposed development will consist of two (2) vertically integrated buildings as follows: • West Building: 7,748 sq. ft. of retail; 185 residential units(studio, 1 and 2-bedrooms); 168 parking garage spaces and 4,713 square feet of common open space. • East Building: 17,656 sq. ft. of retail; 200 residential units (studio, 1 and 2-bedrooms); 382 parking garage spaces and 8,213 square feet of common open space. • Interim surface parking with 109 parking stalls. With Phase 2,the applicant is proposing to convert the interim surface parking(western third of the site) and intensify the use further,by constructing two (2) office towers which will require additional land use approvals from the City. D. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-41: Vertically Integrated Residential Project: A. A vertically integrated residential project shall be a structure that contains at least two(2)stories.Both of the proposed buildings are seven stories in height in excess of the code minimum. B. A minimum of twenty five percent(25%)of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated project shall be residential dwelling units,including outdoor patio space on the same floor as a residential unit. Both of the proposed buildings provide residential dwelling units in excess of 25%of the gross floor area. C. The minimum building footprint for a detached vertically integrated residential project shall be two thousand four hundred(2,400) square feet. The two (2)buildings exceed the 2,400 square foot minimum. On the submitted plans, the proposed footprints are 57,355 sq.ft. and 26,917 sq.ft. respectively. D. The allowed nonresidential uses in a vertically integrated project include: arts,entertainment or recreation facility;artist studio; civic, social or fraternal organizations;daycare facility;drinking establishment;education institution; financial institution;healthcare or social assistance;industry,craftsman; laundromat;nursing or residential care facility;personal or professional service;public or quasi-public use;restaurant;retail;or other uses that may be considered through the conditional use permit process.No other uses are being proposed or approved with the subject conditional use permit application. E. None of the required parking shall be located in the front of the structure.Parking is proposed behind the main buildings in accord with this standard. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): In the Old Town zone,new buildings shall be a minimum of two stories and cannot exceed 75 feet,unless approved through a conditional use permit as requested. F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed from N. Main Street and NE. 3rd St.N. Main Street is designated as an arterial street and NE 3'Street is designated as a collector. The UDC restricts access to arterials when local street access is available. Staff is amenable to the access to 3rd Street however,the site plan should be revised so that the second access is provided to Broadway Ave.,not Main Street in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. - Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 97 of 214 G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking exists on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and 11-3C-6B.3. In the Old Town district,the requirement is one(1) space for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for retail and one(1) space for all of the residential units. Based on the square footage of the retail use (29,000) and the total number of units, (385 d.u.), a minimum of 414 spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 550 off-street parking spaces between the two buildings and 109 surface spaces which exceeds UDC standards. NOTE: The west building does not contain the required off-street parking based on the residential unit count and commercial square footage(required 195; proposed 168).If the entire project remains under single ownership as proposed,the parking ratio for the site still meets/exceeds the requirements of the UDC. With a future phase of the two(2)office towers,the parking ratio for this site will have to be re- evaluated to determine if parking is adequate for the site. H. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalk currently exist along Main Street and 3'Street.With the proposed development,the applicant is proposing to improve the streetscape along all of the street frontages to enhance pedestrian connectivity. The City's Master Pathways Plan calls for a10-foot multi-use pathway along Broadway Ave.,NE. 3' Street and the rail corridor.Further,the City has adopted as a reference to the Comprehensive Plan,the Downtown Meridian Street Cross-section Master Plan. Specific details of the streetscape has not been provided with the submittal. The site plan submitted with the CZC application shall include the cross-section for the streetscape improvements along Main,Broadway and 3r1 in accord with the adopted Cross-section Master Plan. Further,the applicant should construct an on-street of the multi-use pathway along Broadway and 3rd Street in accord with the Cross-section Master Plan and the portion of the pathway along the rail corridor should comply with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-311-12. I. Landscaping: The Old Town zone and the proposed vertically integrated use does not require open space or site amenities for the development. The applicant has provided a landscape plan the details the proposed open space and amenities proposed with the construction of the development. The east building depicts two(2)rooftop courtyards with outdoor kitchen/barbeque, fire pits,raised planters and multiple seating areas. The west building depicts a single rooftop courtyard and the same amenities as the east building. The Broadway street frontage also has a street-level plaza area with designated walking paths, decorative concrete/pavers,tot lot, fire pits and seating area. In general, staff is supportive of the open space and amenities proposed with the development. Details of the open space and amenities should be provided with the revised plans submitted with CZC application. Landscaping for the surface parking area should comply with UDC 11-3B-8C. J. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-�": The Hunter Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site. A majority of it is tiled however,there is approximately 160 feet that remains an open facility.With the development of the site,the applicant is proposing to tile the lateral in accord with UDC standards. The submitted site plan does not depict the width of the irrigation easement. The site plan should be revised to depict the Hunter Lateral easement and the applicant should coordinate with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District regarding the improvements within the easement.A license agreement with NMID shall be executed prior to the issuance of the CZC. Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 98 of 214 K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A- : If fencing is proposed for the development,the applicant shall comply with the fencing standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-7. L. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Public Works has confirmed that there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve the proposed development. If public infrastructure is required to be extended with the proposed project,the applicant should provide autocad file of the expansion with their certificate of zoning compliance for review and approval. M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual renderings were provided with the application to provide representation of the scale and mass of the two(2) structures on the property to determine if the requested height is appropriate for the subject property. Specifics on building materials and color is not depicted on the elevations submitted with the application. The UDC requires the proposed vertically integrated buildings to comply with the standards in the Architectural Design Manual. Staff does not have enough information with the submitted elevations to inform the Commission if the Buildings conform to the ASM. Staff is supportive of the requested increase in the height however, staff believes the East Building should incorporate additional architectural features to hold the corner(Broadway/3rd St.Intersection)and be a prominent focal point of the design.Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and UDC 11-3A-19. VI. DECISION A. Staff- Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan -10 — - — - — , . 4. -- 11 16 7 EBROADWMVE _- - — ------- AL411k ���. �morrmauuwao¢tavrvhwxc �� � I FFFIII � I z 1 EST,SUIMN EAST SUILDENG �� $ x� °a ' is Uo I SITE PLAN a_6F._______._______ OVERALL min -- - -- - - 9W - - -I - Meridian City Council Meeting. �7 Ti ,-2DZO=Pa-e J9 of2't4 - - - - AIE PL4N-O�ERMi B. Landscape Plan ne design F----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -- P-SCHED- 0 0 CDD) 0 zQ rz, z F3 n 12 7t ti 0 0 0 C) ---- ------- ------- ------- LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 100 of 214 C. Perspective Views ne design 11 L�� �III■pa ~ 1 II,11['� m p 9 r' k00 1 ® � ; 4 ■ 0 11j oil I LL \ z � � z BROAOWAY LOOKING AT COURTYARp L�ROAD& RDrMR _, Q i a a Milo 09' O1� a ■ Ali "Iwo: "W""tz i�.—�ii,-- ,, WX 1 L� oil. rr rrr man �^Itl r LL1RI tl4 I a>•LL+III1lkyyyzzsr--''' � \ �� ERSPECTIVE SROADWAY&3 D LOOKING 50MLASk' 12 MAkN d BROA�WAY AERIAL A-911 - Page 8 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 101 of 214 ne design 0 ■ i l µ, N 1 ■ 11 �I ■ � �■ ■ it ■ 1 wit o -- -*0 Mimi t1 B _. O _ z z „wesr war ewLDLNG I FOF r0 nruiiiri ® �� ■■ii�■ ■ ■ ■I■ ■ni ■ ■ �■ ■■ ■ate ,emm) 1� PERSPE V, A-912 �RAILROAp LOOKING NORRILOOKING NORRI Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020- Page 102 of 214 EAST APARTMENT LEGEND..' 0 z a W z O z a a n z o_ O f � L L AREA PLANS GE 102 EAST APARTMENT LEGEND �� � O ■���u�u� : ,,�„ neUtlesign — — — — z 0 qjz W z _ o o a � z S — — 11-11-11-11 , 119 AREA PLANS GEI03 Page 10 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 103 of 214 WEST BUILDING APARTMENT LEGEND - - - - - 7ro :P..a z 0 z m z z --` a z o 4UHT Q�F AO1 s AREA PLANS GWI02 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 104 of 214 D. Parking Plan ne design II - i � II II — — o - z FOP a0� EAST BUILDING PODIUM LEGEND ■o...� re ssm ■,. . mn �wo �wm-i«ioawro. m i:ss gyp" •"" AREA PLANS 0.� �rw.xc m ssn9 10 ne.design WEST BUILDING PODIUM LEGEND i 3 .4 xc iw sssu O o rnur re run O a a z o 17 A KI 5 L S a l7 � FO? �01 a a AREA PLANS 1 P R I G T L 0 K N S A is GW 101 Page 12 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 105 of 214 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-4 1 Vertically Integrated Residential Projects. 2. If public infrastructure is required to be extended with the proposed project,the applicant shall provide autocad file of the expansion with their certificate of zoning compliance for review and approval. 3. The site plan shall be revised to depict the Hunter Lateral easement. The applicant shall coordinate with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District regarding the improvements within the easement. A license agreement with NMID shall be executed prior to the issuance of the CZC. 4. The east building shall incorporate additional architectural features to hold the corner(Broadway/3rd St. Intersection) and be a prominent focal point of the design. Final design of the buildings shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Design Manual. 5. Details of the open space and amenities shall be provided with the revised plans submitted with CZC application. 6. The site plan submitted with the CZC application shall include the cross-section for the streetscape improvements along Main St.,Broadway Ave., and 3'St. in accord with the adopted Downtown Cross- section Master Plan. 7. The applicant shall construct the on-street portion of the multi-use pathway along Broadway and 3rd Street in accord with the Downtown Cross-section Master Plan. The portion of the pathway along the rail corridor shall comply with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12. Prior to occupancy of the first building, the applicant shall execute a recorded pedestrian easement with the City for the portion of the pathway along the rail corridor as proposed. 8. The parking lot landscaping on the west portion of the site shall comply with the standards in UDC 11-3B- 8C. 9. Prior to the submitting a certificate of zoning compliance for the east building,the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a vacation application to vacate the public alley and Railroad Ave. right-of-way platted with Amended Plat for Rowan Addition to Meridian. 10. The applicant shall comply with the proposed parking plan. Parking and drive aisle dimensions shall comply UDC Table 11-3C-5. With a future phase of the two(2)office towers on the west portion of the site,the parking ratio for this site shall be re-evaluated to determine if parking is adequate for the site. 11. The site plan shall be revised so that the second access is provided to Broadway Ave.,not Main Street in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. B. Meridian Fire Department https://weblink.meridiancit .w-glWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=181404&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX C. Meridian Police Department https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLinkIDocView.aWx?id=182010&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) No Comments at this time. E. Department of Environmental Quality Page 13 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 106 of 214 https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=181370&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. West Ada School District Itgps://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183066&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City G. COMPASS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=182234&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use with the increase in height and meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the O-T zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed use and height is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section Vfor more information). 