Loading...
2020-08-06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 06, 2020 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT ABSENT Commissioner Lisa Holland Chairperson Ryan Fitzgerald Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Bill Cassinelli (arrived at 6:20 p.m.) Commissioner Patricia Pitzer Commissioner Andrew Seal ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 1. Approve Minutes of July 9, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Approve Minutes of July 16, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing Continued from June 18, 2020 for Gateway at 10 Mile (H- 2020-0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. - Continued to September 3, 2020 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed-use commercial and high- density residential development. 4. Public Hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck & Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. - Continued to September 3, 2020 A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. 5. Public Hearing for Pearson Subdivision (H-2020-0075) by Melanie Pearson, Located at 175 W. Paint Horse Ln. - Continued to August 20, 2020 A. Request: A Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of 2 building lots on 3.98 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. 6. Public Hearing for Rock & Armor Fitness (H-2020-0076) by Matt Garner with Architecture Northwest, Located at 1649 and 1703 E. Pine Ave. - Approved A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a 19,162 square foot fitness and training center on 1.8 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. 7. Public Hearing for 1625 E. Bentley Drive (H-2020-0078) by Clint Hansen of Land Solutions, Located at 1625 E. Bentley Dr. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for September 8, 2020 A. Request: Annexation of 1.03 acres of land with the C-C zoning district. 8. Public Hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision (H-2020-0067) by Bonnie Layton, Located on the South Side of W. Victory Rd., Approximately ¼ Mile West of S. Meridian Rd. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for September 15, 2020 A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots in an existing R-8 zoning district. 9. Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. - Continued to September 3, 2020 A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. ADJOURNMENT - 8:08 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 6, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 6, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lisa Holland. Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer. Members Absent: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Nick Grove. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Alan Tiefenbach, Joe Dodson and Dean Willis. Roll-call Attendance X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal Nick Grove X Patricia Pitzer X Bill Casslnelll (attended at 6:20pm) Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Holland: With that I am filling in for our fearless leader Ryan today, so, I would like to call to order of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of August 6th and let's begin with the roll call. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So, welcome to those watching in. Before we move forward with the agenda I'm just going to give a couple of directions about our process tonight. So, a lot of the Commissioners are meeting online via Zoom and we have one Commissioner in person at City Hall. On your screen you should see the Commissioners who are present for the evening. We -- we also have on call staff from the city attorney and city clerk offices, staff from our Planning and Zoning Department will also be on the call as well. Everybody else online that are attendees, you can observe the meeting and we can see that you are there, but your ability to talk and be seen will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be --you can have the opportunity to be unmuted and able to comment if you would like. If you previously sent a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and the clerk will run the presentation for you. The clerk can also assist in bringing up a slide from another presentation. If you need it just ask. If you just want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch the live streaming on the city's YouTube channel, which is also accessible at meridiancity.org\live. Once public testimony is open the clerk will call the names of those who signed up to testify on the website and, then, they will unmute you. The chair -- or I will call you individually at that point in time, so we will ask you to state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission for any comments you might want to make and we may ask for -- questions for clarification, but once you are done they will mute you as well and you will no longer be able to speak. Once all Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 6 Page 2 of 42 those who have signed up in advance are called we will ask if there is anybody else who would like to testify before we close the public hearing and if you would like to speak on the topic you are welcome to raise your hand button in the Zoom app or if you are listening through a cell phone or landline you can press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, like a computer and a phone, make sure you mute those devices so that we don't experience feedback and we cannot take questions until the public testimony portions, so if you have a process question during the meeting you can reach out to the City Clerk's office at cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will attempt to help you as fast as possible and I believe that they also have a room at City Hall that they might take you to if you are there in person to testify, so that everybody can hear you without feedback issues on Zoom. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Holland: So, on the agenda tonight the first item is the adoption of the agenda and we have a few changes to take place. So, if you are here for item three, four, or five or number nine, all of those items are requesting continuance at this point in time. So, we will be amending the agenda to reflect that. So, let me read those off really quick for you. Now my mouse is not working with me. So, item three is requesting a continuance and that is for H-2020-0046 for the Gateway at Ten Mile and they will be requesting continuance to September 3rd. The item for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, H-2020-0064, is requesting a continuance for the date of September 3rd and we have item five, which is the Pearson Subdivision requesting a continuance to the date of August 20th and, then, we have Item number nine, which is the TM Center project, H-2020-0074, requesting a continuance to the date of September 3rd as well. So, with that in mind can I get a motion to approve the agenda as -- as modified? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: So moved. Second. Seal: Second. Holland: I have got multiple motions and seconds. Commissioner McCarvel motion -- moved and, then, Commissioner Seal seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of July 9, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 7 Page 3 of 42 2. Approve Minutes of July 16, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Holland: Next up on the agenda is our Consent Agenda and at this point we have two sets of meeting minutes to approve, so we will be approving the minutes of the July 9th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as well as the July 16th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent -- Consent Agenda as amended? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: So moved. Seal: Second. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel makes the motion and Commissioner Seal second. All those in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing Continued from June 18, 2020 for Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed-use commercial and high density residential development. Holland: All right. With that we are going to open up those items that requested a continuance just for the purpose of continuing them. So, we will start with item number H-2020-0046 for the Gateway at Ten Mile and they are requesting a continuance to the date of September 3rd. I will pause for a second to see if staff wanted to make any other comments about that one. Parsons: Chair -- can you hear me? Holland: We can hear you. Parsons: Perfect. Yeah. Nothing really from staff. The applicant is continuing to work through some issues with us, so we anticipate having -- they just need more time to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 $ Page 4 of 42 resolve some of those issues and, hopefully, by that next hearing date we should have that ready to go for you and bring it forth with our recommendation. Holland: Thank you, Bill. With that can I get a motion to continue the public hearing for H-2020-0046 for Gateway at Ten Mile to the date of September 3rd? Pitzer: So moved. Seal: Second. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer moved. Commissioner Seal second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck & Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres)and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Holland: On to the next one. Again, we are opening the public hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, H-2020-0064. The applicant's requesting a continuance to the date of September 3rd and I believe that the reason for this one is to allow ACHD time to review the application and provide a staff report to the city. If staff has anything else to add they are more than welcome to. Allen: Staff has no further comments. Holland: All right. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair. Holland: Thank you, Sonya. With that can I get a motion to continue the public hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, H-2020-0064, to the date of September 3rd. Seal: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 191 Page 5 of 42 Pitzer: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer moves. Commissioner McCarvel second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Pearson Subdivision (H-2020-0075) by Melanie Pearson, Located at 175 W. Paint Horse Ln. A. Request: A Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of 2 building lots on 3.98 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Holland: Okay. On to the next one. Item number five is Pearson Subdivision, H-2020- 0075, and they are requesting a continuance to the date of August 20th and staff says that there was a processing error and that they would just like two weeks to make sure that they meet the notification and timing deadlines. I don't think that they have got any other comments that they probably need to add to that one, but with that can I get a motion to move -- or continue the public hearing for Pearson Subdivision, H-2020-0075, to the date of August 20th. Seal: So moved. Pitzer: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Holland: I will give that one to Commissioner Seal this time. Commissioner McCarvel seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Rock &Armor Fitness (H-2020-0076) by Matt Garner with Architecture Northwest, Located at 1649 and 1703 E. Pine Ave. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a 19,162 square foot fitness and training center on 1 .8 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Holland: All right. I'm tired of talking, so I'm going to turn it back to staff and open up the public hearing for Rock & Armor Fitness, H-2020-0076, and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Ms. Chair and Members of the Commission. This is Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. Good evening. This is a proposal Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 Flo] Page 6 of 42 for a conditional use. So, the property is approximately 1.8 acres. So, just a little short of two acres. It's located at 1649 East Pine Avenue, which is the southeast quadrant of North Locust Grove and Pine. It's on the left. You can see the future land use map, which recommends it for industrial. It's proper -- it's presently zoned industrial. This request is for a conditional use to allow a little more than a 15,000 square foot arts, entertainment, and recreation facility. So, this use is allowed by conditional use in the -- in in the industrial -- light industrial zone district. Again, the subject property is a vacant lot now. It's at the corner of North Locust Grove and East Pine. Directly east of the property is a preschool. South of the property is a trucking company. West of the property is an electric supply store and north of the property is a tool manufacturer. There is also an existing single family in the northwest quadrant and I put these pictures up just to show you what has been built there. When the Nola Subdivision was developed there were already sidewalks and landscape strips that were put in. The 25 foot required buffer. So, the one on the upper left is looking south down Locust Grove. Looking east on Pine that -- if you look at the bottom left corner you can see the whole vacant lot there where the fence is sort of projecting out and, then, the daycare off in the distance, that's the lot that you are looking at right now. That's the vacant lot. To the top east is an internal access. That access runs south of the daycare and directly connects to Nola and, then, the last picture at the bottom right-hand corner is taken from Nola looking west, looking over towards the property. Again, the applicant proposes to build about a 15,000 square foot Rock &Armor Fitness Center. This proposed use is a sports performance center for training and physical therapy. It specializes in strength conditioning and rehabilitation for athletes. It's considered an indoor recreation facility, which is allowed by conditional use. It's important to note that this is not a drop-in fitness center like one of your after work gyms. These are classes and personal sessions that operate by appointment only between 8:00 and 6:00. And this -- this also proposes a 3,600 square foot outdoor training and warm up center. That's what you can see here. This would -- this would be sod. This -- this -- obviously, this would only occur during certain months. It wouldn't occur in the winter. But this is for the athletes to warm up and to train before they actually do their fitness. The primary access will occur from a shared driveway which is to the north here. There is also a secondary access that's shown here and shown here. Up to the -- the daycare is -- it's actually more about right over here and this comes to the south of the daycare and, then, connects over to Nola Road. Nola Road comes up north-south here and connects to Pine. The applicant has not submitted proof that there is cross-access easements. So, we don't know whether or not the applicant or the property owner over to the right has access across this lot. They may, but we haven't seen those. That is a condition of approval is that they be able to provide those at time of CZC. And the other thing is that based on the parking -- based on the parking spaces of one space per 500 square foot, 31 parking spaces were required. There is much less parking requirements for industrial, but this is not -- really not an industrial use, this is a commercial use, therefore, we are requiring that they provide parking at the commercial use, which would be one per 500. Now, one thing I want to mention -- there is a correction in the staff report. If you look at condition 3-A there is a recommendation for the property owner to the east to provide access, but the property owner to the east of this use is not part of this project, so we are asking you to just strike that condition. We cannot make the property owner at the other property provide access. However, we do need to mention that the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 Fill Page 7 of 42 conditions of approval should mention that access -- that access easement with a -- should be provided between this subject property and the property to the east, because you will notice there is two driveways there and, again, we don't have proof of access. Both -- both North Locust Grove and East Pine are arterial roads. Like I mentioned, there is 25 foot landscape buffers that were -- that were already installed there. The sidewalk is already there as well. However, there is several trees in the landscape buffers that have since died. We are recommending that -- a condition of approval that they replace these trees and, finally, there are conceptual elevations that were provided by the applicant. The west here would be on the corner of North Locust Grove and Pine. The north elevation is also very visible. You would see this coming down Pine. One of the -- one of the concerns that we had is -- as you will notice the elevations are pretty different. If you look at the one on the west and you look at the one on the north, they definitely have sort of a different flavor to them. The other thing is that we have requirements in our architectural standards manual that you can't use metal as a primary field material. It's -- it's possible that they could ask for a design exception, but as is shown here they are proposing to use prefabricated metal panel. The other thing is that there is a certain requirement that roofs have to modulate every certain feet and if you look this roof has a long straight look to it. So, they are either going to have to ask for a design exception or -- or they are going to have to address this. If you look at the north elevation they are showing what I think are garage doors and we might want to defer to the applicant for that, but there are some additional requirements about garage doors and whether or not roll-up doors should be facing Pine Avenue. So, again, this -- it's important to mention that this is an industrial zone district, but this use is listed as a conditional use. So, the use has already been deemed appropriate in the zoning district. We are just down to conditioning to deal with mitigating any impacts. With that staff would recommend approval at this with -- again, with the condition that 3-A be stricken to not require -- obviously, try to have the property owner to the east provide access and to make the second condition have access easements plural. And with that I will entertain any questions. Holland: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Seeing none, I think we could hear from the applicant if they are available. Weatherly: Madam Chair, Mr. Garner is joining us via Zoom. Mr. Garner, you have the floor. Garner: Thank you, Commissioners. Glad to be with you tonight. Just to be brief, we have been provided the staff report. We are in agreement with the conditions. Just a couple of things that were brought up by Alan in his presentation. I do -- I am in -- I do have the cross-access agreement that is I believe the one to the north that comes in there off of Pine, between the daycare and the property in question. I think that there is another cross-access agreement for that access on the south. I do not believe I have that one yet, but it is to be coming to me. So, as soon as I have those, as has been conditioned, we will go ahead and provide those on the architectural site plan, the instrument number, so that they can be referenced. So, that was that. And, then, if you are looking -- Alan, do you have the ability to manipulate the screen? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F12 Page 8 of 42 Tiefenbach: Yes, I do. If you want me to -- if you are talking about my presentation; correct. Garner: Yeah. I was going to say, if you go back to those elevations, the conceptual, those are not overhead doors on that north side. There are no overhead doors except on the east end of the building that goes out into that practice area and so we will work with -- on the -- in the CZC and the DR, which is coming up next. If we get the conditional use permit, then, we will work with staff on addressing the elevations as necessary to provide -- to make them in compliance with the architectural standards. But, yes, we are in agreement with the conditions and would stand for any questions if you have any for me. Weatherly: And, sir, can you, please, state your name and address for the record, please? Garner: I'm sorry. It's Matt Garner. It's 1211 West Hawk Place in Nampa, Idaho. 83651. Weatherly: Thank you. Holland: Thanks, Mr. Garner. Thanks, Madam Clerk. Are there any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just for disclosure here, I -- I am a frequenter of Rock & Armor, especially in the wintertime. So, I just wanted to put that out there. I don't see it as a conflict of any kind, but I just wanted folks to know. Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Any concerns with Commissioner Seal's note there? Seeing Commissioner Pitzer shake her head no. Hearing nothing from Commissioner McCarvel, I think you are good to go. I'm seeing heads shake no. Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair? Holland: Yes. Weatherly: For the record I just wanted to note that Commissioner Cassinelli joined us at 6.20 p.m. Great. Thank you. Welcome, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Thank you. Sorry I'm a little tardy this evening. Holland: That's all right. We are glad to have you. Mr. Garner, so on the north side, looking at the rendering here it looks like there is kind of different elevations proposed for the west and the north side. Can you explain a little bit more about what the process is going to look like? And I know you will work with staff on the design review of the building, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F13] Page 9 of 42 but as that's kind of -- those are two primary roads that are in Meridian and I would love to see maybe a little more consistency between those, but would you mind expanding on that a little bit. Garner: Well, I think -- for me I think that these renderings -- you know, it's not a 3D model like you would want to see where you have some dimensionality to it, but I would contest that this -- that some of those elements that are visible on the west elevation do carry around to this north side and you wouldn't be able to see it, so if you look at the west elevation there on the top, you see the smaller volume on the left-hand side of the screen that pops off of the side of the building, you don't necessarily see that in the north elevation, because of the limitations of the elevation, but that volume does pop out and it does articulate, because you have a lower roof that's lower than that higher roof and so there are some of those elements that do that. The materials are carrying around as well. You will see the white stucco on the west elevation and that dark metal that does come around to the other side of the building on the north as well. So, we have made an attempt to try and carry some of those things around. But as -- as far as going -- moving forward, what we will end up doing is I will go through the architectural standards manual and verify areas where we are compliant and maybe areas that we are not compliant and part of it is where -- when I met with staff they did talk about this is an industrial zone and so some of these things that are on the building, they would be fine in an industrial zone and so I think that there -- because he wants to consider it a commercial building, which it is, in industrial zoned, maybe there is a happy medium and we have tried to do that. There have been revisions since our pre-application meeting where we have gone back and tried to modify and put some things in there to carry that -- those themes around the building and so we will continue to work with staff to make sure that we do satisfy the architectural standards. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Appreciate it. Garner: You are welcome. Holland: Any other questions for the applicant right now? Hearing none, I'm going to ask if there is anyone for public testimony and, then, we will come back to you, Mr. Garner, in a minute. Garner: You bet. Holland: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in to testify on this one tonight? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do have a couple of sign-ins, the first of which is -- oh, I apologize. They did not indicate a wish to testify. So, technically, no, we do not have anybody signed up to testify tonight. Holland: With that and using Commissioner Seal's eyes to see if there is anybody in the audience that would like to testify, if anyone would like to testify in this application if you would raise your hand in the Zoom app or you would wave at City Hall, we will give you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F14 Page 10 of 42 a chance to speak for a minute if you would like. And it looks like we have no takers, so -- all right. Mr. Garner, one more question for you I have. So, obviously, this area was planned for industrial. I'm just curious on why -- why you chose the industrial site instead of looking for a traditional commercial site for your project? Garner: Well, I think that that would be a question that would best be answered by the owner if he wanted to. I think that it was just a parcel of land that he found and it was a good location for him and so that was -- that was why he chose that spot. Holland: Fair enough. Any other -- Garner: I guess that's -- that's the best that I can answer, because I don't really know that answer, but that would be my speculation. Holland: Okay. Commissioners, any other thoughts or questions you would like to raise before we close the public hearing on this one? Hearing none -- Seal: Madam Chair, there is somebody raising their hand in the -- in the audience. Holland: Okay. If there is someone raising their hand we can -- I think it's -- since it's still open we can certainly still take that. Madam Clerk, can you help them get -- get to -- Williams: This is Tim Williams, the owner of Rock & Armor. To answer your question, we are literally just around the corner on Locust Grove from there. So, I drive by that piece of land. Steve Hill owns it and have been admiring it for six years now and so we are really excited that it's really close to where we are currently at and it's a good location for our clients and they won't have to go much further or in a different route to receive the services we provide, so -- Holland: Thank you, Tim. If you wouldn't mind, would you state your address for the record as well. Williams: Timothy Williams. My home address or work address? It's 535 North Locust Grove Road, Suite 170, Meridian. Holland: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Williams: Thank you. Holland: All right. Any other questions for -- for Tim or Mr. Garner here? Mr. Garner, any other thoughts or comments you want to make after that? Garner: No, I don't think so. But I guess the one thing that I would add is relative to the parking. Tim talked a little bit about the parking and when we had our pre-application meeting we came back and we had done our analysis -- parking analysis at the one space per 500 square feet of building and we came in and we had like 30 spaces and Tim was, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F15] Page 11 of 42 you know, questioning whether that would be enough. After consulting with Tim Williams, the owner, and getting his feedback on the number of people that would be visiting the facility at one given time, we did go back in and add in -- pretty much maximized parking on the site to make sure that there would be adequate parking and so that was also something that was addressed from the pre-application meeting to its current iteration. So, we should have plenty of parking available to all the clients as they come. Holland: Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Garner: Yeah. You're welcome. Holland: All right. If there is no more questions for Mr. Garner, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for Rock & Armor Fitness, H-2020-0076. Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: Second. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli moved and second from Commissioner Seal. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: All right. And just a reminder, this is a conditional use request, so we are the deciding body on this one. So, if make a motion to --we are not recommending approval, we are the approval body on this one. So, just keep that in mind. Anyone want to go first? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I'm happy to jump in, even though I was late. I think it's kind of -- kind of got an industrial design look to it. I like it. I think the location is prime. We have got that development going in just to -- I think it's 43 Pine or whatever all that is there to the north side there, so I think it's a great fit, a great product. It will -- it kind of ties in the -- the industrial look and feel. So, I like it and I think we are good on parking. Holland: I was waiting for that comment, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: That's correct. Yeah. I had say something on there; right? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I kind of hate to see our light industrial getting eaten up, but I think if they had their eye on this piece of land for that long and being able to bring different Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F16 Page 12 of 42 clientele and fill in that space, so it's a good fit and I can see where they were talking about it probably has more dimension than what we can really see here. I think it would be a good fit. Holland: I will jump in with my comments, too. I think that I -- I agree with those two comments you have both made, that it looks like they have done a good job of trying to incorporate an industrial commercial design into the area that it's matching and consistent, which I certainly appreciate and I also appreciate that they did the commercial parking standards, because this type of use we typically have more people coming in and out of it than an industrial use would and if for some reason this gym ever, you know, decided to not operate in this building it could be converted back to an industrial building, so I appreciate that, too. My only challenge is, again, I know that industrial is really hard to find right now anywhere in Meridian and it's always tough because a lot of churches, gyms, daycares, we have seen a lot of requests in industrial zones for those types of projects to kind of come in and, you know, we take them one -- one at a time and they are allowed with a conditional use permit, so it's not that it doesn't fit, it's just -- I always hate seeing prime commercial ground taken up -- or prime industrial ground taken up when there is not very much available in the city. That being said, I don't really see a reason to deny the project based just on that. That's just a personal note that I wish that we had more industrial buildings, because there is a lot of great manufacturers out there that we could be attracting to the City of Meridian and I know that this one will be a good solid company and I'm sure that they pay their people well and will have some great opportunities for clients and some revenue opportunities that the city ends up benefiting from the new construction. So, those are my comments. Commissioner Pitzer? Pitzer: Madam Chair, I'm just going to go ahead and start. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve the conditional use permit for file number 2020-0076 for Rock & Armor. Holland: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: We need to make sure that we strike condition 3-A as per staff's -- staff's request and, then, they wanted a condition on item number two for -- to elaborate on easements, not just easement. Holland: I had that note in front of me and I forgot to read it, so -- yeah. Commissioner Pitzer, if you are willing to modify your motion to strike 3-A in the staff report and also allow access easements for the property on the east. Pitzer: Yes. Yes, I have the notes as well and I didn't read them either. Yes. So, I move that we approve the conditional use permit. With the condition that we strike number 3- A and make a condition for easement access for file number 2020-0076. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F17] Page 13 of 42 Seal: Second. Holland: Okay. I have got a motion by Commissioner Pitzer and a second by Commissioner Seal. Any discussion? I'm not hearing anybody say yes, but all those in favor. Okay. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: Thanks, Mr. Garner. Garner: Thank you, Commissioners. 7. Public Hearing for 1625 E. Bentley Drive (H-2020-0078) by Clint Hansen of Land Solutions, Located at 1625 E. Bentley Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 1.03 acres of land with the C-C zoning district. Holland: With that we will move on to public hearing Item No. 7, which is for 1625 East Bentley Drive, H-2020-0078, and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is a proposal for an annexation and rezoning of properties about one and a half acres. It's presently within unincorporated Ada county, zoned R-1. It's located at the southeast quadrant of South Locust Grove and East Bentley Drive. This is a request to annex and zone to allow a 40 -- 4,800 square foot office building and a future lot with two lots total. So, again, the subject property is at the southeast corner of South Locust Grove and East Bentley. It contains right now a 21'ish square foot house. South -- it's interesting the way the road is set up. Let me show you here. If you look at the picture on the left, that is looking at the property. The house on the left is the house that will eventually be demolished and that row that you are looking at with the barrier, that's kind of a no man's land. It doesn't -- I'm not even sure if it has a name, but it is a right of way. If you look to the picture on the right, you are looking down Locust Grove and that picture was taken to show you that there is existing sidewalk now and to show you the house and the existing lot. Excuse me. And the -- on the bottom there you are standing on Bentley. Bentley turns into Truss. Truss -- if you look at the white truck there, the road that goes on beyond that truck -- that truck is Truss. Where you see this road curve, that is Bentley. Here is the site plan. Immediately to the north, south, and east of this property is low density residential, although over to the west and further to the south is highly intensive non-commercial uses. So, again, to the west is Renaissance High School and the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine and if you go to the south on the other side of Highway 84 we have got pretty intensive uses, including fast food restaurants, gas stations, and movie theaters. It's important to note that the Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for commercial and, then, just going east -- just east of this property it's recommended for a mixed use neighborhood. So, that's your smaller levels of commercial, some residences, kind of a mix. It's a -- it's transitional use Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F18 Page 14 of 42 running up to that. Sidewalks, as I said, already exist along South Locust. Although the applicant will be required to install a buffer along Locust, here this sidewalk is already existing. The applicant will have to put in a buffer there, like I said. The business proposal right now is presently located at 213 East Fifth Street in Meridian and they are sharing space in a 3,800 square foot building. That existing business leases -- the one we are talking about -- about 1 ,300 feet of available space in this and they are not the owner of that building. The applicant stated that the size and the configuration of the present building doesn't lend themselves to the existing operations. They can't expand. It's just not a very good working environment. So, the applicant wants to build a larger building and move their business here. This is a survey type company, so it's a professional level business. It's not the type that you imagine people are coming and going all the time. It's where people are coming in or even working remotely and they are working their eight hours doing survey and engineering type work and, then, they are leaving. As I mentioned, there is a single family residence that's existing on the property. That's what you see right here. Single family residential is not allowed in commercial zoning districts, so one of the conditions -- or conditions of approval is that this house would have to be removed prior to CO -- when they come in and actually do the CZC. One thing I wanted to mention is that the property is technically two lots. There is -- there is the one lot that's over an acre and, then, there is -- you can't see it here, but there is a little spite strip that's -- that's owned here or what you would probably call a spite strip. Very long narrow lot. And the reason why I bring that up is that the property is technically two lots. The applicant eventually wants to do a property boundary adjustment, move the lot line down towards the middle and turn it into two lots. Now, that's not what they are doing with this proposal, but they will be able to do that as an administrative process, because they already have two lots. Although the staff wanted to make sure that -- because the