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the operation of the proposed use and height should be compatible with other uses in the vicinity and the intended character of the area and not adversely affect such. 4. That the proposed use and additional height,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed use complies with the condition of approval in Section VII as required, Staff finds the proposed use and height should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Because the site is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary and has been annexed into the City, Staff finds the proposed use and height will be served adequately by these services continuing to be provided. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff ,finds the proposed use and height should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use and height will not be detrimental to any persons or property or affect the general welfare by any of the means listed as the proposed use is actually less intense than many uses located in this area. Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 107 of 214 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance in this area; however,finds the proposed use and height should not result in damage of any such features. Page 15 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 108 of 214 WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item -4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: Title of Item - Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Uploa Staff Report Staff Report 3/2/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 138 of 214 City of Meridian -Public Hearing Sign In Form ToolsPage 1 of 1 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 3/5/2020 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Handy Truck Line Silos Project No.: H-2019-0149 Active: Signature HOA HOA I Wish To Sign In AddressForNeutralAgainst NameNameRepresentTestifyDate/Time Lindsey 725 N. 3/5/2020 X AndersonMain St.6:00:43 PM Go Back To ListExport To Excel © 2020 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=4263/6/2020 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING March 5,2020 Legend DATE: Continued from: 212012020 aProject Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission .7 7 FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning ': ` ; Supervisor _ _ 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development q Services Manager 208-887-2211 - SUBJECT: H-2019-0149 Handy Truck Line Silos } " LOCATION: 630 E. King St. (R5672030510) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed(i.e. 50 feet) in the I-L zoning district for two(2)new 80-foot tall silos. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage .83 Future Land Use Designation Industrial Existing Land Use(s) Industrial Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/11/2019;6 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) CZC-07-038(addition to existing building);A-2016-0366 (CZC/DES—construction of a new building adjacent to the railway,landscaping&parking improvements) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes Pagel Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 139 of 214 1 • 1 I • �� � ��n•iii�fi., - • - • - `.I fit„ ! • - • • • r�Gn • n • • • • Yl FL F • • • III■.... = ��:1 ' .4 � hll, III•IIL. S �, J. PINE lu _.,i,tri,l PINE �, - - Lu ■1■■:I■L—■c W ,t fir n 1I Ec4�'_ Vl :IIII::11■:i� U 1� V 0 o J .=u k�i�� � ••1 O FRZNKL-I•N-- • _ , _ � FRANKLIN a ■■• a a :� WL•■•7 LL ' ♦ - • • • � FI �' ■■_I � •■��a■7L7 a as� I ■ . ■i13 I ■11■r R•111• �•Iq '•n■Ir W • -• '• it a +tlnu,.-�.-nmm�����■1'. • PINE P-I.NE-�{ �1 �� ■ i.■:6oi�iul■■IUIII[I •Lm nm un!un �� • I ('� a i■�lung.nm:u¢- I■■<O NINE ..■ III - p LU W ur I■I�-..■■ III 0 � ■u�•...�1■I I_111■�� � 1 111 G�l��*��■� J FRANKL-IN -"` " FR�ANKL*I�N;,� Z - ■I5I �"• i- ■!EMI■■■i��i��i■■■����i'=1-71 , r- B. Owner: Union Pacific Railroad— 1400 Douglas Street, Omaha NE, 68179 C. Representative: Scott Hanks,Handy Truckline—630 E King Street,Meridian ID, 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published 1/31/2020 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/28/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 2/11/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 1/28/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) (Note: This project was submitted prior to the new Comprehensive Plan being adopted; therefore, this project is being evaluated under the previous Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial. The purpose of the Industrial designation is to provide a range of industrial uses to support industrial and commercial activities and to develop areas with sufficient urban services. Light industrial uses may include warehouse, storage units, light manufacturing, and incidental retail and office uses. Heavy industrial uses may include processing,manufacturing,warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. In all cases, screening, landscaping, and adequate access should be provided. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage industrial development to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses."(3.06.01C) The subject industrial property is surrounded by other industrial uses and abuts the Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR) line along the northern boundary of the site. • "Coordinate with COMPASS,UPRR,ACHD,VRT, and private property owners to ensure land uses that are compatible and will integrate with freight movement and a future rail corridor transit system." (3.05.01 B) The proposed storage silos are compatible with existing silos on this property and adjacent industrial uses.ACHD submitted comments on this application stating they had no conditions of approval, traffic impact fees or inspections required. The Applicant held a neighborhood meeting prior to application submittal to discuss the proposed use with adjacent land owners. UPRR has approved the proposed construction and granted a lease of their right-of-way to the Applicant for the proposed use (see application information for details). Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 141 of 214 VI. STAFF ANALYSIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) A CUP is proposed for additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed(i.e. 50 feet) in the I-L zoning district for two(2)new 80-foot tall silos. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed silos are for the storage of powder cement for the associated freight/truck terminal, warehousing and shipping business,Handy Truck Line. They are to be located on each end of the existing 80' tall silos as shown on the site plan in Section VIII.A. The material to be stored in the silos will be delivered by rail and distributed by truck. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are six(6) existing silos within the UPRR right-of-way adjacent to this site that were constructed in 1996;the four(4)closest to the railroad tracks are 75' tall while the other two(2)just to the south are 80' tall. See site plan in Section VIII.A. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed structures are subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2C-3. The maximum building height in the I-L zoning district is 50 feet. Additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed for the district requires approval through a conditional use permit per UDC 11-2C-3A.2e. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): A photo of the existing storage silos is included in Section VIII.A; a plan for the proposed storage silos is shown in Section VIII.B. Although the proposed structures at 80' tall will be visible from a public street and abutting property lines,they are located away from the street and public view and are surrounded by industrial properties and the rail corridor. For these reasons and because Staff does not feel it's feasible for the structures to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, Staff does not recommend Design Review is required for the proposed structures. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the proposed structures and approved prior to application for building permits. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 142 of 214 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan/Existing Elevations r { pRoPvs£6 /lOo;r[oND+� t .S LOS 1 1 r 2 - 1 J I I r. PkFc-,.m /M j7-)oknL Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 143 of 214 B. Proposed Elevation 77 I k -7 O � V� - IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The height of the proposed silos shall not exceed 80 feet. 2. The color of the structure shall be consistent with associated structures on the site. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the proposed structures and approved prior to application for building permit(s) for the proposed structures.Design Review is not required. B. Meridian Fire Department https:llweblink.meridiancioy.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=181298&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCitE C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) htos://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=181795&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiU Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 144 of 214 D. Department of Environmental Quality https:llweblink.meridianciN.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=181374&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridiancity.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=182191&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: l. 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. Stafffinds the railroad right-of-way where the silos are proposed is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district with approval of the subject conditional use permit. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed use is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and in accord with UDC standards (see Section Vfor more information). 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design and construction of the proposed silos will be compatible with the same type of structures already existing on the site and with the existing and intended character of the Industrial area and will not negatively change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use if constructed as proposed, will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and Ere protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use is part of an existing site that is already being serviced by public facilities and such services will continue to be provided. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 145 of 214 Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons or property or affect the general welfare by any of the means listed as the proposed use is actually less intense than many uses located in this area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance in this area; however,finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 146 of 214 WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item -4.D. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: Title of Item - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. dMW AL ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Upload Findings Findings/Orders 3/2/2020 Exhibit A Exhibit 3/2/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 147 of 214 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN;�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for Additional Height Exceeding 20% of the Maximum Height Allowed in the I-L Zoning District for Two(2) 80-Foot Tall Silos, Located at 630 E. King Street,by Scott Hanks,Handy Truck Line. Case No(s).H-2019-0149 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: March 5,2020(Findings on March 5, 2020) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 5,2020, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 5,2020,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 5,2020, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 5,2020,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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [file#] Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 148 of 214 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 March 5,2020, 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 March 5,2020,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 11-513-617.1. 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 11-513-6F.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 March 5,2020 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [file#] Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 149 of 214 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 5th day of March ,2020. COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, CHAIRMAN VOTED ----- COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED Aye COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL VOTED Aye COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED ------ COMMISSIONER PATRICIA PITZER VOTED Aye COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED ------ COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED Aye Lisa Holland,Vice Chairperson Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: March 5, 2020 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [file#] Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 150 of 214 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIAN:-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING March 5 2020 � Legend _. DATE: Continued from: 212012020 rE73 . Project Location - -� TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning ; Supervisor 208-884-5533 �I9®�.� �; n-, 17, Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager p � 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0149 Handy Truck Line Silos LOCATION: 630 E. King St. �` (R5672030510) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed(i.e. 50 feet) in the I-L zoning district for two(2)new 80-foot tall silos. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage .83 Future Land Use Designation Industrial Existing Land Use(s) Industrial Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/11/2019;6 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) CZC-07-038(addition to existing building);A-2016-0366 (CZC/DES—construction of a new building adjacent to the railway,landscaping&parking improvements) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes Pagel Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 151 of 214 I • �� � ��n•iii�fi., - • - • - `.I fit„ ! • - • • • r�Gn • n • • • • F Yl �� ®,- l ■v �.� � a F MORE _ • • • III■IIII�,=� �1:� '� +iE �� � ! - .4 � Inll Illnni.. S �, �J� PINE W _.•w l 1 PINE MEN ■1■■:I■I:—■c W ,t fir n 1 I, :IIII::11■:i� U 0 o J .=u k�i�� � •r• O FRZNKL-IN- • _ o _ o FRANKLIN •••w 'mollson rl}'a'■••'• ,'L�iu•!•�i L a ■■• a a : WL•■•7 LL ' ♦ - • • • NMI ■ �' ■■_I •■��a■7L7 a as ■ . ■i13 I ■11■r R•111• �•Iq •mnr W • -• '• it a +tlnu,.-�.-nmm�����■1'. • PI'N E P-I N E`�{ �1 ■ .■:6oi�iul■■IU111[ILU NINE NMI •Lm mom un!un �� • I ('� a i■�lung.mom:u¢- I■�<O ..� III� — p W ur I■1�—..�� III� — , � � 11110...�1■I I_111■�� �1111on111� 1 111 G�l� *��■� J FRANKL-IN -"` " FR�ANKL*I�N;,� MEN IFNEMI Z - ■ICI �"• i- ■� f ■� = 1 ■N■ ti s ■■�' 'A ■!EMI■■■illim ■■■����i'_�.�� , r- • • • 1-1•WARNE1 1 '.• • B. Owner: Union Pacific Railroad— 1400 Douglas Street, Omaha NE, 68179 C. Representative: Scott Hanks,Handy Truckline—630 E King Street,Meridian ID, 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published 1/31/2020 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/28/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 2/11/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 1/28/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) (Note: This project was submitted prior to the new Comprehensive Plan being adopted; therefore, this project is being evaluated under the previous Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial. The purpose of the Industrial designation is to provide a range of industrial uses to support industrial and commercial activities and to develop areas with sufficient urban services. Light industrial uses may include warehouse, storage units, light manufacturing, and incidental retail and office uses. Heavy industrial uses may include processing,manufacturing,warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. In all cases, screening, landscaping, and adequate access should be provided. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage industrial development to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses."(3.06.01C) The subject industrial property is surrounded by other industrial uses and abuts the Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR) line along the northern boundary of the site. • "Coordinate with COMPASS,UPRR,ACHD,VRT, and private property owners to ensure land uses that are compatible and will integrate with freight movement and a future rail corridor transit system."(3.05.01 B) The proposed storage silos are compatible with existing silos on this property and adjacent industrial uses.ACHD submitted comments on this application stating they had no conditions of approval, traffic impact fees or inspections required. The Applicant held a neighborhood meeting prior to application submittal to discuss the proposed use with adjacent land owners. UPRR has approved the proposed construction and granted a lease of their right-of-way to the Applicant for the proposed use (see application information for details). Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 153 of 214 VI. STAFF ANALYSIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) A CUP is proposed for additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed(i.e. 50 feet) in the I-L zoning district for two(2)new 80-foot tall silos. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed silos are for the storage of powder cement for the associated freight/truck terminal, warehousing and shipping business,Handy Truck Line. They are to be located on each end of the existing 80' tall silos as shown on the site plan in Section VIII.A. The material to be stored in the silos will be delivered by rail and distributed by truck. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are six(6) existing silos within the UPRR right-of-way adjacent to this site;the four(4) closest to the railroad tracks are 75' tall while the other two(2)just to the south are 80' tall. See site plan in Section VIII.A. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed structures are subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2C-3. The maximum building height in the I-L zoning district is 50 feet. Additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed for the district requires approval through a conditional use permit per UDC 11-2C-3A.2e. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): A photo of the existing storage silos is included in Section VIII.A; a plan for the proposed storage silos is shown in Section VIII.B. Although the proposed structures at 80' tall will be visible from a public street and abutting property lines,they are located away from the street and public view and are surrounded by industrial properties and the rail corridor. For these reasons and because Staff does not feel it's feasible for the structures to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual, Staff does not recommend Design Review is required for the proposed structures. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the proposed structures and approved prior to application for building permits. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 154 of 214 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan/Existing Elevations r { pRoPvs£6 /lOo;r[oND+� t .S LOS 1 1 r 2 - 1 J I I r. Pf�F�� /+oarrrokn�� Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 155 of 214 B. Proposed Elevation 77 I k -7 O � V� - IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The height of the proposed silos shall not exceed 80 feet. 2. The color of the structure shall be consistent with associated structures on the site. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the proposed structures and approved prior to application for building permit(s) for the proposed structures.Design Review is not required. B. Meridian Fire Department https:llweblink.meridiancioy.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=181298&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCitE C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) htos://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=181795&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiU Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 156 of 214 D. Department of Environmental Quality https:llweblink.meridianciN.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=181374&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU E. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridiancity.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=182191&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: l. 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 the railroad right-of-way where the silos are proposed is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district with approval of the subject conditional use permit. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed use is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and in accord with UDC standards (see Section Vfor more information). 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design and construction of the proposed silos will be compatible with the same type of structures already existing on the site and with the existing and intended character of the Industrial area and will not negatively change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use if constructed as proposed, will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use is part of an existing site that is already being serviced by public facilities and such services will continue to be provided. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 157 of 214 The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons or property or affect the general welfare by any of the means listed as the proposed use is actually less intense than many uses located in this area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance in this area;however,finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 158 of 214 WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item -4.E. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 Title of Item - Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2019-0143) by Ryan Recla, Located at 2940 S. Mesa Way Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Uploa Staff Report Staff Report 3/2/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 159 of 214 City of Meridian -Public Hearing Sign In Form ToolsPage 1 of 1 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 3/5/2020 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-E Project Name: Bannock Ridge Project No.: H-2019-0143 Active: I Wish Signature HOA HOA Sign In AddressForNeutralAgainstTo NameNameRepresentDate/Time Testify 3101 Mesa 3/4/2020 Aneke Way Meridian X8:59:54 Binford Idaho 83642PM 3101 Mesa 3/4/2020 Matthew Way Meridian, X9:00:37 Binford Idaho 83642PM 3/5/2020 2902 S Wil RoyX6:05:13 Fallingbrook PM Go Back To ListExport To Excel © 2020 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=4043/6/2020 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 3/5/2020 Legend DATE: f TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 - - Bruce Freckleton,Development - Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0143 y Bannock Ridge LOCATION: 2940 S. Mesa Way(Parcel , --- #R4814130225; SE '/4 of Section 29, T.3N.,R.IE.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Agreement modification to remove the subject 4.35 acre property from the 13.58 acre boundary of the existing agreement(Bannock Ridge -Inst. #2017-084176)for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed development plan; and,Preliminary Plat consisting of 10 building lots and 5 common lots on 4.35 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Note: The Assessor's data for the subject parcel lists the acreage as 4.26 acres; however; the surveyor's legal description lists the acreage as 4.35 acres, which the surveyor has confirmed is correct. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4.35 acres per legal description Existing/Proposed Zoning R-4(existing)—Medium Low-Density Residential District Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)(3 or fewer units/acre) Existing Land Use(s) One(1)existing single family residential(SFR)home to remain&agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 10 SFR buildable lots/5 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 10 detached SFR homes of units) Density(gross&net) 2.35 units/acre(gross); 3.96 units/acre(net) Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 160 of 214 Description Details Page Open Space(acres,total 0.82 of an acre(or 11.13%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Multi-use pathway Physical Features(waterways, The Ten Mile Creek runs along the northern boundary of hazards,flood plain,hillside) the site Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/16/19; 11 attendees attendees: A Ei History(previous approvals) Lot 3,Block 2,Kachina Estates Subdivision;H-2017-0050 (Bannock Ridge-Development Agreement Inst.#2017- 074176;preliminary plat expired) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access from S.Mesa Way via a common driveway and E.Loggers (Arterial/Collectors/State Pass St.,both local public streets. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service E.Victory Rd. -"F"(currently exceeds ACHD's acceptable level of service during PM peak hour—trips generated from this site will contribute less than 2%to the total PM peak hour traffic on Victory) Stub E. Loggers Pass St.at west boundary is proposed to be extended Street/Interconnectivity/Cross through the site and stubbed to the south Access Existing Road Network Local public streets Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ NA Buffers Required Road Improvements Complete S.Mesa Way as a 33' street section with pavement widening, curb,gutter and 5'wide sidewalk within 50'of right-of-way(ROW) abutting the site;and extend E.Loggers Pass St. as a 33' local street section with curb,gutter&5' sidewalk within 47' of ROW to southern boundary of site with a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround. Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)1 Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • An enhanced pedestrian crossing is scheduled in the IFYWP to be installed on Victory Road at Timber Avenue in 2020. • Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road in 2022. • The intersection of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a multi-lane roundabout in 2021. • Locust Grove Road and Bridge Number 2087 is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed/widened in 2022. • Victory Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Meridian Road(SH-68)to Locust Grove Road between 2026 and 2030. • Victory Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2021 and 2025. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.9 miles Page 2 — Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 161 of 214 Description Details Page • Fire Response Time 4:00 minutes under ideal conditions from nearest station(Fire Station #4)—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 79%-does meet the targeted goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer 10 SFR buildings ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.82 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Sewer Review Concerns The preliminary civil plans submitted with this application do not show sewer and water facilities,therefore conceptual review could not be completed. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone • Estimated Project Water 10 SFR building ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns The preliminary civil plans submitted with this application do not show sewer and water facilities,therefore conceptual review could not be completed. Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 162 of 214 1 1 1 .NINE u' ■Nog...•* u•.:oil ■ - uuu II ■on _ --� ■Emso■ uuu �■ Il llll : u0 10 ■■ i .Emmons- 1 uull'- ■ 1■■■� ■uuul . SIG ■ _■ �■- l■' �-' - III••11111� Y■ • �. 111iiil�■+ 1 IIII 1.1Milli I NO 2 ■ �II��1 i,' - r - l 111 �■ IIII �• i--- �1 �. i''�' r !R NONE■r NONE ONE ' y ■ol NE■■N■ N ! JE•.� SEISMSf` -■ ■a - ■ - ■■l l W� - - � u I �I ■ ■ U11A■ HIME ■ = I1111 -�SEISE ��-_ __-_ I' { - 1 _ in e lull 3' ■u■unn■flul - -` .I _ - - - 1 wN64+ ■III IIRiI:1uu -w � - :.— 1111■11 -uuuw_ +uua•u uuuu --'_' �vuiiu Illl IIIIIIRi IIII -5 Illllllll -�� _ _ }y'� '��M1_y��11I111111I uuuu•er unu - uuu uuuu = -. uElhiGiil ��uu uu ■nSuuw uu■■ �1 � _ - � s SEEMS ■■ mom on■■ Ming u■ Ming■■■ 1■■■■III 1■1■■III ■uuu ■uuu • ■II ■u ■II ■u ■ENEE■- Emmons- ■1■1■1 Emmons ■ IIIIII : u■1■1■ ra son■ ■EEEEE■- ■on■son- luull- ■ INN N uuuu IS- on INS �I i•'liiiig ■ IN' ■ 1I uwgEll - l■' Y■ 11111111�■+ ' �■+ Illl = 1111 -IN II _ II 7III +�li 7■ 1 ■ ■ •�lilll i 7■ k ■ �u�n Ill,uuuu �■ ■■I■■■ -Ill,uuuu �■ ■■I■■■ i--_ !R ■■■■ wR ■■■■■r uuuu■ A y ..I ■�M■N■ ■u J1 ■: IIIIII �� ■�M■-- : ONE ■ 11 I7Caa1: _ 11■1 _ f _ E111 ■ ■ � Ili �- _I � ■ ■ � Ili �- ��_� � I cull , — iE ■■■ y10I 11111111 ,i-111i -SEEN■ � "'1 _--- I -SEEN■ � - I1111"' G L _-- -IIIIII ■EI�EII■ -��_ -IIIIII = II III _�■EI�EII■ - _ �I11r1�_`_ III = I I uuuu 1% o IIIII 3 ■11111111 N�1111 - o lull 0 111'.u■11I.111 N■1111 = lllNy6+�uI:ul■nuuu -uuuw + •u uuuu -uuuw'S� uu uu a -s uuuw -=1 uu uuuullll 111111111E IIIIII �: uuu IIIIII■I uuuuu IIIIII �: uuu IIIIII■' ��1111 111 uuuuu I 1■■ �141111 11111�� uuuuu 1■11■■'03 - Illu El uuuu : - IlluEl uuuu : III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Ryan Recla—914 S. McDermott Rd.,Nampa, ID 83687 B. Owner: Alan&Rose Marsh—2940 S. Mesa Way,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Dan Lardie,Leavitt&Associates Engineers,Inc.— 1324 1st Street South,Nampa, ID 83651 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 2/14/2020 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 2/11/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 2/20/2020 Nextdoor posting 2/11/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) (Note: This project was submitted prior to the new Comprehensive Plan being adopted; therefore, this project is being evaluated under the previous Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Medium Density Residential(MDR). The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow small lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "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 detached homes will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the City; Staff is unaware how "affordable"the units will be. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.0117) City services are available and will be extended by the developer to the proposed lots upon development of the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 164 of 214 • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (3.06.01F) The abutting uses are also single-family residential which are compatible with the proposed development. • "Require common area in all subdivisions."(3.07.02F) The proposed plat depicts a total of 0.82 of an acre (or 11.1301o) of common area; because the property is below S acres in size, the UDC does not require 10%common area. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities,and other best site design practices." (3.07.01A) The site abuts rural S+/-acre lots to the north and south and urban density residential lots to the west. Staff believes the proposed lot layout, design and density is compatible with surrounding uses. The common area with the multi-use pathway proposed along the south boundary and the common area and creek along the north boundary of the site will provide a buffer between the proposed development and the adjacent rural properties. • "Implement the City's Pathways Master Plan to provide a bike and pathways system between neighborhoods,local collectors, and community destinations.Work with new development, ITD,ACHD,COMPASS,Ada County, and other entities to identify partnership opportunities." (6.02.01A) A segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is designated on the Pathways Master Plan along the Ten Mile Creek along the north boundary of this site. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept. to provide the pathway in an alternate location on this site as depicted on the landscape plan. • "Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities." The proposed urban density subdivision abuts rural S+/-acre residential properties to the north and south; the proposed linear open space areas along the north and south boundaries of the site combined with larger lots (8,000+ square feet) will transition between urban level densities and rural residential densities. • "Encourage infill development."(4.04.01 T) The subject property and adjacent S+/-acre lots in Kachina Estates Subdivision are surrounded by medium low-density residential developments; development of the subject infill property will result in a better provision of City services. • "Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets). (3.03.020) The proposed plat depicts the extension of an existing local stub street(E. Loggers Pass St.) at the west boundary stubbing to the property to the south for future extension. Staff believes the proposed development plan is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation. Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 165 of 214 VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC) A. Development Agreement Modification: The applicant proposes to modify the recorded Development Agreement(Inst. #2017-074176) that governs development of the subject property and the property to the south(Parcel #R4814130200)to remove the subject property from the agreement and enter into a new agreement consistent with the proposed development plan. The existing DA provisions and previously approved preliminary plat and concept building elevations are included in Section VIII.A. The existing preliminary plat depicts 7(and portions of 3 other)buildable lots on this property with the extension of the stub street from the west to the south boundary and retention of the existing home on the northern portion of the site similar to the proposed plat but with access to the proposed lots from the south and not via S.Mesa Way. Because the proposed development plan is similar to the existing plan and generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff is supportive of the request for a modification to the DA. Staff recommends the existing applicable DA provisions are carried over to the new DA(and amended as necessary), as they are still applicable to future development of the site and the proposed plat, landscape plan and concept elevations are also included in the new DA(see Section VIII.C,D&E and Section IX.A). If approved,the modified DA must be signed by the property owner(s)and returned to the City within 6 months of the City Council granting the modification. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat consists of 10 buildable lots and 5 common lots on 4.35 acres of land in the R- 4 zoning district. The minimum lot size in the R-4 district is 8,000 sq. ft. The minimum lot size proposed is 8,001 square feet(s.f.)with a maximum lot size of 30,958 s.f. on the lot where the existing home is proposed to remain. The gross density is 2.34 units/acre. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one (1) existing home and accessory structures on the site that are proposed to remain on Lot 10, Block 1. Any structures that do not comply with the minimum setbacks of the R-4 district should be removed or the lot line(s) should be adjusted to comply;the southern- most accessory structure on Lot 10,Block I does not comply with the minimum 15 foot rear setback—the plat should be revised to comply or the structure removed. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-2. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed development is subject to the dimensional standards of the R-4 district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. The R-4 district requires a minimum of 60 feet of street frontage;the street frontage of Lot 2,Block 2 does not appear to be dimensioned correctly,the plat should be revised to demonstrate compliance. The remainder of the lots comply with UDC standards. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and common driveways. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 166 of 214 There are two(2)common driveways proposed; such driveways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Staff recommends the common driveway proposed to provide access to Lots 12 and 13,Block 1 be located in a common lot,rather than on Lot 12,Block 1. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveways should be filed with the Ada County Recorder,which should include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment; a recorded copy of said easements should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to or concurrent with submittal of the final plat for the City Engineer's signature. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via the extension of an existing stub street,E. Loggers Pass St., at the west boundary of the site,which is proposed to stub to the southern boundary of the subdivision for future extension. Two(2)common driveways are proposed to provide access to Lots 12 and 13, Block 1 and Lots 3-5, 7-8 and 10,Block 1 as depicted on the plat. Address signage should be placed at the public street for wayfinding purposes for homes accessed by common driveways. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.Future development should comply with these standards. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the southwest side of the Ten Mile Creek on this site. The Applicant proposes an alternate location for the pathway through the subdivision in general alignment with the creek as approved by the Park's Department. The 10' wide pathway is required to be placed within a public pedestrian easement as required by the Park's Department.Landscape note#6 states the pathway shall be 5' wide; the width should be changed to 10' wide as graphically depicted. There is a small off-site segment(10'+/-)of the multi-use pathway in Glacier Springs Subdivision at the northwest corner of this site that did not get completed with that development leaving a gap in the pathway system.The existing DA contains a provision for the missing section to be completed with this development if approval can be obtained from the Glacier Springs HOA. Staff recommends this provision is carried over to the new DA. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Attached sidewalks are required along internal and adjacent local streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A 10' wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the west side of S.Mesa Way and along the east side of E. Loggers Pass Way in place of the typical 5-foot wide sidewalk. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 167 of 214 Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. A mix of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover shall be depicted in the common lot adjacent to the multi-use pathway in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C.2.The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4"caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost onsite up to an amount of 100%replacement as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5; mitigation information should be included in the Landscape Calculations table and depicted on the plan. Street buffers are not required along local streets (i.e. E. Loggers Pass St./Way and S. Mesa Way). Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: Because the area of the proposed plat is below 5 acres in size,the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B do not apply. However, common area is proposed where a segment of the City's regional pathway system is planned through the subdivision and where the Ten Mile Creek is located totaling 11%of common open space. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1: Because the area of the proposed plat is below 5 acres in size,the qualified site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C do not apply. However, a segment of the City's regional pathway system is proposed as an amenity through this subdivision. Storm Drainage: Storm drainage ponds are proposed as shown on the preliminary plat on(common)Lot 1,Block 2 and(buildable)Lot 8, Block 1. Storm drainage ponds should be provided on common lots, rather than buildable lots; the plat and landscape plan should be revised accordingly. Waterways(UDC It It The Ten Mile Creek runs along the northern boundary of this site and is required to remain open as a natural waterway and should not be piped or otherwise covered as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 6B.1 and should be protected during construction. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The existing fence along the west and south boundaries of the site is proposed to remain; no new fencing is proposed along the subdivision boundary. Wrought iron fencing should be graphically depicted on the plan in accord with Landscape Note#5 and UDC 11-3A-7A.7a which requires the Developer to construct fences abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas. A 6' tall chain link fence is proposed along the portion of the multi-use pathway that is adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek on Lot 11,Block 1. Staff recommends the type of fencing is changed to wrought iron to match that proposed along the rear of building lots abutting the pathway for consistency. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual elevations of homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.E. Homes depicted are a single-story and a single-story with a bonus room over the garage with a variety and mix of finish materials Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 168 of 214 consisting of horizontal and vertical siding, and stucco with stone/brick veneer accents; 2-story homes aren't shown but may also be constructed. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested modification to the Development Agreement and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A per the Findings in Section X. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Existing Development Agreement Provisions(Inst. #2017-084176) "5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1.Owner and/or Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and building elevations depicted in the Staff Report attached to Exhibit B, Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law. b. The Owners and/or Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. c. All of the existing homes proposed to remain on lots within the subdivision are required to hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it being available to said lots. d. Any and all existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service,per City Ordinance 5-7-517,when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. e. The Ten Mile Creek shall be improved as necessary and protected during development. The creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered. £ If 2-story homes are constructed on Lots 11 and 12,Block 2,they will be highly visible from E.Victory Road, an arterial street. Therefore,the rear elevations of 2-story homes shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: material type,projections,recesses, step-backs,bays,banding,pop-outs,porches,balconies or other architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. This does not apply to single-story homes. g. A 10-foot wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system that crosses this site is required to be constructed within a 14-foot wide public use easement in accord with the Pathways Master Plan per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12C. Submit the easement to the Planning Division with the final plat application for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. h. If permission can be obtained from the Glacier Springs Homeowner's Association to the west,the developer shall extend and connect the multi-use pathway off-site to the existing pathway which stops short of the property line by approximately 10 feet." Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 169 of 214 ji - 1 ON m1u 6 J A x • g 15� I A? — It, � �. � I � � sp •x S��x� FIR; ��a S ��I3 IX ' 4� $ ■ : i n n y^I 4-I " O P' ■ fl o p■ b b 41 LEAv17-r&aALssoclA7ES BAF{F{¢C,N RI�C�E$U q�VI$�4N W FJCi1NEFF7ti,iiVis PRELIMINARYPLAT asssrrwcaLWALu avlt } T"L■EVELOPYIEM LI,C $SMVE�'�/AO s{ne Ee�r�•m SMVY.CAOTALPACOLMY 1 nsr AIM 97}97 REV191OH9 PNI)H!Irna)my-am ++M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 170 of 214 BANNOCK RIDG£ SUMVISIDN PRELIMINARY PLAT \ . § .\ H / ( . _ \ / § - - _ § R � f . - � �■�\ . �; m � \ < SL . wk. � - / �■ . . _ || U, - f 'E . . - . ®, ! .y Page !2 — Meridian City Council Meeting Ag m6 maw 5,2020- Page 171a 214 B. Legal Description&Exhibit Map of Property Subject to New Development Agreement Description For BANNOCK RIDGE SUBDIVISION Lot 3, Block 2 of Kachina Estates Subdivision as filed in Book 35 of Plats at Page 3016 and 3017, records of Ada County, Idaho, located in the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 of Section 19,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County. Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the$114 corner of said Section 19 from which the SE corner of said Section 19 bears North 89°42'05" East, 2639.98 feet; thence along the South boundary line of said Section 19 North 89°QW'East, 635.81 feet to the SW corner of said I(achina Estates Subdivision; thence leaving said South boundary line and along the westerly boundary line of said Kachina Estates Subdivision Wirth 12"24'22"West, 170.09 feet; thence continuing along said westerly boundary line North 00°1950"East,729.59 feet to the SW corner of said Lot 3, said point also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: thence along the westerly boundary line of said Lot 3 North OGQ19'50"East,444,51 feet to the id1N corner of said Lot 3, thence along the northeasterly boundary line of said Lot 3 South 50°27'35"East,803.01 feet to the NE corner of said Lot 3; thence along the southeasterly boundary line of said Lot 3 the following 2 courses and distances: thence South 39°27'06"Vilest, 76.42 feet: thence 111.27 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1601 38 feet. a central angle of 39"45'02"and a long chord which bears South 19034'36"West, 109.05 feet to the SE corner of said Lot 3; thence along the southwesterly boundary line of said Lot 3 !North 66'56'33" West. 583.33 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 4.345 acres. more or less, >r % �)J fl �}+F r9�� Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 172 of 214 CURVE TABLE CURVE R ms LENGTH CHORD >ST D BRA I DELTA g 1�Q2 rKr 109.s 9 4—¥ 3B�5'02 UNE TABLE . ENE LENGTH BEARING u 76.42 !D� rw § p § t 44 / G am \ Z [ KACHINA ESWES 7729 m DXCK 2 \Z, e 0 k OF: $ £y POINT 3 rc 2 . 7 KGNN� 3d 4G� �� / X 66. \ 2 J- / • EA CREK j \ mBOAS40N 2 BLOCK � . z I � I I ' f g � k� � 1 19 a&$' _ zzzzz � .._ ... 19 30 N /9' ' E i■j,.' m g BASIS 7 BEARING E. VICTORY R> m ,3 _ se o m 2m SCALE: l" = 120' I#H 0 EXHe17 DRAWING FOR Of. wFRMDr BANNOCK RIDGE SUBDIVISION ST NG. SURVEY 'rA GROUP, [LC _wm«, 4OF�� 19. . �m9 ® mo._ _ C 2123 Page !4 — Meridian City Council Meeting Ag m6 maw 5,2020- Page 173a 214 C. Proposed Preliminary Plat(date: 1/3/20) BANNOCK RIDGE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT ® U,; T3N,R.IE,SEC.19,ADA COUNTY,MERIDIAN,IDAHO I'W 201% P PMCEL sere aZ EL NC.R1914130225 w .. �� i Mtfia t \ fid Y .•.e..n a u�xnw wn..mw,a w�wnua.�nuM m:e.u.yr 9�PP u.v/xosmw ms b�dt LINEMLS: Q zp ME w w'� n a a A89REMATIONSo�rxu..cv m •..., �� .�. `` - `` 1 pia -n� ` $E M�e _� Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 174 of 214 D. Proposed Landscape Plan(date: 12/9/2019) Q_ °w ;a -77 mw.womom mu�iwzwwrs A•l,.u.m.�..��ea_°mn ^€ l �m"E�'r rxw ._.�..V w�w,ax mows-wuic ww ww=.s�sxs TM wrr�ec�r xn wwrz v �' i 11 5 g m o wmwm owe wm.c wo xr.v m�AZ— 0 ...... �.ma�.ue emrnnnn awv.as wmmw uo xx .gym ©Y Za 8 0 ELM dzOz tl LE HUI r j •-o$ O � Wt+w L1.0 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 175 of 214 E. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations w y� b _ E: i �W E� v.VVATION to mq �Sp) a0 zrc os R�z REARREAR E,M� Ww may• i o ----- FR. -----_----- ------ --- -- - ---- -= ai FRONT ELEVATON O6Ys6v^® FRONT ELEVATION --� gcal.vecl'� wU yy �Wg dr Et FRONT ELEVATON REAR ELEVATION ��V1+14' m^ _h Oa W� ig 6I=¢ O f/l W x e 0 g ON oo < _ - o �EwW FRONT ELEVATION scu<.va,ra� ® ® ae e a REAR ELEVATION s o ex-z Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020- Page 176 of 214 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2017-074176)upon the property owner(s) entering into a new agreement. The new DA shall be signed by the property owner(s)and returned to the City within 6 months of City Council granting the subject modification. The new DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and building elevations depicted in the Staff Report attached to Exhibit B, Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law. b. The Owner(s)and/or Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. c. The existing home to remain on Lot 10,Block 1 is required to hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it being available to said lot. d. The existing domestic well and/or septic system on Lot 10,Block 1 shall be removed from its domestic service,per City Ordinance 5-7-517,when services are available from the City of Meridian.Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. e. The Ten Mile Creek shall be improved as necessary and protected during development. The creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered. f. A 10-foot wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system that crosses this site is required to be constructed within a 14-foot wide public use easement in accord with the Pathways Master Plan per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12C. Submit the easement to the Planning Division with the final plat application for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. g. If permission can be obtained from the Glacier Springs Homeowner's Association to the west,the developer shall extend and connect the multi-use pathway off-site to the existing pathway which stops short of the property line by approximately 10 feet.If permission cannot be obtained, documentation as such should be submitted(i.e. a letter from the Glacier Springs HOA). 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VIII.C, dated 1/3/20, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the final plat application: a. Correct the acreage depicted on the plat to be 4.35 instead of 4.26 acres per the legal description in Section VIII.B as verified by the Surveyor. b. The storm drainage pond depicted on Lot 8,Block 1 shall be located in a common lot rather than a buildable lot. c. Lot 2,Block 2 shall have a minimum street frontage of 60 feet in accord with UDC Table 11-2A-5. d. The southern-most accessory structure on Lot 10,Block 1 shall have a minimum 15-foot wide rear setback, or shall be removed, in accord with UDC Table 11-2A-5. e. Note#10: "Lot 2, Block 1 is a common lot to provide access to Lots 3-95, 7-8 and Let 10,Block 1 to be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association." Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 177 of 214 f. The common driveway proposed for access to Lots 12 and 13,Block 1 shall be located within a common lot consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. g. Revise the"Typical 10' wide multi-use pathway section along Ten Mile Creek"detail on Sheet 1 to reflect 6' wrought iron fencing instead of chain link fencing. Submit a revised plat(and electronic copy) to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.D, dated 12/9/19, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the final plat application: a. The storm drainage pond depicted on Lot 8,Block 1 shall be located in a common lot rather than a buildable lot. b. A calculations table shall be included on the plan that details the total lineal feet of the multi-use pathway with the required and proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC 11-3B-12C; and mitigation information for all existing trees 4" caliper or greater that are removed from the site that require mitigation as determined by the City Arborist, demonstrating compliance with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. c. A mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover shall be depicted in the common lot adjacent to the multi-use pathway in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C.2. d. Graphically depict wrought iron along the rear of buildable lots adjacent to the multi-use pathway in accord with Landscape Note#5 and UDC 11-3A-7A.7a,which requires the Developer to construct fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private. Wrought iron fencing, instead of chain link, shall also be provided along the pathway adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek on Lot 11,Block 1 for consistency. e. Correct Landscape Note#6: "Pathway shown shall be constructed of concrete and be 5' 10' wide." 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11- 6C-3D. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveways shall 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 recorded copy of said easements shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to or concurrent with submittal of the final plat for the City Engineer's signature. 8. Address signage shall be placed at the public street for wayfinding purposes for homes accessed by common driveways. Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 178 of 214 9. A public pedestrian easement, as required by the Park's Department, for the multi-use pathway shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway that runs through this subdivision prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The street name/address for the existing home to remain in this development will most likely change with the new platting. 1.2 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. Type 1 streetlights are required on E.Victory Road every 200'. 1.3 The preliminary civil plans submitted with this application do not show sewer and water facilities,therefore conceptual review could not be completed. 1.4 No sewer mainlines in common drives, only sewer services(the maximum of three services are allowed into a manhole,with a minimum 30-degrees of angle separation). 1.5 Per the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report submitted with this application; If clay soils are present after crawl space excavation,the contractor shall be required to contract a geotechnical engineer to evaluate the clay soil. Foundations are not to be constructed atop fat,expansive clay soils unless approved by a professional engineer. Removal and replacement of unacceptable soils may be required. Specific recommendations are to be provided to the City of Meridian Building Official for each lot where clay soils are present at the foundation support elevation. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"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. Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 179 of 214 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 180 of 214 H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=181355&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=1813 72&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancio2.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=183001&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv X. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in general conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section Mfor more information) 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. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 182 of 214 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=181403&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=181241&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit &,y cr=1 F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) No comments were received. G. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridiancit .00rg WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=182430&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 181 of 214 I. JP6t_ I• J a AP r 4 •iry � i .� . + L , • j - z 4 ,* r P, dal AP i r ti ! , I. , ••tip _ I �L �r Y ; _ #•' 14 �' 7 _ — 1 � f • y� a } � T r _ .c� � r + ��' '�{ :r.— fir' �• — f � � z �_kt_. ti ,.^� J 7 •, tom• + ', �x.•d��'fr�,�.4 r�� � . � i 5 • `\ � -ter � ' r_ - ' _' .. �� ' t �' _ r Sri• ' , F f r•. r • �•4 r r i lu -� •' Ali•, -� •,+ x '+ ,I' -} 5•-{.,• ell _ - : �•� # :� - • •gip _ f :;L Y. • ; .y - h ' k 4 � } � r } _ +7 ir s •^ •Fr - a f y 'k—rt•,L - � � r v�, •�r��4.� •� � -i'M may;. { a k4 �+ J a L• �;�a Na ic IV Ir wp ' r ■ rN. 7, �4 S F yr f jF _ y II II II .• I r • lrl- 1 ' y � � - +r. �may' i 'r•�:, Y � 4� '-- y I -- � rf•: 4• '� I•• tiS+l••F•_ �=i5 ti y#+.L�:'.� -t y'-• 5 . i�ti � — ''4:�f„ �Y. .� �� •L�L. � •Fa��{r h.:.�'� }y�M '*,1�`r'}� y �r Y f mill jmwr • -' # � �- fir. #+�•s;i�_� ��` ST- � L _ � .:� �irr� � irfr-� F• � _ _ ter• :Y-• - ti• - r i � JRw� f } ' -z �v�l 35 941, r ; 6 r y� - } �6 'i , P � r � - r dol f Y' M �F- ]A k ^ r• { - _ Jirir 4L� V. lei I ir - 4 }� 1 1 � •kk .ZL �sT 44 ; ,w � W. �' "•Rj%•IL 'R+lam A� �i •. _ k Jr Af r k � _Ar jp '+ +'s y• r }`*� .I" �. _ do Aft � 1 1 * ' ■ Fr � L 1 L '.t • � r* '' ' WEI�DIAN�' ITEM SHEET Council Agenda Item -4.F. Presenter: Estimated Time for Presentation: 0 Title of Item - Public Hearing for Andorra Senior Living (H-2019-0127) by Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 715 & 955 S. Wells St. and 971 E. Wells Circle Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Uploa Staff Report Staff Report 3/4/2020 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 183 of 214 City of Meridian -Public Hearing Sign In Form ToolsPage 1 of 2 Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 3/5/2020 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-F Project Name: Andorra Senior Living Project No.: H-2019-0127 Active: I Wish Signature HOA Sign In AddressHOA NameForNeutralAgainstTo NameRepresentDate/Time Testify 582 S 3/3/2020 Celeste Woodbridge Woodhaven X5:06:57 FoxHOA AvePM Woodbridge 775 S. 3/4/2020 Susan Home Thornwood X3:29:53 LinamOwners WayPM Association 2376 E 3/5/2020 Bette Clifton WoodbridgeX4:00:49 MonteithDrive, PM Meridian 566 S 3/5/2020 JD StefanThornwood WoodbridgeX5:37:17 WayPM 3/5/2020 Janet 637 south WoodbridgeX6:04:21 mcdougallWoodhaven PM 489 E 3/5/2020 Jeremy Lockhart X6:06:32 Garner LanePM 3/5/2020 732 S Truss MarilynX6:18:41 Ave PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=4173/6/2020 City of Meridian -Public Hearing Sign In Form ToolsPage 2 of 2 3/5/2020 Marilyn 732 S Truss X6:19:36 NelsonAve PM Go Back To ListExport To Excel © 2020 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=4173/6/2020 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING March 5,2020 Legend DATE: f TO: Planning&Zoning Commission f Pr , L�nnor I FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning - Supervisor k f r� 208-884-5533 , Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 --- ~ SUBJECT: H-2019-0127 Andorra Senior Living LOCATION: Southwest corner of E. Magic View Dr. ' and S. Wells St. at 715 & 955 S. Wells # St. and 971 E. Wells Circle, in the SE 1/4 of Section 17,Township 3N.,Range ---- 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 16.99 acres of land with the TN-R zoning district with a conceptual development plan for a senior living community consisting of 76 single family style dwelling units and a 3-story apartment building with 88 dwelling units AND vacate existing un-named ACHD right- of-way(0.45 of an acre)between the 715 and 955 S. Wells St.properties. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 16.99 Future Land Use Designation(s) MU-N and MDR Existing Land Use Single-family residential/vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Senior housing(MF) Current Zoning RUT and RI in Ada County Proposed Zoning TN-R Phasing plan(#of phases) 2 Number of Residential Units(type 164 units(88 in 3-story apartment building and 76 single and of units) duplex style multi-family units) Page 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 184 of 214 Density Gross density is 9.65 dwelling units to the acre Open Space(acres,total[%]/ Open space is required for the multi-family development per buffer/qualified) the standards in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27—a total of 3.55 acres is proposed on the submitted concept plan in excess of UDC requirements. Amenities Clubhouse,fitness center,restaurant,open grassy areas(50'x 100'),community gardens,pool,spa, salon,walking trails, sport courts(bocce ball/pickle ball/putting greens),water features and fire pits. Physical Features(waterways, Five Mile Creek bisects the property and is contained within a hazards,flood plain,hillside) 60-foot easement Neighborhood meeting date;#of Three(3)neighborhood meetings were held on various dates attendees: for this project—(33 attendees among the various meetings) History(previous approvals) NA Public Testimony Woodbridge Homeowners Association and 7 others submitted written testimony in support of the proposed project. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Not yet (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action(yes/no) Fire Service • Distance to Fire This fire station is approximately 1.9 miles from the project.If approved,the Station Fire Department can meet the response time goals. • Fire Response This development is 5:00 minutes(under ideal conditions)from the nearest fire Time station—Fire Station 1. • Resource This development is closest to Fire Station#1.Current reliability is 65%from Reliability this station and does not meet the targeted goal of 80%or greater. • Risk This proposed commercial development has a risk factor of 4,in which current Identification resources would not be adequate to supply service to this propose project.Risk factors include firefighting in multi-story buildings and a large gathering of people in a single location. This entails a greater risk for the occupants as well as first responders.Fire,life safety systems and occupant training are critical for this development.Other hazards may be found once the development is completed. • Accessibility This project does not meet all required access,road widths and turnarounds. The shared drives shall have an address sign at each entrance and the roadways shall be maintained 365 days a year for fire,EMS and police responses.The end of the common drives shall be signed"No Parking Fire Lane"per appendix D of the 2015 IFC.The driveway on the southwest corner of the break between phase 1 and 2 is over 150' long.It needs to be shortened,go all the way around the building,or have a turnaround at the end of it. Page 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 185 of 214 • Special/resource This proposed project will require an aerial device.The closest truck company needs is 5 minutes travel time(under ideal conditions)to the proposed development, and therefore the Fire Department can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required.This fire station is approximately 1.9 miles from the project. In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the development. In the event of a structure fire an additional truck company will be required.This will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the city. • Water Supply Water supply for this proposed development requires 2500 gallons per minute for two hours. (Approximate—see appendix B of the 2015 International Fire Code)The fire flow requirements may be less if the building is fully sprinklered. • Other Resources See other FD comments in exhibit VIII below. Police Service • Distance to Police 3 miles Station • Police Response The proposed Andorra Senior Living Complex development application is Time approximately 1.5 miles from the Meridian Police Department.The expected response time to this area in an emergency is about 5 minutes. The average response time in the City of Meridian is just under 4 minutes. • Calls for Service Between 2/1/2019- 1/31/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,800 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. Between 2/1/2019- 1/31/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 144 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Accessibility No issues with the proposed access • Specialty/resource No additional resources are needed at this time;the PD already services the needs area Wastewater • Distance to Sewer 0 feet Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.88 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with W W Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Conceptual engineering has not been provided with this application,and therefore the adequacy of sewer service has not been evaluated at this time. Infrastructure modeling must be completed prior to the approval of this application. Water • Distance to Water 0 feet Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 186 of 214 Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Conceptual engineering has not been provided with this application,and therefore the adequacy of water service has not been evaluated at this time. Infrastructure modeling must be completed prior to the approval of this application. Page 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 187 of 214 1 1 1 too I�F�iA I LI All FRAIaKLI14;ISO N. NIN1111■■■■ 4 u - INr r - ,Y r .:'LU LU IN :uu 84 + 84 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 II 1 II ■I ■� 1• I �I n 111�■I� ' � ' Y■ii�•i�li�� III •. ni����� ■II■ rollI■ ■■■■ 1�IIIIII■■■ Room ' I■I■■ 111 " `� ■I■ ■■■■II IIIIII , ■■■■■■■■■■■ � ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■� r:i,:' ■ ■■ ■■� 'IIIIII nl■. ■il ■u■■ II IIIIII �� I err■•■ pro a.ea: �r;l_ II IIIIII NN Incm-_Gceee MEN— • Craig Taylor 4623 W. 2000 S. Rexburg, ID 83440 Bonnie Robinson 6720 E. Emerald St. Boise, ID 83704 B. Applicant: Sawtooth Development Group, LLC 491 N. Main St., Suite 201 Ketchum, ID 83340 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/14/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 2/11/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 2/24/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 2/11/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION&ZONING The Applicant requests annexation and zoning of 16.99 acres of land with TN-R zoning district consistent with the MU-N(Mixed Use—Neighborhood) and MDR(Medium-density Residential) Future Land Use Map (FLUM)designations in the Comprehensive Plan. A conceptual site plan and building elevations were submitted for the development showing how the property is planned to develop, included in Section VII. Proposed Use: The Applicant proposes to develop the site with an age restricted(55+)multi-family residential development. Independent living units (76 units)are proposed on the west and north side of the site [i.e. multi- family(single family detach and duplex style single-level units on one parcel)] and a 3-story apartment building is proposed in the southeast corner of the site consisting of 88 units. Several commercial components will be integrated with the apartment building, including but not limited to a spa, salon and a restaurant for residents and the public during events. The Allowed Uses table in UDC Table 11-2D-2 for the TN-R zoning district lists multi-family developments as a principally permitted use subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN- R district is required,including but not limited to the maximum building height of 40 feet. Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 189 of 214 Comprehensive Plan(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): This property is designated MU-N(Mixed Use—Neighborhood)(approximately 8 acres) and MDR(approximately 9 acres) on the Future Land Use Map. The purpose of MU-N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services.Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for (approximately one mile)and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is particularly critical in MU-N areas. Tree-lined,narrow streets are encouraged. Developments are also encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU- N plan depicted in Figure 3B. The proposed development meets many of the goals of Mixed-use Neighborhood designation. The MDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The proposed land uses and residential densities are consistent with those desired in MU-N and MDR designated areas. 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): 2.01.01M-"Support active-adult or independent senior living development." The proposed development will provide housing options for seniors in close proximity to office, medical and commercial uses developed in the area. 3.02.00—"Maintain, improve, and expand the City's infrastructure to meet existing and growing demands in a timely, orderly, and logical manner." The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of the services to serve the proposed development. 6.01.01H-"Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system." Pedestrian internal walkways are proposed throughout the development.A segment of the City's multi-use pathway is also propsed to be extended with the proposed development. 4.05.02C—"Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design." The submitted concept plan incorporates the creek corridor into the design of the project. 2.02.01 —"Plan for safe,attractive and well maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices." The concept plan as designed depicts 22.9%common open space. Open space is linked throughout the development with inter- connected walking paths for residents of the community to enjoy. Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 190 of 214 3.02.01 G—"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools,fire and parks." The applicant is proposing to development the site with a senior housing project. Public Works has allocated resources to serve the development, but additional modeling is required. Both Police and Fire have provided comments on the application and they have no major concerns with the proposed development. With the development of the site, a pathway segment will be extended to enhance the City pathway network and the southern stub street(E. Wells Circle) will be extended to the west for future connectivity for the area. The proposed demographics of the development should have limited impact on the area schools. Stafffinds that the proposed development should have a minimal impact on the current LOS for public facilities. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-N areas,per the Comprehensive Plan: ➢ "All developments should have a mix land uses." The proposed development contains a mix of uses as required(i.e.personal service, restaurant and residential). ➢ "Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40%of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 12 units/acre." The residential uses comprise more than 40%of the development area at a gross density of 9.65 units per acre. ➢ "Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings." The proposed 3-story apartment building and the single family dwelling units have similar design elements and construction materials for an integrated development.Adequate transition is also being provide along the west boundary between the proposed development and the existing residential developments in the form of single story units. The restaurant is also integrated into the design of the apartment building to provide vertical relieffrom the single family units that are proposed to the north. ➢ "Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, a maximum building size should be limited to a 20,000 square-foot building footprint." The largest building proposed on the site is the 3-story apartment building which has a building footprint of 30,000 square feet. The commercial component incorporates a spa, salon and an attached 6,000 sq.ft. restaurant. Staff finds that the proposed structure provides a mix of commercial and residential uses to support the required increase in the building footprint. )0- "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas,open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement." The proposed development has multiple gathering spaces (22.8%) that may comply with this requirement. ➢ Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%,the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint." The applicant is extending a portion of the pathway through the development for public benefit and providing open space in excess of UDC standards. Therefore, staff supports the increase in the building footprint as proposed by the applicant. Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 191 of 214 Zoning: Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the TN-R zoning district and proposed development is generally consistent with the MU-N and MDR FLUM designation for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are several existing structures on this site that are required to be removed prior to development of the each subsequent phase. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R district. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access to this development is proposed from the adjacent local streets (S.Wells St. and E.Wells Circle)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. For internal connectivity,the applicant is proposing gated private streets and drive aisles. Further, some of the units are proposed to take access from common driveways. The private street standards strictly prohibit common driveways from private streets unless approved through alternative compliance. All private streets within the proposed development should comply with the standards set forth on UDC 11-3F-4; common driveways shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. The private street application and any subsequent alternative compliance application to this standards should be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There is an existing 10-foot multi-use pathway stubbed at the west boundary constructed with the adjacent Woodbridge Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to extend this segment of the pathway along a portion of the west boundary; turning east and paralleling the north boundary of the Five Mile Creek. Prior to occupancy of the first structure,the applicant should submit and obtain approval of a pedestrian pathway easement from City Council. Further,the applicant should coordinate with the applicable irrigation district and conform to any requirements of the district. The Parks Department is requiring the applicant extend a sidewalk in the northwest corner for interconnectivity. Sidewalks(UDC I1-3A-17): The TN-R dimensional standards requires 5-foot wide detached sidewalks to be constructed along all roadways. The submitted concept plan depicts detached sidewalks adjacent to all local and private streets, except for the north/south segment of private street along the west boundary of the 3-story apartment building. This area has an attached sidewalk on the east side of the road and open/covered parking on the west side. Parkways (UDC 11-2 11-3A-1 7): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 17E. In addition,the TN-R dimensional standards requires the parkways to be a minimum of 8 feet in width. Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 192 of 214 Landscaping and Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3B 11-3G): Because the proposed project is over 5 acres in size, the applicant is required to comply the qualified open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and the open space and amenity standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments (see analysis below). 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. Because this is annexation, fencing details have not been provided with the application. With the submittal of the CZC application,the applicant should provide details of the fencing proposed for the development to ensure it complies with UDC standards. Existing Easements: There is an existing 10-foot wide public,utility, drainage and irrigation(PUDI) easements that run along the interior and exterior boundary of the three platted lots created with the Magic View Amended plat and an existing City of Meridian sewer easement along a portion of the west boundary and parallels the north boundary of 971 Wells Circle property, also located in the un- named ROW being vacated. The concept plan submitted with the application depicts structures that encroach in the PUDI easement areas. Further,with vacating the un-named ACHD right-of- way(ROW),the applicant will have to prepare the necessary easement documents to create a new sewer easement once the ROW is vacated,per Public Works specifications. Prior to the issuance of a CZC application,the applicant should vacate the 10-foot wide PUDI easements and establish a new easement for the existing sewer line located with the un-named ACHD ROW. The portion of the sewer easement along the west boundary could impact the design of the proposed development. Per Public Works standards, sewer easements located outside of the public ROW are typically improved with a 14-foot wide all weather surface to support maintenance equipment. The final design for this area has not been coordinated with Public Works to determine their access needs. The applicant should coordinate with the Public Works prior to the City Council to ensure this area can be used by residents or relocated as part of the project approval. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Five Mile crosses the southwest corner of this site and is proposed to remain open as an amenity for the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. If a PI pump station is required on the developed property, such station shall be on a lot solely dedicated to that pump station and shall be owned by the entity that owns and maintains the PI system as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6E. 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 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures on the site as shown in Section VII.F. Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 193 of 214 All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Submittal and approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications are required prior to submittal of building permit application(s). Right-of-Way Vacation The applicant is proposing to vacate un-named ACHD right-of-way(ROW) created with Instrument#8122009. This roadway is not needed to provide access for the development. Therefore, staff is supportive of vacating the ROW. However,per City Code,the City Council is only a recommending body on the vacation request, final approval is subject to ACHD approval. In addition to vacating the un-named ROW,there is an existing cul-de-sac along the south boundary(E. Wells Circle).As part of this development,the staff is requiring the extension of the roadway to the west boundary. If this roadway is extended as requested by staff,the applicant may be responsible to vacate a portion of the Wells Circle ROW and dedicate additional ROW. With the extension of the ROW,there is the potential that ACHD will require the applicant to terminate the roadway with a temporary turnaround until it is extended farther to the west through the adjacent subdivision. This may impact the design of the plan, specifically the loss of units in the southwest corner of the development. Currently,the plan depicts a hammerhead turnaround and landscaping. Staff has communicated with ACHD staff and they have indicated that they don't support the design as shown by the applicant. The applicant should design the project to comply with all ACHD requirements. If the portion of Wells Circle is required to be vacated by ACHD,the applicant should provide a legal description and exhibit of the portion of ROW being vacated prior to the City Council hearing. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT(COMPLIANCE WITH THESE STANDARDS WILL OCCUR AT THE CZC REVIEW.THIS ANALYSIS IS FOR INFORMATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.) Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staffs analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Multi-family developments with multiple properties shall be considered as one property for the purpose of implementing the standards set forth in this section. A. Purpose: 1. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. 2. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. 3. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback often feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties. The applicant must comply with this standard. Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 194 of 214 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities,and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures; all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The elevations submitted this application depicts private patios and balconies.However,floor plans have not been submitted to determine if this requirement has been satisfied. With the CZC submittal, the applicant should demonstrate compliance with this requirement or seek alternative compliance if alternative designs are proposed for the project. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas should not be included in the open space calculations submitted with the CZC application. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. The submitted concept plan does not depict any outdoor storage for recreational vehicles. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) This development consists of 164 units so these standards do apply. The site plan submitted with the CZC application shall include the items noted above. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 195 of 214 At this time, the square footage of each unit is unknown as this information was not provided with the application. Compliance with this standards will occur during review of the CZC application.As noted above the applicant is proposing approximately 22.8 percent open space for the site in excess of UDC requirements. As noted below an opens space exhibit must accompany the CZC submittal that demonstrates compliance with this requirement. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20'). The applicant should provide an open space exhibit with the CZC application demonstrating compliance with the requirement. 3. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. The project is proposed to be developed in two (2)phases as shown on the submitted concept plan. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4)in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, ef£retroactive to 2-4- 2009)NA. The subject property does not front on any collector roadways. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100)in size. (2) Community garden. (3) Ponds or water features. (4) Plaza. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 196 of 214 a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2)amenities shall be provided from two(2)separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy five(75)units,three (3)amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy five(75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, ef£ 9-15-2005) Based on the 164 proposed units, the Commission has the authority to determine the appropriate amount of amenities for the proposed development. On the concept plan, the applicant has provided a list amenities proposed for the development as follows: clubhouse,fitness facility, restaurant, spa, salon, walking trails,pool, open grassy areas, community gardens and various sport courts. Although, some of these amenities are conceptual at this time, staff finds the proposed amenity package for the development is commensurate to the size of the proposed development. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation,an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty four inches(24")shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the CZC application shall be revised to comply with these requirements. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant must comply with this requirement. This document must be provided at the time of CZC submittal. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit[Multi-family: 1-bedroom requires 1.5 per unit with at least 1 in a covered carport or garage, 2-3 bedroom units require 2 per unit with at least 1 in an a covered carport or garage], as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. The non-residential uses(clubhouse and restaurant) is based the traditional neighborhood district standards of 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 197 of 214 The applicant has provided a parking ratio for the overall development. For the single family detached and duplex units,the applicant is proposing to apply the single family parking standards of a single car garage and a parking pad for the 1 and 2 bedroom units(total parking: 148; the apartment complex is based on the nursing care standards of 0.5 stalls per bed(total parking: 122 —66 covered; 56 uncovered) and the commercial standards are not identified. However,the concept plan does depict a total of 22 guest parking spaces for the development. Based on the UDC standards,the proposed parking is to meet the standards described above. If this was a typical development the applicant would need to provide the following parking requirements: non-residential uses— 13 parking spaces and the multi-family—296 parking stalls with half them are required to be covered. The concept plan as proposed does not meet the current parking standards of the UDC (deficient 17 parking stalls). Since this a 55+community, staff is of the opinion that the parking ratio depicted on the submitted concept plan is sufficient for this type of development. However,the parking plan proposed with this development must be approved through alternative compliance. If the applicant's must either comply with the City's parking standards or obtain approval of an alternative compliance application. This application must be submitted concurrently with the CZC application. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation and Vacation with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions and comments included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 198 of 214 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map REVISED ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR 715 & 955 S.WELLS ST. &917 E. WELLSCIR. Lots 20, 21 and 22 of Amended Plat of Magic View Subdivision as filed In Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445 and 4446, records of Ada County, Idaho located in the SW 114 of the NE 114 and NW 114 of the SE 114 the of Section 17, T 3N., R.1 E„ B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows. BEGINNING at the SW corner of said Lot 22,said point also being the C114 corner of sail Section 17; thence along the West boundary line of said Lot 22 North OO°22'59" East,636.00 feet to the NW corner of said Lot 22 theme along the northeasterly boundary line of said Lot 22 and the southeasterly extension thereof South 72°05'47"East, 837.74 feet to a paint on the centerline of S.Wells 5t.; thence along the centerline of S.Wells St the following 3 courses and distances: thence South 18°48'1T'West, 392.23 feet; thence 61.25 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 132.64 feet; a central angle of 28°24'59"and a long chord which bears South 03°35'43"West, 60.71 Feet; thence South 09'38'46"East, 793.56 feet, thence along the centerline of E. Wells Cir North 89°1E'2B,,West,428.35 feet; thence leaving said centerline South 00'43'32"West, 25.00 feet to a point on the North boarxdary line of Wyndstone place Subdivision as fled in Book 96 of Plats at Pages 12,047 and 12,048.records of Ada County: Idaho; thence along said North boundary line North 89'18'28"West, 203.17 feet to the SVV corner of said Lot 20; thence along said West boundary line of said Lot 20 North 00'23'09" East,795.56 feet to the POINT Of BEGINNING- Contains 16.99 acres,more or less. 7729 d1. Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 199 of 214 mw mb9 CURVE TABLE q« 7 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD DISm CHOP BRG. DELTA 3 e } m t,32 N 61.25 E50-2 S.Y.3V 43"w U5�2« w § k 7 ~ ® LINE TABLE k e. ) | 22 2 + LINE ±NCT BEARING z 75g Sa4l,£w \ � �- j j /\ / � ra /� / & \ �b / m /� BEGINNING INT / � � c -----------------4 q/ . are � \ _ ;m �e | ( \ \ u m 200 s@ SCALD ]" = 200' / \ L 46,a | | , \ 2cF IN | ' It E 772§ 2 \ & OFF x * L=UL2 rw myEc¥ rl- &=,z E A±s O E \ IDAHO ANNE ATON EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR SURVEY WN._N e s & 955 S. WELLSS & g« E. �SOm -I© GROUP, LLC �3/4 G,OF&r * ____O #_ Page !7 — Meridian City Council Meeting Ag m6 maw 5,2020- Page 200a 214 c rz a m y,. ti'x 7 .tij LL7 7729 9 273.t7 n ',1&2'�81r. n6B°16'2B'4r Lots 20-22, Amended Magic View Sub Annex. Closure Sheet 111712020 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: 7recr 1:16.9$52 At306,closure;n05,20114 0.01 R.(12369270),Awlmeter=3973 il- 01 n00.2259e&76 08 n$4.1828w203.17 02 s72A647e 637.74 09 no02369e T95.56 43 s 16.4813w U2.23 04 Lt.r=132.84,Mta=026.245%ahordsM.3543w607t 05 s49.3536e 793,56 06 n99.16280 42&36 07 604.4332w 25 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 201 of 214 B. Right-of-Way Legal Description and Exhibit Map EXHIBIT" AC14O RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 715&955 S.WELLS ST. An on-named street located adjacent to Lots 20, 21 and 22 of Amended Plat of Magic View Subdivision as filed in$cok 52 of Plats at Pages 4445 and 4446, records of Ada County, Idaho located in the NW 1!4 of the 5E 114 the of Section 1, T.3N., RAE„ B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows Corn mancing at the SW comer of said Lot 22, said point also being the C114 corner of said Section 1; thence along the South boundary line of said Lot 22 South 89°68'09"East, 178.16 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said South boundary line South 89`56'09"East, 290.61 feel to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of S_Wells St. thence along said westerly right-of-way line South D9°36'46"East.50.72 feet. thence leaving said westerly right-of-way line North 89°56'08"West, 224.25 feet; thence 44.15 feel atom the arc of a non-tangent curve to tha left,said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet, a central angle of 58'15'04"and a long chord which bears South 6V5619" West, 42.43 feat to a point of reverse Curve. thence 185.50 feet along the arc of said reverse curve to the right, said reverse curve having a radius of dS-DO feet, a renlral angle of 216'11'02"and a long chord which bears#forth 28°05'42"West, 79.40 feet to tie REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 19.418 square feet, more or less. O cENSea �G 7729 M Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 202 of 214 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENCTH CHORD DST CHORD BPC. ID J& / @ 4-5.2 4-4.m 42 s ,'a rw 5B,Ea4 2 a£ ,�@ 7@ g� 3■ an," / 2/ *� %\ 0\ 2� ® 2# rINT OF BEGINNING | , 2« as 2msB'* mmef / $ @ UN-NAMED ST « \ 10.41E | r Nm `' 24.25 \§ | 2 | 2 \ \ � I | ! • Ar 2C « U r ENs a CL 772§ x e/,i o » o `° O ygc : e < ,m 0 a a , SCALE: !' = 80' IDAHO EXHIF31T ' - DR AWNOFR / SURVEY " ACHD STREET VACATION ,+ _�n I GROUP, LLC •OtATED.THE_aCIF_5KmDIF DATE��; T. .���7_, ,W. Page 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020- Page 203a24 v$WK'06"e 224.25 � a �9 ro �� hh J r I' ,I it G 772; o "for0' Right-of-Way Vacation Description Closure Sheet 10129/2019 Scale' 1 inch= 50 feet Fife' tract 1-0.4459 Acres�1g41$Skj.peat},Cios�xe:n00.6d00e 0.00 fl.�1r50888d�,Rerirne1er795 h. 01 A9.5609e 290.61 02 a09.W469 50.72 03 nS9.56ww R24.25 04 U.r-5,04,d41ka`065.15]4,chard=a61,561%42.43 05 Rt,r45.00,dahe=236.110 ,chord=n28,0542w 79 40 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 204 of 214 C. Conceptual Site Plan(date: 02/20/2020) - 715 5 M#L1S 51REE7 6 i 971 E WELLS CIRCLE _ 715SMELLS . / S7IEEE a znm— r 955 5 WELLS 51 _ L ......e..... E - _ LLNN UENSRY 9SSS•nv.S�N4115 ..va.... M ,� �,.,..m... CEN:{! '-'----- OPENS►ACE 771 ® GR� GGLO Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 205 of 214 D. Conceptual Elevations (date: 2/20/2020) s- 88 ® 88 0 ® 9 BB BB B9 ® 9B m 99 ® 0 8Q #h® ® 9 E 89 UP ® no m� QQ mcm ® a ONE— nooRxn sFxion uvcxG Ey TELEVATION L7sxn ® ® m ® LID ® Wa001 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 206 of 214 1 I Ili � I III 1 1 li � � Ili II �RI II 11 �iaalr y_rr_ 1� le- _ ,:`_ - _ �"� = III � ,�I II I�°�■ �, �RI I! n u uy 11 �- oa � ® MI� NRIMWRFIL C - 0 - - I My,C rI M DUPLE]( Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 208 of 214 ❑ E0.5T WTION SINGLE FAMILY T _ . ® MIEN-CENIU7I SINGLE WXY Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 209 of 214 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual building elevations and phasing plan in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. An application for Design Review shall be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. The applicant shall comply with the multi-family specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. d. Applicant shall comply with the TN-R dimensional standards set forth in UDC Table I I- 2D-6. e. The applicant shall submit alternative compliance application concurrent with a CZC application to deviate from the following standards: 1. Private Street Standards(11-317-4) 2. Parking requirements(11-3C-6) 3. Multi-family private usable open space standards(1 1-4-3-2 713 3) £ Applicant shall construct a segment of the City's 10-foot multi-use pathway through the development as proposed.Prior to occupancy of the first structure,the applicant shall obtain City Council's approval of a public pedestrian easement and record said document. The applicant shall also extend the 5-foot wide detached sidewalk in the northwest corner to the north boundary for interconnectivity. g. Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. h. Prior to City Council hearing,the Applicant shall coordinate with Public Works on the use of the 20-foot wide easement area on a portion of the west boundary. If a substantial change is required by Public Works, the applicant shall modify the proposed concept plan prior to City Council meeting. i. Prior to submitting a CZC application,the applicant shall vacate the 10-foot wide PUDI easements created by Amended Magic View Subdivision OR modify the site plan submitted with the CZC application to remove structures from encroaching in the platted easements. Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 210 of 214 j. Applicant shall comply with the open space and site amenities standards set forth in UDC 11-3G and UDC 11-4-3-27. The applicant shall submit an open space exhibit with their CZC application demonstrating compliance with these standards. k. Applicant shall extend E.Wells Circle to west boundary for future extension. If ACHD requires the applicant to vacate a portion of the cul-de-sac right-of-way,the applicant shall provide a legal description and exhibit map of the ROW being vacated prior to the City Council hearing. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Conceptual engineering has not been provided with this application,and therefore the adequacy of water and sewer services have not been evaluated at this time. Infrastructure modeling must be completed prior to the approval of this application. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.4 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 2.5 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.6 In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non- health improvements,prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 2.7 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. 2.8 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. Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 211 of 214 2.9 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.10 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.11 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.12 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.13 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.14 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.15 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.19 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting(http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval,which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.20 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 a plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.21 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.22 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at(208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. Page 29 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 212 of 214 2.23 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 2.24 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 2.25 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.o.fglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=182552&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183075&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL hgQs://weblink.meridianciN.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=182568&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=183062&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY https://weblink.meridiancity.oEgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=182621&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX H. COMPASS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=182953&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX I. PARKS DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciiy.orgjWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183392&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) A report has not yet been received from ACHD IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex and develop the subject 16.99 acre property with TN-R zoning consistent with the associated MU-N and MDR FLUM designations for this property. Page 30 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 213 of 214 (See section V above for more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statements of the traditional neighborhood districts in that it will provide for a range of housing needs for the community consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential and commercial uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential and commercial uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 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. Page 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5,2020— Page 214 of 214 February 27, 2020 Regarding Andorra Sr. Living of Sawtooth Development ` File # VAC W2019-0127 Attention : Bill Parsons @ Meridian City . org To Whom It May Concern : The Sawtooth Development Co . is proposing a 55 years and older community for the 16 . 9 acres west of Wells Road . As a homeowner on the west boundary in Locust Grove Heights Subdivision , I support this development . As a close knit community in Locust Grove Heights Subdivision, we as neighbors have discussed the advantages of a Sr. community of single story duplexes on our east boundary . We would still have a view of the mountains to the east . Noise and lighting disturbances would be minimal . As a Sr . community it would be more stable and less transient than other developments . Traffic and parking are planned into this development and would not add to the problems of commercial buildings that have already been approved for this area . The schools in the area would not be impacted by this type of development . I do support this development by Andorra Sr. Living in the Wells Road area . Sincerely, too ► q9� f�31P40