applicant is considering eventually a second business there, we wanted to make sure that they took that into account with the annexation and give us some kind of conceptual site plan about how that business should be laid out, especially with such a visible road being Locust Grove and the residences to the east and we wanted to make sure that the most efficient parking and that the parking was wrapped. So, what you see here on the south is this is the building they are proposing now, 4,800 square feet'ish, and that's called Land Solutions. Up here is conceptual. We don't know if and when this is going to be built, but they have demonstrated that they have enough parking for this business. Each business has about 17 spaces, which is well beyond the ten that they are required. One thing that we did have a concern about was when this building is demolished now long will it be until something else is developed on the northern portion of that property. What we didn't want to have happen was it to be sort of -- I will use the word again -- a no man's land where there is just grass and weeds and it sort of looks like an undeveloped lot for some amount of time. Staff recommends that when that -- when that house goes that until this property is developed that this would be needed -- this would be seated with native seed and kept free from weeds to look more like a part of the property versus just something that's sort of sitting there fallow and the other thing I guess I wanted to mention, again, is -- is since -- since we wrote the staff report there has been at least one letter from an adjacent property owner. The -- the applicant has told me that the community meeting did have a few people that showed up with concerns. The biggest concern from what I understand is just that there are residents in the county and they do not want the city to be annexing Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 Fig] Page 15 of 42 that as commercial. There was concerns expressed in a letter that I received today about traffic. There is only one way into this property coming up Locust Grove and taking Bentley is the only way in. You can't go east, because it turns into cul-de-sacs and it dead ends. Now, eventually, that may go through, but as it is right now there is only one way in. Staff did not have major concerns about the -- the traffic with this and the reason why is because this is a professional office for not very many people doing professional level surveys. So, again, they are coming in, they are doing their eight hours of work at their computers and they are going home. This is not a retail store or some kind of big business that's going to be generating very much traffic at all. It's very -- very compatible with what would be a residential neighborhood and it would be very consistent with what you would see in a transitional use, such as mixed use -- mixed use neighborhood. With that staff recommends approval on this with the conditions listed in the staff report. Holland: Thank you, Alan. Any questions for staff? Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just wanted to make sure the conceptual site plan that you have up here is different from what's in the application material, but is this -- the conceptual site plan that's here, is that something that was modified and that's what they are going with? Because it is quite a bit different. Tiefenbach: It's very different. The -- the original site plan that they submitted on -- the staff -- as staff was -- so, when staff as writing the staff report we are reviewing these things and we are really going through the analysis and looking at this and we discussed this as a staff and it was -- as we moved forward it became more apparent that he wanted to do a second building and the other thing was that we did -- we weren't really thrilled about the original layout, so we conveyed that back to the property-- back to the applicant and last week the applicant gave us the most -- their latest version of the site plan. So, what you see here in front of you is -- is the version that is being proposed tonight. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Alan -- Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead. Cassinelli: Sorry. Alan, is there a -- what's the height restriction in this area. Teifenbach: Let me see. I think I might have that off the top of my head here. Bill is saying 50 feet. Didn't have it right in front of me. Cassinelli: Okay. And this is proposed to be a single story; is that correct? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F20] Page 16 of 42 Tiefenbach: Correct. Single story building. Cassinelli: Okay. Tiefenbach: And he didn't -- didn't provide elevations, but it's a single story, somewhat kind of office, somewhat industrial looking building. All of that detail is on the -- Cassinelli: I'm sorry, I couldn't catch that. Holland: Alan, you are cutting out a little bit. Tiefenbach: Oh. Sorry. Yeah. It's -- if you look in the staff report, the most recent version of what's been proposed to us is in there. You know, we did, again, have a little bit of concerns about the roof and the metal that's being proposed. That's all stuff that will be worked out with the CZC. We did express those concerns in the staff report. That's on page ten of the staff report. You can see what the architecture and what the level of that building is. Holland: Did you catch enough of that, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: Yeah. And I can look at page ten and I guess -- so, the 50 feet -- because I'm also curious about what might come in the future there as it abuts residential, so -- but I think that -- I'm clear for now. Yes. Thank you. Holland: And I believe looking at what's neighboring around there, it's a lot of lower density homes and this is an area that during the comprehensive planning process I know that the committee spent a lot of time on this area and decided not to really make any significant changes, because for that area to redevelop all those properties would pretty much have to redevelop together and it was unlikely that that was going to happen. So, we -- I think it might be that we get one of these every once in a while and I think it's located on Locust Grove, that makes it a little bit easier than being something that's kind of in the middle of that -- that they will only access Bentley to come in and like Alan explained, it's just for an office use, but it's not a retail location, so it won't have a lot of traffic in and out of it. Any other questions for Alan? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, can we bring the applicant on. Weatherly: Madam Chair, he's in the building tonight, so we are getting him set up right now. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record, please. Hansen: Okay. My name is Clint Hansen. 231 East Fifth Street, Suite A, in Meridian. Me and my business partner Vince are proposing to annex and rezone this property. We were kind of -- I guess not as familiar with the process as we thought for the annexation and rezone. We didn't know we needed to have this site plan as developed as it is, so that's why we tried to work at the last minute to try to complete a conceptual site plan that was for this review. We just had envisioned going through the annexation and rezone process and, then, working with city to develop the site plan, you know, nail it down, but I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F21 Page 17 of 42 think what we have come up with is pretty close to what we, you know, had -- had originally thought we would like to -- like you said, make it into two building lots, with ours being a flex space with the office and garage -- garages for the survey field crews. We have been operating in Meridian for 16 years, serving in the valley for over 20. So, we have been here a long time. We are invested in Meridian and we really like you, know Meridian and the area. We looked for property in flex space for a long time. There just isn't a whole lot of flex space available for our type of use where we need office for the drafting and design and everything that we do and, then, garage spaces for our -- you know, our field crews. So, this would work out perfect for us being right there close to access to Eagle and to Meridian Road and we -- I mean we survey all over the valley with our land surveying. So, it's -- it's perfect for us. I know there is a lot of history in this neighborhood with the city and the neighborhood and the comp plan that the city just adopted, a future land use map and stuff, and I -- in our neighborhood meeting the neighbors expressed -- a lot of them expressed that they don't really have a problem with what we are doing, other than it has to be annexed and rezoned and that's what they are against is the annexation and rezone and I'm sure there is some that will testify tonight. You will hear their concerns and that's what we expressed to them is they need to come and express their -- their concerns here at the -- at the hearing, so -- yeah, I didn't -- any other questions for me I guess? Holland: Any questions for Mr. Hansen? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Since -- since some of this -- you just kind of put together I guess the site plan at the last minute, I'm assuming that's the same for the elevation and are you -- I guess I want to know -- I want to kind of see that it's tied into, you know, not so industrial, but it sort of blends in with the residential that's in there behind. Is that -- and I don't know what the staff is -- I'm trying to find it and I can, but I don't know what the staff is calling for on that. Hansen: The elevations that we had submitted that are shown on page ten of the staff report, those, again, were when I was instructed when I submitted the application was just very preliminary conceptual, just so they kind of have an idea of what we are doing and proposing for the property. And we certainly -- this isn't nailed in stone as far as all the architectural -- I mean material and necessarily the roofline and stuff, this was just a -- kind of a conceptual idea of a flex space that we would like to do. So, we would still need to develop this with our development agreement and -- when we go to submit for their -- for their building permits or whatever their conditional use or whatever it will be at that time, then, we will work with staff to -- to make sure that that is conducive to what the city wants and what is, you know, best for everybody to use, too, in the neighborhood. Cassinelli: All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F22 Page 18 of 42 Teifenbach: We are going to pull up -- sorry. Alan Tiefenbach. We are pulling up the elevations for you, so that you can see them. We did express some concerns about the usage of metal that was being proposed and some of the roughs and we wanted again just like the other one, we wanted to make sure those concerns were expressed, that we weren't totally -- we like what he's doing, we will work with them, we weren't totally -- we weren't totally on board with the -- with the architecture, because we didn't think it fit with the neighborhood, but we are pulling up the elevations right now so you can look at them. Holland: Thanks, Alan. Appreciate it. Any other questions for Mr. Hansen while staff is pulling up that rendering? None. I think we will just wait a minute and, Alan, just to confirm, they are going to have to still go through design review with the city on these buildings and make sure that they meet the standard code for commercial; correct? Tiefenbach: Yeah. Yes, ma'am. When we -- when we have these conceptuals put up we don't want to get too bound into them direct into the hearing. We would like to have the Commission and/or the Council look at them to get a sense, but if -- but if there is some issues up front, we especially want to make sure that the applicant knows in the hearing, so it's not a surprise that the amount of metal that they are showing here and probably the articulation of the roof is going to be an issue and they also have to turn the garage doors -- can't be facing a public street. So, they will know those things. And, yes, we will be doing that with the certificate of zoning compliance and the design review. Holland: Thanks, Alan. Any other questions for staff or the applicant at this point? All right. Thanks, Alan. And, Madam Clerk, do we have a couple people signed in to testify it sounds like? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we don't have anybody signed in to testify. Holland: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience or on Zoom that would like to testify? If so raise your hand or indicate that you would like to testify and we will get you online. Weatherly: Madam Chair, no one is indicating that they wish to testify. Holland: I'm sorry, what was that? Weatherly: No one is indicating a wish to testify, either online or in the room. Holland: Okay. Alan, I don't know that everybody had a chance to probably see the letter that you received today. Could you summarize for us what that testimony said. Tiefenbach: Yeah. Let's -- actually, let me just see if I can pull it up quickly for you. Yeah. Hang on one second. The clerk is helping me. I can't navigate super fast here. Holland: Thanks, Alan. We appreciate you. It's always harder when you are trying to navigate something while you have got a hundred people watching you, too. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F23 Page 19 of 42 Tiefenbach: That's exactly right. Holland: I believe the main concerns from neighbors were just that they -- they wanted to remain in the county and wanted assurance that they weren't going to be annexed in, so my -- my answer to them would be that no one's going to force annex anybody into the city of Kuna. We take them only as people bring them to us. Pitzer: Meridian. Holland: Meridian. I'm sorry. Did I just say Kuna? Wow, it's been a long day. Sorry. Tiefenbach: Actually, Mr. Parsons has it on his computer. He's hitting it on the Y drive. So, give me just a second and it will come up. Thank you, Chris. There it is. Holland: So, it looks like the three main concerns is the access point, the -- the concern about wanting to stay in the county versus coming into the City of Meridian and that the property is close to homes and so they would prefer the hours of 8:00 to 5:00, so we can certainly ask the applicant to address what their hours of operation would look like. Okay. Thanks, Alan. Appreciate it. Tiefenbach: That was Chris' doing. Thank him. Holland: Thanks, Chris. With that, Mr. Hansen, do you have any comments -- can you share about what your hours of operation look like or answering any of those other concerns that were addressed in that letter? Hansen: Yeah. Sorry. I didn't get through the letter, but I did see that number two that said, you know, 8:00 to 5:00 and that's certainly what we are. We usually right now in the summertime start a little earlier than that and get off, you know, everybody goes home by 3:00 or so, 3:00 or 4:00 most -- you know, sometimes you work maybe until 6:00 or so with -- I mean the crews trying to finish up projects, but we are not an all hours of the day type of operation and, you know, close up shop and go home and it will just be all quiet. So, I know one of the neighbors expressed for lighting, too, that we just consider that with the -- with the lighting to not be pointed towards the houses and stuff and, yeah, it's certainly something we would obviously do. And I'm thinking that the city would require anyways at that point, but -- yeah. What -- what I saw with that letter we are certainly conducive with what they are saying. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Anything else you would like to -- oh, Commissioner Seal, did you have a question? Seal: Just a question on the field trucks and stuff like that. Is that something you service on site or are those taken somewhere else to be serviced? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F24 Page 20 of 42 Hansen: After hours? Seal: Yeah. Just trying to get an idea of after hours type of activities that might take place. Hansen: Oh, yeah. I mean we don't really work on our own vehicle, we take them, you know, to a mechanic or anything like that. Is that what you are asking if we need to do -- Seal: Correct. As far as vehicles or any other kind of equipment might be serviced to, again, trying to get an idea of anything that might happen after hours. Hansen: Yeah. Generally all service stuff off site with mechanics and different stuff, because we just don't have time or desire to do any of that. Seal: Got you. Okay. Hansen: So -- yeah. Every once in a while there might be, you know, some Saturday work going on, too, it's just the office are different things, but generally not servicing or doing anything with the vehicles. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have an additional question on that. Do you have some ideas in mind for -- for that additional building, what that might be. Will that be kind of similar applications. Again, just kind of going to some of the neighbors' concerns. Hansen: Yeah. For us -- I mean ideally we would like to keep it and development it into something in the future, but I feasibly I think we are going to try to just end up selling the lot and so we don't know what any potential buyer might want to put on that piece of property, which is I think what the -- what Alan or the staff report is trying to kind of nail down a little bit, so kind of have an idea of what will be done there. So, they will certainly develop -- or design -- or the development agreement will run with the land. So, whoever purchases the property would -- after we have entered into that development agreement we will have to comply with that as well. Holland: And they would have to still take a lot line adjustment request to the City Council as well. Hansen: All right. Thank you. Holland: Any other questions for Mr. Hansen? Seeing none, Mr. Hansen, is there any other closing remarks you would like to make before we close public hearing? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F25] Page 21 of 42 Hansen: No. Thank you for your time. Holland: Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2020-0078, 1625 East Bentley Drive? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: So moved. Second. Holland: Okay. Commissioner Seal motions to close and McCarvel second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: All right. The floor is ours. Anyone want to go first? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think this is a nice transition of -- from some of the other uses that are close by into current residential. It doesn't sound like it's going to be much of an impact and it sounds like -- it seems like it would be a good neighbor for them and easy access for all their equipment. I would be in support of it. But I would -- yeah, I would be in agreement with staff that that other lot not just go to weeds and be unkept in the meantime until it's developed. Holland: And I believe that's a condition that they have to seed it and maintain it until it -- McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: -- comes time that they develop that lot. McCarvel: Yeah. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Madam Pitzer. Pitzer: You know, I'm -- I'm looking at this and the new comp plan that we put in place and this is definitely keeping with the comp plan. I think that this is going to blend well, you know, with the surrounding neighbors having larger lots, will be selling or won't be selling, if they want to -- don't want to sell, it won't go through. I like the blend that it's going to have with the property to the west across the Locust -- Locust Grove and I think that, again, as Commissioner McCarvel said, this is -- it's going to be very low impact. It's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F26] Page 22 of 42 not like it's a mini mart having a lot of stop and go customers on that -- that area. So, I'm in favor of this as well. Holland: Thank you, Commissioner Pitzer. Mr. Cassinelli or Commissioner Seal? Seal: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Seal: Oh. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I'm -- I'm in favor of it. It's a tough little -- little spot there. You got commercial bumping up against the residential, but I think, you know, once they work with staff on -- on elevations and building materials and whatnot, I think kind of farm -- larger lots, sort of -- sort of mini farms over there. So, I think it will -- I think it can be done right and blend in. So, all in all I'm -- I'm in favor of it. Holland: Commissioner Seal? Seal: Yeah. Madam Chair, I basically echo what has already been said. So, I don't want to belabor the point. It's looks like it's going to fit well. It's going to be pretty quiet. So, kind of like the fact that that's going to squeeze in there. It's going to take up a little bit of commercial space. You know, it's not going to be another residence or multi-family or some crazy thing like that with a bunch of kids that are going to school, so -- because the schools are a little crowded. So, I like -- I like it. And I -- the second conceptual drawing they have of it to me works a lot better, just because of the way that the parking lot can definitely continue on to -- to host for the -- whatever building goes in there in the future to the north. Holland: I agree. And ditto to everything everyone else has said. So, if anybody would like to attempt to make a motion certainly that is called for at this time. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Let me get my thing up here, so I don't mess this up too bad. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony. I move to recommend approval -- approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0078, for 1625 East Bentley Drive and that's it. Holland: I have got a motion -- McCarvel: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F27 Page 23 of 42 Holland: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Seal, second by Commissioner McCarvel. All those in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: We will move on now to the public hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision, H- 2020 -- Weatherly: Madam Chair? Holland: Yes. Go ahead, Madam Clerk. Weatherly: I apologize for interrupting, but when they adoption of the agenda was done I believe you mentioned Item No. 9 being continued as well. The Brighton team is -- Holland: Correct. Weatherly: -- on the phone and they wanted to make sure that that's what you were going to do. I didn't hear you open that up. I was wondering if you wanted to open that up for continuance at this time before you proceed. Holland: Thank you, Madam Clerk. We did not -- we did not continue it at the beginning. We left it kind of where it was on the agenda, but I believe our intention is to continue the application. I don't know -- since we have already adopted the agenda, I don't know if we would need to go back and make a new motion to adopt the agenda again if we heard that first. I will look at our legal counsel for that question. Pogue: When it comes up we can open for -- to continue. So, just take it up in its order at this point. 8. Public Hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision (H-2020-0067) by Bonnie Layton, Located on the South Side of W. Victory Rd., Approximately'/4 Mile West of S. Meridian Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots in an existing R-8 zoning district. Holland: Yeah. I would say, Madam Clerk, I think it's every intention of ours to continue it, but we will move forward with the -- the next application first. Okay. With that we open the public hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision, H-2020-0067, and begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very much. That little tidbit gave me time to clean up the area. So, thank you. All right. As stated, the next item on the agenda is Jocelyn Park Subdivision. The project before you is located at a site that consists of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F28 Page 24 of 42 12.675 areas of land, zoned R-8, and is located at the south side of West Victory Road, approximately a quarter mile west of South Meridian Road. The subject property -- Holland: Sorry to interrupt. Do you have some slide to show, too, that can show the maps and stuff while you are talking? Dodson: That would be very smart of me. Yes. Let me see here. Presentation. Maybe -- I will get there eventually. There we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. A brief history on the subject property. It was annexed in 2013 as part of a larger area known as Victory South. There is an existing development agreement associated with this annexation and property, but the requested application and recorded DA do not require modification, as the proposed development is consistent with those provisions contained in the existing DA. In addition, a preliminary plat was approved for this property in 2018 for the same title plat named, Jocelyn Park. The existing plat is set to expire in December of 2020. This December. The current developer is a new owner and wishes to obtain approval of a new plat with higher density, more in line with the dimensional standards of the existing R-8 zoning district. The proposed development is located in an area of the city where low and medium density residential developments are existing and anticipated, as you can see on these screens with the zoning in the center of the screen. The subject site is surrounded by existing City of Meridian zoning and development, except for a small parcel that abuts its northeastern property that is zoned RUT. Therefore, this project is an in-fill development per the definitions of city code. The proposed development has a gross density of 5.1 acres. Holland: Hey, Joe, for some reason the sound quality is kind of going in and out a little bit. If you can be closer to the microphone that might help. Dodson: Yeah. I will get closer to the microphone. Is that better? Holland: Yeah. Thank you. Dodson: Okay. Thank you. The proposed development has a gross density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre, meeting the density requirements for the future land use -- land use designation of medium density residential. In addition, the existing R-8 zoning allows for detached single family residences with average -- well, with minimum lot sizes above 4,000 square feet. The proposed development meets these requirements. This development is proposed as one phase with an average lot size of 4,455 square feet. Staff finds the proposed use and density to meet the intent of the future land use designation and the zoning district. One quick note regarding this plat. There is a very tiny sliver north of the central open space -- if you can see my pointer on here, it is right abutting that property zoned RUT. This applicant is going to deed or convey that parcel --that piece of the parcel over to the adjacent owner, because there is a shed that crosses the property line, so it will be a cleaner transit-- you know, transmittal of this land. Access for this development is proposed to be an extension of stub streets from adjacent subdivisions. The stub street located in the southeast corner of the site, West Winnipeg Street, is an existing stub from Meridian Heights Subdivision to the east. The proposed Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F29 Page 25 of 42 connection is located in the northwest corner of the site, but is not yet constructed. This connection is to be constructed with phase two of the Timberline Subdivision, which has received final plat approval, but has not yet received city engineer's signature. These two local streets will -- will supply the access points for this development. In addition, the applicant is proposing to stub a street to the property located to the northeast of this site for future connectivity. On the stub street the applicant is proposing a temporary hammerhead type turnaround to ensure safe fire turnaround. In discussion with ACHD, the hammerhead type design will not meet the requirements and, therefore, the applicant will have to construct a temporary turn that meets ACHD and Meridian Fire requirements. On-street parking is to be required and 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. In addition, the applicant is proposing 33 foot street sections within 47 feet of right of way, which would allow on-street parking where there are no driveways. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting the standards listed in the UDC is required. Based on the proposed plat of 12.9 acres, a minimum of 1.3 acres of qualified common open space should be provided. According to the open space exhibit, the applicant is proposing a total of 3.65 acres of open space. The exhibit shows three distinct areas of open space. One area in the south that contains the existing pond that is to remain, one along the entire northern boundary of the subject site and along -- that abuts the Ridenbaugh Canal. And one centralized area. The large open space lot containing the pond abuts the open space area in the Timberline Subdivision currently under construction and abuts open space in the adjacent subdivision to the south Biltmore Estates. In addition, there is a micro pathway connection to the west shown on the open space exhibit that also connects to the Timberline Subdivision near the southwest corner. The submitted open space exhibit shows all of this area as qualifying, but, in fact, it is not. The existing pond and the open space lot that it is on -- unfortunately, the pond is more than 25 percent of the lot in which it resides and, therefore, the entire lot is not qualifying open space per the standards in our code. The other area of open space that is listed as qualified, but is not, is the end cap lot located at the south end of the property and directly north of the open space lot on the -- that contains the pond. This area meets neither the 50 by 100 dimensions, nor the minimum 5,000 square foot dimension. After removing the end cap lot and the lot containing the pond from the open space calculations, there is 2.46 acres of area that is qualifying open space. This area is still vastly more than the required amount of 1.3 acres. One area of concern for staff within the open space is that area directly north of Lots 35 to 37, Block 3, which is the lots located at the end of South Garibaldi Street as proposed on the plat, which is the cul-de-sac shown on the east side of the property. The applicant is proposing to leave an area of open space between the rear yards of these homes and the irrigation district access road. The access road must be fenced off from this development, which leaves a thin area behind homes with the only true visibility coming from the open vision fencing of these three homes rear fence. This area leads to nowhere and does not appear to offer any usable benefit for the development if left as is. Even with the required open vision fencing along the rear of these lots, staff is concerned this area, obviously, will be -- will be neglected due to the slope of the terrain and its location. Therefore, staff is recommending that this area be added to the adjacent buildable lots, Lots 35 through 37, Block 3, instead of remaining open space. There are no multi-use pathways proposed or required with this Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F30 Page 26 of 42 development. There is an existing multi-use pathway on the north side of Victory Road directly north of this subject site. The applicant is proposing micro pathways in multiple locations within the development to add pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout. These pathways -- apologize. These pathways connect the central open space area with the five feet attached sidewalks located along the local streets throughout the development. The applicant is also proposing a micro pathway connection on the west side of the project to connect with a pathway and open space connection in Timberline No. 1 as noted earlier. In addition, it is proposed within the large open space lot abutting the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff supports the addition of these micropathways throughout the development, but has some concerns regarding their placement. First, staff believes the micro path connection from the central open space lot to the street on the west half of the property should be relocated two lots further north, between Lots 10 and 11 , Block 3, to help with potential visibility issues and crime prevention. Second, staff has concerns over how the pathway within the large open space lot along the Ridenbaugh Canal is depicted on the submitted plans and where it is shown to connect to the Timberline Subdivision to the west. The lot in Timberline that directly abuts the subject site in the northwest corner is a buildable lot and will have a privacy fence on the shared property boundary. Therefore, the proposed layout of the pathway shown would likely never become a reality and that is this section up in this northwest corner. The only other pedestrian access out to Victory Road from this site would be via the irrigation district access road, but this is not supported by staff, nor the irrigation district. This -- this access road should be fenced off from this open space lot to ensure a safer open space area along the canal. Because of these issues staff proposes at the -- that the proposed pathway be completely out of the irrigation district easement and looped around this northern open space lot for a walking path around the perimeter of this open space lot and connect back to the proposed sidewalks along West Cumberland Drive, which is the east-west street in the north of the property. Based on the area of the proposed plat, a minimum of one qualified site amenity is required to be provided. The applicant is proposing four qualified amenities to satisfy these requirements. One, a child's play structure. Two, a shaded picnic area. Three, walking paths. And, four, an additional 20,000 square feet of qualified open space. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs through the northern portion of the subject site and, essentially, makes up the required landscape buffer along Victory in its area and location. Per the UDC this waterway is required to be tiled. However, the applicant wishes to keep the canal open and act as a buffer between Victory Road, an arterial street, and the common open space lot proposed south of the canal. Staff supports this proposition by the applicant. The applicant is requesting a Council waiver to keep the canal open. The location of this canal on this site also brings up issues with the required frontage improvements along Victory Road. ACHD has conditioned the applicant, via their draft staff report, to construct detached sidewalk along Victory no closer than 31 feet from centerline of the road. The applicant has concerns about the viability of this requirement. Staff recommended that following at the P&Z hearing. That the applicant and ACHD continue working together to determine the most viable location of a sidewalk along the south side of Victory Road. This is not a condition within the staff report, but staff believes working this issue out before the City Council hearing is the best avenue forward. After all of this, staff does recommend approval of the subject preliminary plat application and I will stand for questions. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F31 Page 27 of 42 Holland: Thank you, Joe. Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Joe, is that -- does that cul-de-sac -- it looks kind of long. Is that within code? I can't see the name of the street, but -- Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, sir, we did check that and it -- it does meet code. It's close, as you can tell, but it does mean code. Cassinelli: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a question on the canal there. Would there be no fence or anything right up to it? Or is there a fence already supplied by the irrigation district? Dodson: Commissioner Seal, thank you. Great question. Their landscape plan shows this fence on the north side of the access road. In my staff report I noted that that -- that should be moved to the south side of the access road in order to keep the irrigation district access roads and -- and their easement completely separate from the open space that is proposed on the north of this property. So, they should -- and are required by code to provide a fence. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. Holland: And, Joe, just to confirm again, it sounds like one of the biggest challenges is about the sidewalk because of the placement of the -- where the canal sits and the ability to have a buffer and the sidewalk there. If the staff feels confident that they can work out some sort of agreement ahead of Council on those items, was there anything else you want, just be specific on deliberating with that. Dodson: Madam Chair, thank you. Yes, as you can see -- oh, well, I didn't make this. I took this from the applicant. So, sorry, Bonnie, but it -- it is a very good representation of the Ridenbaugh Canal and what ACHD is proposing. As you can see here in red, this is -- where, generally, the sidewalk would be as proposed or as conditioned by ACHD. The dashed light blue line is the current toe, so the very edge of the slope of the elevated Ridenbaugh Canal. So, if this were to be built as conditioned by ACHD they would be cutting into that slope and I -- from my understanding this has not been signed off by the irrigation district and I presume that there would be some engineering issues. So, again, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F32 Page 28 of 42 I'm not an engineer, but that type of a situation should be handled very carefully. So, between now and Council I think that this can be worked out. I have been in contact with ACHD all day and they -- they, too, agree that this could be worked out fairly easily and quickly and there would be no need to continue the project from tonight, other than with your recommendation of approval or denial. Holland: Joe, just one more question. Is there sidewalk already if this thing were on the east and the west boundaries of this section? Dodson: Madam Chair, there will be on the west boundary due to the Timberline No. 2, but to the east there is not. The canal continues and it curves along and there is not much room at all between the edge of right of way and the canal and a note for everybody, on the north side of West Victory is a multi-use pathway directly north of this site. Holland: Great. Thanks, Joe. Any other questions for staff or are we ready for the applicant to come speak to us? Clerk, that's time for the applicant. Layton: Good evening, Chairperson Holland and Members of the Commission. Can you hear me? Holland: We can hear you. Thanks, Bonnie. And if you would just give your name and address for the record, we would appreciate it. Layton: Yeah. For sure. I am Bonnie Layton. I'm with WH Pacific, 690 South Industry Way, Suite 10, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. And I appreciate your time this evening to consider this project and really want to thank staff for all of their hard work and really working through the issues with us. So, I think this will be a great project for the city and, you know, I don't really have too many in communication with ACHD. I think that the -- the shot that's on the screen right now is kind of the biggest thing that we just want to work through and I think we are confident that we can come up with a solution. If we want to -- Joseph, do you have that other slide that I had sent over that shows the pictures of the existing condition? So, I guess generally speaking I mean I don't want to take up a bunch of time, but, you know, as you mentioned we are proposing in our development, you know, some -- a little bit higher density, open space. We redid the calculations to make sure that we were in compliance. The neighborhood meeting that we had -- basically the questions were about the development and the fencing and how that all worked out. I thought it was a fairly standard neighborhood meeting. The -- the slide that you are seeing right now in terms of where the fencing is for the canal and how that transition -- do I have control of the screen or am I able to flip through something or can I share my screen to talk about a couple of things? Holland: I will ask Chris or Adrienne if they can help with that. Weatherly: Yes, Bonnie, you can share your screen. Give us just a second. Layton: Okay. I see a green -- I see a green share screen. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F33] Page 29 of 42 Weatherly: Go ahead and click that and, then, choose your presentation and you should be good to go. Layton: Okay. Perfect. Start with this one. So, this is my -- just kind of built this in PowerPoint, so Joseph has shown you this and really what we were looking at is just the -- the frontage improvements. I went out the other day -- are you able to see my screen, everyone? Holland: Yeah. We can see it. Thanks, Bonnie. Layton: Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Lisa. So, just looking at the existing conditions -- conditions -- and, like I said, I think we can work this out with ACHD the way the canal comes and -- so, I took a slide from the Timberline Subdivision, just kind of looking east and that's the center in the picture --the picture in the center here where there is the canal and there is actually quite a bit of elevation when you --when you drive down and around the site and so the -- the photos here on the left -- like this photo, for example, is just looking east and, then, a more zoomed in photo of that and really where that sidewalk would be is behind the power pole, just for a frame of reference. So, we get quite a bit of slope up there and I don't know if any of you folks have been out there, but this picture down here in the bottom that I have got my cursor on, I'm standing across the street and the top of the -- the canal road is above the height of the sign that's posted for -- for the project and, then, also just looking -- this is another picture in the corner. So, if I'm standing right here looking west -- and that's this picture here. So, there is actually -- there is quite a bit of topography there. It's a fairly busy -- fairly busy road as you know and -- Weatherly: Bonnie, if you are speaking we can't hear you. Bonnie, it seems like we have lost your audio. Seal: Madam Chair, are you able to hear Bonnie at this point or have we all lost her? Layton: -- and so our concern was -- you bring pedestrians along this sidewalk and -- and this is all what -- what I have shown is what has been --what ACHD has conditioned. And so we -- so, we bring that sidewalk in along here and, then, you stop them here and, then, they are penned in and at the same time this area as you are -- as you are heading from the east to the west, it's dropping down and so -- Dodson: Hey, Bonnie? Layton: -- you know -- yes. Dodson: It's Joe. Just to let you know, we missed like the last 30 seconds of what you said. Apologize for that. It cut out and I think we lost -- Layton: Okay. So, Joe, I will just reiterate. So, there is quite a bit of fall, actually. So, the crossing that happens kind of to the west -- or the entrance into Timberline, which is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F34 Page 30 of 42 where we take access off of from Victory, you know, is a good line and, then, you drop pretty drastically through our site and you are kind of penned in on this corner and bringing a sidewalk through here, you know, we are -- we are just concerned about that from -- once people get here there is not a sidewalk, so, then, are they jumping up on this -- this bank. Like I said, there is a headgate here. Or are they crossing the street here with traffic coming. So, those are some of our concerns. Of course, also with this light bluish green line -- dashed line here that's the toe of the slope of the elevated canal and so, obviously, the structural integrity of that. I did speak briefly with Gary Curtis with the irrigation district and, of course, they-- you know, they have concerns about that, too. But I think those are things that we can work through, generally speaking. I'm going to stop sharing my screen and see -- Joseph, am I able to -- are we able to scroll back to any of your slides or how should we do that? Apologize, everyone, for -- Holland: That's all right. Layton: I actually had another public hearing this week, but it was -- it was in person, although most people were not an attendance, but -- yeah. So, you know, generally speaking we will work with ACHD and I think we can -- we can resolve that issue. Obviously, we want to provide an improved frontage and -- and also pedestrian safety. I think that's first and foremost. In terms of some of the staff comments, you know, some of the -- some of this area is going to develop potentially in the future. How that develops and this open space back behind here, you know, that's -- that's something that I think -- oh, thank you. So -- so, we have got that path for future connection. Let's see. But if that's something that -- you know, if we can't work that out with the irrigation district or staff feels strongly about, I think we are still grossly over the amount of open space that -- that we need to have. I really think that was it. In -- in my mind we have -- I think we have got a great development with a lot more open space than that's qualified. I think the pond will be an amenity. I like, you know, the connection that we have tried to coordinate with the adjacent property on the eastern boundary, our intent is to construct a new fence along that line. That was one of the comments that was brought up by the neighbors in the neighborhood meeting and so we would go back along the eastern boundary. So, with that I don't think -- I can't think of anything I'm needing to address other than that, so I will stand for any questions at this time. Holland: So, one question about the fencing. I know Joe had mentioned as a condition that they were trying to remove some of the fencing that was around the pond. That -- Joe, was that a different piece than the eastern boundary? Is that -- are you talking about the western boundary? Can you clarify for us? Dodson: Madam Chair -- yeah. Madam Chair, that's a great question. I'm referring to the western boundary by the pond lot right here. I had proposed that they remove the fencing. Just to keep this area open. I can understand if the applicant does not want to have it all the way open, but some opening and availability for residents to comingle is highly recommended and recommended by code to have open space contiguous and accessible between subdivisions. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F35] Page 31 of 42 Holland: Thanks for clarifying, Joe. Bonnie, are you okay with the other conditions that staff had made on the open space, moving the pedestrian pathway up on the northern open space lot and also removing the open space that was behind those three cul-de- sac lots there? Layton: Yeah. So, let's -- let's talk about the first one up here in the -- in the northern -- so, Joseph, as you were talking about -- and we have got -- I see what you mean where there is the label -- am I able to -- can you see my cursor moving? Or is that not possible? So, I -- Holland: No, I don't think we can, because it's now being shared by city. Layton: Okay. So, Joseph, up in that northwest corner what you are talking about is where that -- where our path is shown, you are saying that that's not going to connect now there, that's -- that's a residential lot. Is it -- did I catch you right on that? Dodson: Yes. That is correct, Bonnie. Yeah. That's a buildable lot, so it's just going to go into a fence. Layton: Okay. So, yeah, I -- I don't see the issue in looping that down. I guess there is no fence between us and Timberline -- or wait. Hold on. Let me see if -- that piece was mislabeled, actually. That's not supposed to be a pathway, that's -- that's actually the canal road or the ditch road. There is a road there. So, that's not actually part of our pathway, that's outside of -- let me see. Holland: Are you talking about that whole stretch that's up in the north? None of that's supposed to be pathway? Layton: Yeah. So, that -- if we look at -- Joseph, can you scroll to the plat? Oh, well, this shows it, too. So, there is a -- there is a fence there and, then, there is -- right. Right there. So, that's actually the area -- that's part of the irrigation access. Can you scroll to -- I don't know if it's forward or back, Joseph. So, in -- in that plat exhibit you can see where the fence line is. Oh, there you go. I think you can see that. You can also see it in that exhibit I sent you today. That one's probably more clearly marked. So, you can see where those X's are, that's where -- that's where the fence line is and that -- that exhibit was labeled wrong. That's the canal road. Holland: Would you be willing to do a pathway that would kind of loop around that open space? Layton: Good question. So, we have got the sidewalk along there and along this southern boundary. I guess we could look at what other amenities that we could put into that public -- or that open space and that park. I mean I think we are -- we are over on that, but we could -- I could look at that and, you know, see what we could do there. I don't want it to be too -- too redundant with some of the connectivity that we already have. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F36 Page 32 of 42 Holland: I think when staff saw that I think they were recommending putting a loop there. I'm not sure if they were referring to the -- the canal road there, too, but, yeah, this -- this clearly shows that's a canal road, not a pathway, but it was confusing on the other open space exhibit. So, I think you would definitely want to change out your open space exhibit before it goes to Council a little bit. Layton: Yeah. Thank you, Lisa. We will definitely do that and make sure that that's updated. You know, I think with the amenities that we have on the north end and given the existing conditions with, you know, looking what the irrigation is going to want, they are not going to want people all over their -- all over their canal road and, you know, obviously, nobody wants to fish a kid out of the canal; right? Holland: Right. Layton: So, I -- you know, I think we have done a good job of providing some internal connectivity and, then, also, of course, getting access through Timberline. You know, we don't have any direct access out to Victory. So, you know, as a -- as a resident in the area, you know, I'm a walker myself, so just looking at how somebody could loop through their subdivision, feel safe and enjoy some of the open space in the natural amenities, but we will definitely update that open space exhibit for sure. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Layton: Yeah. Holland: And, then, the other question is about the -- kind of star area that's next to the cul-de-sac there. I know staff was recommending that -- some of those lots up, so that way we didn't have kind of a small strip that didn't really lead to a connecting pathway somewhere else. More for safety than anything else. Layton: Right. I mean right now, you know, we are -- as Joseph mentioned, we are deeding some of that over, because of some existing encroachments and just trying to -- trying to clean that up, but potentially in the future as that property develops, you know, just looking at what's that opportunity. You know, to me that looks like a great space for kind of like a dog run, like a -- you know, nice narrow space where you can throw a ball and run your dog back and forth. I mean we are not -- you know, I guess having that open space back behind those lots, it's nice to have that open space, but we are not completely married -- I mean -- Holland: One thought, too, just maybe a variation and, then, I can open it up for other Commissioners to ask questions. I'm dominating the time here. Sorry about that. I'm -- I'm almost wondering -- there is so many lots on that cul-de-sac and I know it always gets tough when you have got so many lots on the turnaround, because people tend to overpark on those cul-de-sacs, there is --trash day can become complicated. Would you be willing to consider removing one of the lots off the cul-de-sac and just kind of reconfiguring it a way that that open space is shaped, so it's less of a star, but more of a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F37 Page 33 of 42 -- kind of square usable area and, then, having those other two lots that touch that halfway as proposed, kind of go up and close off there. Layton: Well, nobody likes to lose lots, but -- sorry. Actually, if I had my druthers what I would do is I would shift that -- that connecting path and make it run more north-south at the end of the terminus of that cul-de-sac, just as a visual compliment, you know, and that's what I would do. I think those lots are quite large, so there will be an opportunity to park more -- to park vehicles there. They are, obviously, larger than -- than the rest of the lots in that area. So, yeah, I would like to not lose that lot. I think maybe we could design it in a way where we shift that connection. So, with access from where it is now in the cul-de-sac up to the rest, I would put it more north-south and, then, you can kind of make a -- kind of a statement of it, if that makes sense. And I have seen that done in a number of communities and I think that's a great -- a great alternative, because it's -- I think it works well in -- in the examples that I have seen in other places. So, that's -- that's how I would handle that. Holland: Okay. Other Commissioners have any questions for Bonnie? Hearing none, Bonnie -- Dodson: Madam Chair? Holland: Oh, no, we have got one. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Dodson: No. It was Joe. Holland: Sorry, Joe. Go ahead. Dodson: We get confused with each other quite often during these commission meetings. Just to be clear, my main concern regarding this open space behind Lots 35 to 37 is more so that area between 36 and 37, because it kind of gets pinched down there, just thinking on the fly here, but if the applicant were to be amenable to rotating those lots to the west and having the pathway loop around and the lot that is currently Lot 37, maybe losing Lot 37 and rotating the other two over, that would be, you know, possibly ideal to kind of open up that whole area and have a pathway that loops around. Just a potential option there. Holland: Thanks, Joe. I appreciate the suggestion. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Is that -- where that portion of that open space terminates there on the -- on the eastern boundary that -- thank you, Joe. Joe is concerned about. Is that -- right to the east of that is that a developed lot? What is that? Over there just to the right -- there you go. Right there. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F38 Page 34 of 42 Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, sir, that's a developed lot. It's actually -- it's just a fence. It's a backyard. The access road kind of -- as you can see curves north a little bit and goes right around it and this area right here continues the irrigation district access road, because, then, this is a lot, a backyard. Cassinelli So, that -- yeah. So, that little green space there would --would just terminate at somebody's backyard? Dodson: That is correct, sir. Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. Holland: Yeah. I think I would like to see at least Lots 35 and 36 rotate and have -- instead of that pathway kind of end at the canal road, having that access from the cul-de- sac go through between those lots and stubs. So, we just have a loop into that common space instead. I think that would help. Other questions? Are we ready to open up for public testimony and, then, come back? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I don't know if there was anything else, but I just want to ask the applicant if there -- there is -- I know these were the pathways and stuff was a lot of the conditions, but are they -- they are good with all the other -- and off the top of my head if there is other conditions in there, but I just want to see if they are acceptable of all the other conditions. Layton: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli, we are acceptable with all the other conditions and to your point about kind of rotating those lots and looping that through and splitting -- splitting that access point maybe farther to the east on that cul-de-sac, I think that's a --that would be a great suggestion. Just to kind of loop that through. I think that connects in well and, then, also doesn't limit the potential for future -- future access somehow, you know, to an adjacent parcel that might be developed or something, so -- does that answer your question? Cassinelli: Yes. Thank you. Layton: Fantastic. Thank you. Holland: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this tonight? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we had two people signed in, but neither wish to testify. Holland: Okay. I will ask if there is anyone in the audience that would like to testify or anyone on Zoom, if you would raise your hand. We will wait just a second and see if Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F39 Page 35 of 42 there is anyone that --that indicates interest. Hearing none, Bonnie, any closing thoughts you would like to make? Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: Thank you. Before -- I'm sorry, Bonnie, but I just had a quick question. So, when -- when you purchased this -- this -- this development there were -- there was approved for 23 a lots and now you are going to 67. I'm looking at the lots along the eastern side where you are having 12 -- it looks like 12 lots going up against an R-4. I'm a little concerned about the heavy -- heavy density there, going up against those lots that -- I just wonder if maybe we can better transition to those who -- what's going in behind there -- 11, 12 along that border. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, one -- one comment to make is that the -- it's a different owner now and they have decided to come back with a new plat. So, the old plat is not -- not by the same owner and so they are --they are trying to get a new approval and they are zoned already R-8 there. They are within code for the R-8. Pitzer: I realize that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just -- I'm just saying that I'm looking at what's going to transition on that east side and I'm just concerned that there is -- you know, they have the bigger lots at the end of the cul-de-sac and I think just for transitioning purposes to say maybe make those just a hair bigger would transition better for the subdivision to the other side. Holland: Yeah. I think that's a great question, Commissioner Pitzer. Bonnie, I will let you answer that if you would like. Layton: Sure. Thank you, Commissioners. Commissioner Pitzer. So, what we really tried to do in that, as Ms. Holland mentioned, that we are -- this is zoned for an R-8, so there is that -- there is a difference from the previous application to this application. What we really tried to do is to do a one to a one and a half difference. The other thing that our client is doing here is constructing a brand new fence line -- solid fence line all of the same material, so it's not hodgepodge along our eastern boundary, which, of course, the properties to the west -- or to the east, pardon me, will have the benefit of and so, you know, as -- we have tried to be really conscious of that and do a good job of how do we make that transition and be mindful of the residents and when we had the neighborhood meeting we talked about this and came up -- and walked through that issue with the neighbors and talking about, you know, we are going to provide this continuous fence. The -- the -- the buyer of the property that's going to develop the homes, it's going to be more patio style homes, which is something that's consistent with not only zoning, but also with the comp plan for providing a variety of homes in the area and so we -- we feel like this is a good transition oftentimes as patio homes are really single -- single story, where -- where those other homes to the west -- or to the east are also six feet above our site, so there is a pretty big grade difference in there. So, it's hard to see on this image Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F40 Page 36 of 42 per se, but there is going to be not only typography difference, but, then, we really tried to make sure that we -- we were mindful when we laid out the lots that they complied with the zone, but they also respected what was happening to the east. Pitzer: Thank you. Madam Chair, follow up. Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: So, are these patio homes -- is the HOA going to be -- or are there going to be HOA dues that take care of their yards or -- when you -- or is each homeowner going to be taking care of their own landscaping? Layton: Commissioner Pitzer, so I -- I have done a number of different projects. I'm -- I'm not sure on that. I -- actually, I have a degree in architecture and started out my career in residential architecture, so there is a number of different ways to make that happen. I think the concern from the neighbors was what is that going to feel and look like of this development in comparison to theirs and so looking at that patio style home and what that architect sort of looks like, we felt like the mapping and the layout of those and how those are going to live for the residents and based on -- you know, being consistent again with the comp plan and the zoning, you know, providing -- providing something that's -- that's consistent with -- with the comp plan. So, I -- to answer your question, I'm not sure how that will be. I think there is a number of different ways to make that happen. Pitzer: Thank you. Holland: Any final questions? Bonnie, any closing thoughts you would like to make? Layton: Just, again, I want to thank the staff for all of their hard work on this and, you know, I think it's going to be a great project for the community, so -- and I appreciate your -- all of your time this evening for sure. Holland: Thanks, Bonnie. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing and move to deliberation for -- now I lost the file number. H-2020-0067 for Jocelyn Park. Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Holland: Motion by Commissioner Cassinelli. Second by Commissioner McCarvel. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F41 Page 37 of 42 Holland: Okay. The floor is open to us, so I will start, since I have got the floor, and think a couple of my comments -- so, I -- rather than the condition that was in the staff report, which is Section 8-A-1A, where it says revise the plat to include the area behind Lots 35 and 37, Block 3, as part of building lots, instead of common open space, I would prefer to see those three lots rotated and to have the pathways come through the cul-de- sac on the eastern boundary and loop through that common area, instead, to make a -- a more walkable amenity. That would be one thing I would like to say as a condition. I wouldn't mind seeing one of the lots disappear, but I don't know that I necessarily need to condition that on the cul-de-sac, but I would be open to other Commissioners thoughts on that and I'm trying to remember if there was something actually in the -- Joe, was there something in there about the pathway on the northern open space lot about looping that in? Dodson: Madam Chair -- Holland: That's not a pathway, but it's actually the canal road? Dodson: Madam Chair, yes, that is correct. I did have that in there, because it was labeled as a pathway and I thought that they were trying to build a separate pathway. Now that I know that they are not, I'm not necessarily going to fight for them to put a looped pathway through there, since there is the sidewalk along the road and the -- you know, the open space lot isn't a mile deep, so that is up to Commission if they want to strike that condition altogether and require that they provide an -- a revised open space exhibit that correctly labels that. Holland: Do you, by chance, know what that condition number is, Joe, off the top of your head? Dodson: Madam Chair, no, I do not. I apologize. Holland: Okay. I will keep looking in here. Overall I think the -- the development itself, think it fits well as an in-fill project. I appreciate that they have done as much open space as they have, because they have gone above and beyond what's required and so I do appreciate that, even though they are a little bit smaller lots and I always like seeing a little more space between them, so that they can match up fence lines. I think they have --they have done a fairly good job with this concept plan here. I would open up for anyone else that would like to discuss, though. Seal: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: We will go with Commissioner Seal first. Seal: Just a couple of observations on it. There is -- as far as the amenities piece of it, it looks like the -- the north end there is getting the -- the tot lot and things like that, but Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F42 Page 38 of 42 around the pond it would be nice to see something --you know, maybe a gazebo or some -- you know, I don't know what the elevations there are, but something where people could sit and enjoy the -- you know, the pond and that area there. It would be nice to see something along those lines. Then the -- the common area that's in the middle, to me that's -- I don't like that common area really at all, so -- mainly because the entire thing is behind houses and it's going to be fenced off from the neighbors there. So, you are kind of creating an area where it doesn't have a lot of visibility, so that one's a tough one. So, I mean if something was going on and let's say the sheriff needed to get in there, they have got to go find that area back there. So, I just-- I just don't have a good feeling about that. I know some of its going to be restructured as far as where the pathways are going to go through and -- I mean as far as a little common area for a family to enjoy, it's -- it's nice, but it just seems like it's closed off from the rest of the world to me. Holland: But I think that's -- that might be why they made the condition to move the pathway up two blocks on that western road as well. So, that way it -- it opens up more visibility there. Seal: Right. But it's still -- I mean it's -- it's definitely closed -- to me it seems like it's closed off, so -- but, you know, like I said, there is no -- there is just not a lot of visibility back there. So, that's a concern to me. Nothing that, you know, would make me not support the project. The rest of it's pretty nice and I mean that area is kind of -- it's a strange area out there, because there are so many elevation changes and it is kind of strange as it goes through and everything. So, I mean trying to design something that would fit into this area had to have some challenges for sure. So, to me it looks like they did a pretty good job with it. Again, the only concern I have is just that -- that open area just seems like it's really confined and not a lot of visibility. Dodson: Madam Chair? Holland: I would -- I would agree with you on that and I think that's part of the reason I was thinking maybe one of those cul-de-sac lots could go away, too, which will open up more visibility to it. Commissioner Cassinelli, go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry, that was Joe talking. Cassinelli: Yeah. Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Yeah. I just wanted to -- Madam Chair, just wanted to clarify that condition that you were requesting about the pathway is condition number four. Holland: Thank you, Joe. Dodson: Yeah. And, then, just to quickly speak to what Commissioner Seal said, the code dictates that abutting common open space lots, that the fencing will be open vision, so, they won't be completely closed off, but I -- I understand your sentiment there. Holland: Thanks for that clarification. Mr. Cassinelli, I know you wanted to go next. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F43 Page 39 of 42 Cassinelli: Yeah. I -- I would like to -- I'm going to kind of echo some of the comments you made, moving of those lots. I would like to see us at least recommend a loop pathway up north. I don't think we -- I'm fine with -- with removing that condition, obviously, but if we could -- I would I'd like to recommend it, because I think it would be a nice fit. I also, then, would echo Commissioner Seal to have something on the south by the pond. I'm not -- I can -- I get the issue with the -- with that open space that's confined, but I think throughout the city there is a lot of those types of things in different subdivisions. I have got a couple in my surrounding neighborhoods. When I go on walks and whatnot there is -- there is places like that where you can only get to a big open field through a pathway through two lots kind of a thing. So, similar -- I have seen it quite a few places. Other than that I like the idea of the patio homes. I think if they -- you know, they are going to -- it sounds like they are going to work with the neighbors there -- already are to the east getting the fencing, so all in all I'm -- I'm in support of this. In-fill is always tough, but think this angle works, just tweak a couple of those things. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I mean those always have to make -- it would make that -- I mean that open space back there is not ideal, but I think just rotating those three lots would go a long ways to making it better and having a pathway come back out to that cul- de-sac. So, yeah, overall, I -- I would be in support of it. It's a tough -- tough space. Holland: Okay. Commissioner Pitzer, any comments? Pitzer: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My screen is getting all messed up over here on my phone, so I apologize. I'm going to echo Commissioner Seal's concerns about it being so cut off, but rather than lose a lot in the cul-de-sac, we lose a lot just to the north of where that cut through is. I think that would open that up. I appreciate the applicant working with the neighbors to the east. I was concerned about that density, but it sounds like with the elevation change that they have done a good job of mitigating that. So, don't -- I don't see an issue with that. I think that some seating or something around the pond -- I think would be -- I know they said they are going to beautify that pond, which is great. Nobody wants a -- everybody would like a beautiful pond, but maybe adding some seating around it. But I think that's my own -- I think my biggest concern is that star shaped open space there, may be a fatal -- like I said, may be if they turned one of those smaller lots instead of taking one of the larger lots it might accomplish the same thing and wouldn't be as painful. Those are my thoughts. Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Pitzer. Just to recap, you have the numbers. It's condition 1-A and 3-13 on that -- those lots that go back behind the cul-de-sac. So, we would need to modify that. It sounds like everybody was in agreement with at least rotating those three lots to have some sort of pathway loop that would go around there. We could make the recommendation to lose a lot somewhere to give more visibility to the complex. I don't know that I want to specify necessarily where that would be, but maybe Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F44 Page 40 of 42 that's just a consideration that we would ask them to come back to Council with more visibility into that open space somehow and give them some discretion to be able to figure out how to do that and, then, item four was the other one we need to modify, which is the requirement of looping that pathway up on the northern open space, so just for whoever wants to make a motion at some point, those are the item numbers within the staff report that we want to make sure we pay attention to. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Are we ready for a motion? Holland: Always open to entertain a motion. Cassinelli: If nobody else -- if there is no other comments, I will go ahead and throw something out here. After considering all staff -- I didn't give anybody a second to jump in. But after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0067 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 6th, 2020, with the following modifications: Conditions 1-A and 3-B look to move those lots -- shift them to the west and bring that open space connection more towards the east and add a recommendation in there to perhaps look at -- at losing a lot to even further open up that open space to get a little bit more visibility in there. Striking condition number four for that looped pathway to the north, since that is actually the -- the canal roadway. But make a recommendation to add a looped pathway in there. And, then, three, recommend another amenity down by the pond, a seating area, benches, gazebo, something of that nature, just to get a little bit more gathering space down there. Seal: Second. Holland: Okay. We have a motion. Anyone want to second? Pitzer: Second. Holland: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Cassinelli and a second by Commissioner Pitzer. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 9. Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F45] Page 41 of 42 A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. Holland: And we will move on to the -- Item 9, just to open again for the continuance and that is public hearing for TM Center, H-2020-0074, by Brighton and the applicant request continuance in order to be able to meet with staff to discuss other staff requirements for -- pertaining to street and pathway requirements in relation to what's been designed, approved, and constructed in the site in previous phases. If staff has any other comments they are certainly welcome to make those if they would like. I don't believe we need to hear from the applicant. I'm okay continuing this to September 3rd. Staff, are there any other comments that you would like to make on that? Parsons: Madam Chair, you summarized everything very well. Thank you. Nothing to add. Holland: Thanks, Bill. With that can I get a motion to continue the public hearing for TM Center, H-2020-0074, to the hearing date of September 3rd? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Holland: Motion by Commissioner Seal, second by Commissioner McCarvel. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: And, then, before we do our final motion I know Bill would like to talk to us a little bit about some changes happening at City Hall and our October meeting date and potentially discuss an alternate date for October. So, Bill, I will give you the floor before we make that final motion. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Before we adjourn for this evening I just wanted to let you know we -- as you are aware, we are experiencing some technical difficulties in the Council Chambers, so I anticipate the city is going to do some upgrades in our Council Chambers and we are anticipating targeting the last week of September, first week of October, and so that's going to cut into our October 1 st hearing date and so more than likely we are going to have to cancel that hearing and I wanted to at least ask the Commission if they had an appetite to have a special hearing, either -- looking probably October -- the third hearing in October would be the 15th, which shouldn't affect us, but either looking to have a special meeting on the 22nd or the 29th. So, I just want to open that up with all of you to discuss which date would be your preference for a special hearing in October. I know staff's preference would be the 22nd. But, again, I don't know what your schedules are. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. August 6,2020 F46 Page 42 of 42 Seal: I know I would not be able to attend on the 29th. McCarvel: Either is fine with me. Holland: I will technically be out on maternity leave at that time, but if it's -- still available via Zoom I probably can attend if it's on the 22nd or the 29th. McCarvel: I would say that if it's staff's preference for the 22nd, let's do the 22nd. Seal: Agreed. Parsons: Thank you. Appreciate that. I will make a note of that and as we start moving closer to that hearing date I will make sure everyone else is aware of that as well. Thank you. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Commissioner Pitzer, we have appreciated you being with us and tonight is her official last meeting with us, so we wish you well in your new location that you are moving to and we will certainly miss having you on the Commission. But thanks for all your -- your work and effort with us. We appreciate you. Pitzer: Thank you very much. And I'm going to -- I'm going to miss it myself. I'm very sad, so -- with that I move that we adjourn the meeting of August 6th, 2020. Word is adjourned. I got it. Holland: Perfect. A second for the motion? Seal: Second. Holland: All right. We have got a motion and a second. Thank you, Commissioner Pitzer, for that last motion. We appreciate you and thanks, everybody, for a great meeting. Pitzer: Thank you. McCarvel: We might want to vote on that motion. Holland: Oh, yeah. Sorry. All those in favor? All right. Any opposed? Motion to adjourn -- we are adjourning at 8:08 p.m. on August 6th. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:08 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 8 120 1 2020 LISA HOLLAND - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN --- IDAH4 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA Minutes July 9, 2020 Meeting Notes: Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 9,2020 Item 1. F85] Page 82 of 82 Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Hopefully not. Thanks, team. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:55 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 8 1 6 2020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN --- IDAH4 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA Minutes July 16, 2020 Meeting Notes: Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 16,2020 Item 2. 152 Page 67 of 67 Seal: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City -- City Council of file number H-2020-0072 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 16th, 2020. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0072, the 2020 UDC Text Amendments. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks, team. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: I need one more motion. Seal: Move we adjourn. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: Have a motion to adjourn and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thank you so much. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:37 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 8 6 2020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Planning and Zoning Hearing Outline and Presentations Changes to Agenda: Item#3—Applicant is requesting another continuance to Sept.3,d to continue working with Staff on the proposed concept plan and conditions. Item#4—Pura Vida Ranch (AZ, PP, PUD)—H-2020-0064—Applicant requests continuance to Sept. 31d in order to allow ACHD time to review their application and provide a staff report to the City. Item#5—Commission cannot hear application tonight due to processing error; the fault lies both on the Applicant and Staff. Staff is requesting the project be continued 2 weeks to August 20th P&Z Commission hearing. Item#9: TM Center(PP)—H-2020-0074—Applicant requests continuance in order to meet with Staff to discuss conflicts with the Staff recommendation pertaining to street&pathway requirements in relation to what's been designed, approved and constructed on the site in previous phases. Staff recommends cont. to Sept. 3rd(next meeting is full) Item 6A: Rock and Armor Fitness (2020-0076) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Size of property,existing zoning,and location: This site consists of 1.8 acres of land,zoned I-L, located at 1649 E. Pine Avenue, SE quadrant of N. Locust Grove Dr. and E. Pine Ave. Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: North, south and west—light industrial, east—limited office History: Sidewalks and landscape buffers were installed per approval of the Nola Subdivision that was approved in 2005. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: General Industrial Summary of Request: Request for conditional use to allow 15,314 sf arts, entertainment and recreation facility. The subject property is a vacant lot at the corner of N. Locust Grove Dr. and E. Pine Ave. Directly east of the property is a preschool. South of the property is a trucking company.West of the property(across N. Locust Grove) is an electric supply store and a fire systems company. North of the property is a tool manufacturer. There is existing single family at the NW quadrant of W. Pine Ave and N. Locust Grove. Applicant proposes to construct a 15,314 sf Rock and Armor Fitness Center.The proposed use is a sports performance center for training and physical therapy. It specializes in strength conditioning and rehabilitation for athletes and is classified as an indoor recreation facility,which is allowed by conditional use.This facility is not a"drop-in fitness center. Classes and personal sessions will operate by appointment only between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.This proposal also includes a 3,600 sf outdoor"training and warm up area"comprised of sod. Outdoor training on the turf field will occur during the warmer months of May-November. Primary access will occur from a shared driveway approximately 300 feet east of the intersection.Another secondary access is shown to occur from Nola Road and south of the daycare.The applicant has not submitted proof that cross access easements exist between all lots—staff is recommending these easements be established (or produced)at time of CZC. Based on 1 parking space per 500 sf for commercial uses, 31 parking spaces are required. The proposal reflects 53 parking spaces. Both N. Locust Grove Dr. and E. Pine Ave. are arterial roads.25' landscape buffers are required along arterial roads.These buffers (and sidewalk) have already been installed with the approval of the Nola Subdivision. However, several trees in these buffers are dead or dying, and staff recommends replacement of these trees as a condition of approval.The applicant has provided conceptual elevations that indicate metal siding as a primary material, but the Architectural Standards Manual states prefabricated steel panels are prohibited as field materials for building fagades, except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials. Several lengths of roofline appears to exceed the maximum 50' requirement without variation in roofline.These architectural details will be addressed with the CZC. This proposal is allowed as a conditional use in this zone district, it meets all the specific use requirements of the UDC,the applicant has produced enough documentation that this will be a quality development, and staff does not foresee significant additional impacts as a result of this development. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve this conditional use. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number 2020- 0076, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 6, 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 2020- 0076, as presented during the hearing on August 6, 2020,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number 2020-0076 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item 7A: 1625 E. Bentley Drive(H-2020-0078) Application(s): ➢ Annexation &zoning Size of property,existing zoning,and location: This site consists of 1.55 acres of land, presently within unincorporated Ada County, located at southeast quadrant of S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Bentley Dr. Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: North, south,east—Ada County R-1,West—R-2 and C-G Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: This is an annexation and zoning to allow a 4,800 sf office building and a future commercial lot(2 lots total). The subject property is at the SE quadrant of S. Locust Grove and E. Bentley Dr and presently contains a 2,100 sf house. S.Truss PI to E. Bentley from S. Locust Grove Dr is the only way in and out of this property. Presently there is an unused"spur"of E. Bentley that runs along the north property line and terminates just before S. Locust Grove. Immediately to the north, south and east of this property is low density residential,although to the west and further to the south is highly intensive non-residential uses. This includes the Renaissance High School and the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine across S. Locust Grove to the west, and commercial uses such as drive through restaurants and movie theaters to the south (south of I-84).The Comp Plan recommends the subject property (the directly adjacent)for commercial uses, and it recommends mixed use neighborhood for all the properties to the east. Sidewalks already exist on this side of S. Locust although the applicant will be required to install a 25' landscape buffer. The business proposed with this annexation is presently located at 213 E. 5th Ave. in Meridian in a shared 3,800 square foot building. The existing business leases approximately 1,300 square feet of available space.The applicant has stated the size and configuration of the present building does not lend itself to the existing operations and there is no room for expansion.The applicant intends to construct and own a larger building designed for the operations which would also allow more flexibility in workspaces. As single family residential is not allowed in the C-G Zone District, as a condition of approval staff is recommending removal of the house prior to CO for any new commercial building. The applicant's intent is to construct a new 4,800 square foot building on the southern portion of the property. However,the applicant has indicated a second commercial building may be built to the north.The property consists of a 1 acre parcel and a small .2 acre`strip of land"so it is technically two properties and it is possible the applicant could do a boundary line adjustment to create an additional buildable lot. At staff's request, the applicant has provided the conceptual layout for both buildings.The site plan provided reflects commercial buildings at the north and south perimeters of the property,with parking central to the development. Staff believes the layout as proposed is an efficient design for the property. As the applicant intends this project to build out in two phases, staff has concerns that the undeveloped half of the property will remain a"no-man's land"while the other half builds out. Staff recommends that the undeveloped portion of the property be seeded with native seed and maintained free of weeds until such a time as future development occurs. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the annexation and zoning to C-C with conditions. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number 2020- 0078, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 6, 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 2020- 0078, as presented during the hearing on August 6, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number 2020-0078 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#8: Jocelyn Park Subdivision (H-2020-0067) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 12.675 acres of land,zoned R-8 and is located at the south side of W.Victory Road, approximately'Amile west of S. Meridian Road. Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: Residential uses reside in all directions adjacent to this site.To the northeast is County zoned RUT land with residential uses. To the west is Timberline Subdivision that is currently being built in 2 phases, zoned R-8. The subdivision to the east, Meridian Heights, is also zoned R-8. History:AZ-13-014 (DA Inst.#114007668); H-2018-0100 (PP, set to expire in December 2020) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: (History)The subject property was annexed in 2013 as part of a larger area known as Victory South (AZ-13- 014). There is an existing Development Agreement(DA)associated with this annexation and property but the requested application and the recorded DA do not require modification as the proposed development is consistent with the provision contained in the agreement. In addition, a preliminary plat was approved for this property in 2018 for the same titled plat name, Jocelyn Park.The existing plat is set to expire in December,2020 but the current developer wishes to obtain approval of a new plat with higher density more in line with the dimensional standards of the existing R-8 zoning district. The proposed development is located in an area of the City where low and medium density residential developments are existing and anticipated.The subject site is surrounded by existing City of Meridian zoning and development except for a small parcel that abuts its northeastern property boundary.Therefore,this project is an infill development per the definitions in City code.The proposed development has a gross density of 5.1 du/ac meeting the density requirements for the future land use designation of MDR. In addition, the existing R-8 zoning allows for detached single-family residences with average lot sizes above 4,000 square feet. The proposed development meets these requirements as well. This development is proposed as one (1) phase with an average lot size of 4,455 square feet. Staff finds the proposed use and gross density to meet the intent of the future land use designation and zoning district. (Note the lot being conveyed to adjacent property owner). Access for this development is proposed via extension of stub streets from adjacent subdivisions. The stub street located in the southeast corner of the site(W.Winnipeg Street)is an existing stub from Meridian Heights Subdivision.The other proposed connection is located in the northwest corner of the site but is not yet constructed. This connection is to be constructed with phase 2 of the Timberline subdivision which has received Final Plat approval but has not yet received City Engineer signature. These two local streets will supply the access points for this development. In addition,the Applicant is proposing to stub a street to the property located to the northeast of the site for future connectivity. On this stub street, the Applicant is proposing a temporary hammerhead type turnaround to ensure safe fire turnaround. In discussion with ACHD the hammerhead type design will not meet their requirements for adequate turnaround and the Applicant will have to construct a temporary turnaround that meets both ACHD and MFD requirements. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. In addition,the Applicant is proposing 33-foot street sections within 47-feet of right-of-way which would allow on-street parking where there are no driveways. A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the proposed plat of 12.93 acres,a minimum of 1.29 acres of qualified common open space should be provided.According to the open space exhibit,the applicant is proposing a total of 3.65 acres of open space.The exhibit shows three(3)distinct areas of open space:one area in the south that contains the existing pond that is to remain; one area along the entire northern boundary of the subject site; and one centralized area.The large open space lot containing the pond abuts open space area in the Timberline No. 1 subdivision currently under construction. In addition, there is a micro-pathway connection to the west shown on the open space exhibit that also connects to the Timberline Subdivision.The submitted open space exhibit shows all of this area as qualifying but it is not. The existing pond is more than 25% of the lot in which it resides and therefore the entire lot is not qualifying open space per the standards listed in our code. The other area of open space that is listed as qualifying but is indeed non-qualifying is the end cap lot located at the south end of the lot(approximately 4,200 square feet)directly north of the pond.This area meets neither the 50' by 100' dimensions nor the 5,000 square foot minimum size.After removing the end cap lot and the lot containing the pond from the open space calculations,there are 2.46 acres of area that is all qualifying open space. This area is still vastly more than the required amount of 1.3 acres. An area of concern for Staff within the open space area is that area directly north of Lots 35-37, Block 3(the lots at the end of S. Garibaldi Court in the eastern half of the site). The Applicant is proposing to leave an area of open space between the rear yards of these three homes and the irrigation district access road.The access road must be fenced off from this development which leaves a thin area behind homes with the only true visibility coming from the open vision fencing of these three homes' rear fence.This area leads to nowhere and does not appear to offer any usable benefit for the development if left as is. Even with the required open vision fencing along the rear of these lots, Staff is concerned this area of open space will be neglected due to the slope of the terrain and its location.Therefore, Staff is recommending that this area be added to the adjacent lots, Lots 35-37, Block 3, instead of remaining open space. There are no multi-use pathways proposed or required with this development.There is an existing multi-use pathway on the north side of Victory Road, directly north of the subject site. The Applicant is proposing micro-pathways in multiple locations within the development to add pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout.These pathways connect the central open space area with the 5- feet attached sidewalks located along the local streets throughout the development.The Applicant is also proposing a micro-pathway connection on the west side of the project to connect with a pathway and open space connection in Timberline No. 1. In addition,a pathway is proposed within the large open space lot abutting the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff supports the addition of micro-pathways throughout the development but has some concerns regarding their placement. First, Staff believes the micro-path connection from the central open space lot to the western street should be relocated two lots further north, between Lots 10&11, Block 3 to help with potential visibility issues and crime prevention. Second, Staff has concerns over how the pathway within the large open space lot along the Ridenbaugh Canal is depicted on the submitted plans and where it is shown to connect to the Timberline Subdivision to the west. The Timberline lot directly abutting the subject site in the northwest corner is a buildable lot and will have a privacy fence on the shared property boundary. Therefore,the proposed layout of the pathway shown would likely never become a reality.The only other pedestrian access out to Victory Road from this site would be via the irrigation district access road but this is not supported by staff nor the irrigation district at this time. This access road should be fenced off from this open space lot to ensure a safer open space area along the canal. Because of these issues, staff proposes that the proposed pathway be completely out of the irrigation district easement and looped around this northern open space lot for a walking path around the perimeter of the lot and connect back to the proposed sidewalks along the extended W. Cumberland Drive. Based on the area of the proposed plat, a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required to be provided.The applicant is proposing four(4)qualified amenities to satisfy the requirements: a child's play structure, a shaded picnic area,walking paths, and an additional 20,000 square feet of qualified open space. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs through the northern portion of the subject site and essentially makes up the required landscape buffer along Victory Road. Per the UDC, this waterway is required to be tiled. However,the Applicant wishes to keep the canal open and act as the buffer between Victory Road, an arterial street, and the common open space lot proposed south of the canal. Staff supports this proposition by the Applicant.The Applicant is requesting a Council Waiver to keep the canal open. The location of the Ridenbaugh Canal on this site also brings up issues with the required frontage improvements along Victory Road. ACHD has conditioned the Applicant to construct detached sidewalk along Victory no closer than 31-feet from centerline of the road. The Applicant has concerns about the viability of this requirement. Staff recommends that following the P&Z hearing that the Applicant and ACHD continue working together to determine the most viable location of a sidewalk along the south side of Victory Road. This is not a condition within the staff report but Staff believes working this issue out before the City Council hearing is the best avenue forward. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject preliminary plat application. 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- 2020-0067, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 6, 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-2020- 0067, as presented during the hearing on August 6, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0067 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingAugust 6, 2020 h2 Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Item AERIALZONINGFLUM CUPRock and Armor Fitness #6A: Site Photos From Nola looking westLooking East (Pine)Looking South (Locust Grove) Landscape Plan Elevations Item AERIALZONINGFLUM Maps–AZ 1625 E. Bentley Drive , #7A: Site Photos Looking South down Locust GroveLooking SouthLooking west Conceptual Site Plan Item AERIALZONINGFLUM: Jocelyn Park Subdivision PP8# Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Open Space Ridenbaugh Canal Layout Item 3. 153 0��W El ty PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: August 6, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from June 18, 2020 for Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020- 0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed-use commercial and high- density residential development. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 4. 154 0��WEII IDIAN:--- PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: August 6, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck&Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 5. 155 0��WEII IDIAN:--- PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: August 6, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Pearson Subdivision (H-2020-0075),b Melanie Pearson, Located at 175 W. Paint Horse Lni- w Request: A Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of 2 building lots on 3.98 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 6. 156 0��W El ty PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: August 6, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Rock&Armor Fitness (H-2020-0076) by Matt Garner with Architecture Northwest, Located at 1649 and 1703 E. Pine Ave. A. Request:A Conditional Use Permit for a 19,162 square foot fitness and training center on 1.8 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 6, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Rock & Armor Fitness (H-2020-0076) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO s .Maw, W� ��S 0 2 X 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORT C� fE IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 8/6/2020 Legend DATE: 0 lei Loco=or LU 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commissionarc)( FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner x r , 208-489-0573 ' SUBJECT: H-2020-0076 Rock and Armor Fitness CUP LOCATION: 1649 E. Pine Avenue C --- f -- I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow a 15,314 sf fitness and training center(Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Facility), along with a 3,600 square foot outdoor turf training and warm-up area. The subject property is in the I-L zone district and consists of two lots totaling 1.8 acres. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.8 acres Future Land Use Designation General Industrial Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Arts,Entertainment and Recreation Facility Lots(#and type;bldg./common) Two(2)building lots Neighborhood meeting date;#of May 21,2020 attendees: History(previous approvals) Nola Subdivision Preliminary—Final Plat PFP 04-008 Pagel Item 6. Fl-581 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District No comments submitted Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Primary access will occur from existing access off E.Pine Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Avenue,secondary access will occur via internal drive aisle behind existing daycare to east at 1771 E.Pine Ave. and to N.Nola Rd. Existing Road Network Yes Fire Service No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.97 • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Comments • Additional 591 gpd of flow has been committed. • No proposed changes to public sewer infrastructure is shown within record.Any changes or modifications to the public sewer infrastructure shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • No new public water infrastructure proposed in this record. • There are two existing water stubs at the northern boundary that either need to be used or abandoned. Page 2 } 11 IIX1- Jl. _IR.NIIII ` '+ AI 1 ' — �h 11 11+ • y. r IM1 11 ' mil'. —ull.. ,.NEB �+y�_' �~ _ii_ .: � ■f . 10 or _ / _110 _ _ " �f � � • �/ +_ .0r/.00 1 .� —�a..4` �-- -- r! f,++�� Jlrs�,.` •'�i FRANK TR-. I�KL--I.N ., �+ I a.p.del • • _ i5 L w� u u11uu E _- I .�M1�.. . — ill lli�—�—.�}1== �--i`—'ll� ■ -� �■ -IBM ■■ � � ell ■ jrF ! ■ millso I ■� =! llllll Illl �' llllll loll Item 6. F160] III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Matt Garner,Architecture Northwest—224 16'h Ave South,Nampa, ID 83651 B. Owner: Timothy Williams— 1902 W. Mountain Man Dr.,Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Matt Garner,Architecture Northwest—224 16th Ave South,Nampa, ID 83651 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/17/2020 Radius notification mailed to 7/14/2020 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 7/24/2020 NextDoor posting 7/14/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan) General Industrial-This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex,and incidental retail and offices uses. In some cases uses may include processing,manufacturing,warehouses, storage units,and industrial support activities. The subject site is already zoned Light Industrial(I-L). The proposed use is not one that is described specifically by the general industrial category of the Future Land Use Map. However, the present zoning allows an indoor recreation facility by conditional use. The proposed fitness center is a use determined to be appropriate in this zone district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): Goals, Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • Encourage infill development. (3.03.01E) The Comprehensive Plan defines infill as "development on vacant parcels, or redevelopment of existing parcels to a higher and better use that is surrounded by developed property within the City of Meridian." The subject property is a vacant lot surrounded by existing development on all sides. This includes a daycare to the east, trucking company to the south, research and development uses across E. Pine Ave. and Page 4 Item 6. 161 residential at the northwest quadrant of the E. Pine Ave IN. Locust Grove intersection. The property has available water and sewer. This project would be considered infill development. Preserve private property rights and values by enforcing regulations that will prevent and mitigate against incompatible and detrimental neighboring uses. (3.05.01 C) The conditional use is a process to ensure any impacts associated with a particular use are mitigated. All uses directly adjacent to the subject property are commercial. • Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. (5.01.02D) Building design and landscaping will be reviewed as part of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and administrative design review that would follow this proposal if it were approved. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject property is presently vacant. The 25'landscape buffers that are required along E. Pine Ave. and N. Locust Grove Rd. were already installed with the infrastructure improvements required of the Nola Subdivision as were the required sidewalks. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is a sports performance center for training and physical therapy. It specializes in strength conditioning and rehabilitation for athletes and is classified in UDC Table 11-2C-2 as an indoor recreation facility. This facility is not a "drop-in fitness center. Classes and personal sessions will operate by appointment only between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Outdoor training on the turf field will occur during the warmer months of May-November. The subject property is within the light industrial(I-L)zone district. This zone district is intended to provide for convenient employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and distributing. The proposed use is not one of the uses described above. However, indoor and outdoor recreation facilities are allowed in the I-L zone district by conditional use. The proposed use complies with the zoning for the site but is subject to specific use standards as listed in 11-4-3-2. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): An `Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors"is subject to specific use standards as outlined in UDC 11-4-3-2. These standards include all outdoor recreation areas that are not fully enclosed maintaining a minimum setback of one hundred feet(100)from any abutting residential districts and outdoor activities only being allowed between six o'clock(6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M. The subject property is surrounded by commercial and light industrial zoning, and the establishment only operates between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): Dimensional standards in the Light Industrial District(I-L) include street setbacks of 35 , arterial landscape buffers of 25 , 25'buffers to residential uses and a maximum building height of 50'. The proposed fitness and training center meets all dimensional standards. Page 5 Item 6. ■ G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4): The subject property is located at the southeast quadrant of E. Pine Ave. and N. Locust Grove Rd., both arterial roads. The primary access will be from an existing shared driveway off E. Pine Street approximately 300 feet back from the intersection on E. Pine Street. There is a second (internal) access to the site from N. Nola Rd at the east, along the south side (rear) of the existing daycare at 1771 E. Pine Avenue. The plat does not reflect a cross access easement between the subject property and 1771 E. Pine Avenue to N. Nola Rd. Staff recommends a condition of approval that an access easement be recorded and reflected on the site plan at time of CZC. This proposal was referred to ACHD, who estimated a total trip generation of 53 peak hour trips per day.ACHD did anticipate any decrease in level of service. There were no additional comments from ACHD. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): The subject property is within the Light Industrial(I-L)zone district. Per UDC 11-3C-6B-2, parking in industrial districts is based on one (1)parking space per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. However, the proposed use is a commercial use, not an industrial use. UDC 11-3C-2 allows the City to require a greater number of spaces in any application involving a conditional use permit. Based on the commercial parking standards of one (1)space per 500 sf of gross floor area, this use would require 31 parking spaces and 2 bicycle spaces. The site plan indicates 53 parking spaces and 5 bicycle spaces. As is required by UDC 11-3C-5, all internal 2-way drive aisles are at least 25'in width. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17) Sidewalks were constructed with the subdivision. This includes a 7'attached sidewalk along both E. Pine Ave. and N. Locust Grove Rd.frontages. J. Parkways No parkways are proposed with this expansion. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2C-3 requires landscape buffers of a minimum width of 25'along arterial streets. These buffers (and 7'sidewalk)were installed per conditions of the Nola Subdivision Plat that was approved in 2005. The applicant will be required to landscape the parking lot per UDC 11-3B-8 including 5'wide landscape buffers adjacent to parking, loading and driveways, and landscape islands required for any parking lot with more than 12 spaces. The conceptual landscape plan submitted with this conditional use does appear to meet the requirements. Staff notes there are a number of trees in the required landscape buffers that appear to be dead or dying. This has been addressed in the "Tree Mitigation"section of the proposed landscape plan. Staff is recommending dead or dying trees be replaced as a condition of approval. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Existing vinyl fencing is located along the eastern property lines (adjacent to the daycare) and there is existing chain link fence to the south (surrounding the trucking business). This fencing will be retained. The applicant has not shown any other fencing.Any additional fencing would be required to comply with the fence standards in the UDC 11-3A-7. Page 6 Item 6. ■ M. Utilities All utilities for the proposed development are already in place. No additional services are needed. N. Building Elevations The applicant submitted conceptual elevations with this conditional use application. The elevations indicate a pre-engineered metal building connected to a smaller hand framed structure with stucco interior. The proposed elevations will be reviewed in detail at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). However, there does appear to be several elements that might not meet the standards of the Architectural Standards Manual. The narrative and elevations call out metal siding whereas the ASM states untextured concrete panels and prefabricated steel panels are prohibited as field materials for building fagades, except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials. The northern elevation (fronting E. Pine Ave) has a roofline that does not meet the requirements for buildings with rooflines SO feet in length or greater incorporating roofline and parapet variations. (The southern roofline also does not meet these requirements but backs to the trucking company and is not visible). Specifics of the architecture will be reviewed and discussed at time of CZC and DES submittal; it is possible the applicant will need to request a design exception or comply with UDC and ASM design standards. 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. Page 7 fj ■�IAAI�Y� 1■��sma f14 � • Ll a � f4 �' : III ■ �i r-. �e - -- - 13 ''i o af' ■, ¢; pa ■.:'�r ■ or= ■' n v u u u w ' � d ■�rlAr��A=ISnH■ - - o � ii r m - - i ii!iii iiL�iiiFfigiL�iiFEli u = 01102L�III�!i �� IIL!!� i! iiL!iii9i! iL!iii Item 6. ■ C. Conceptual Elevations (date: 6/5/2022) I I � I I I I I I WEST ELEVATION ........................... ................... . ........ ... - -- I I I I I a FBI LL I NORTA ELEVATION wui aw.f.r '- -- -I I I I I I I I A r ti III 11[u I I I Bpi..............III 1111111111 L SOUTH ELEVATION aewa inr.r.e I I I I mm�� mmmm I f I t EAST ELEVATION Ad" Page 9 F166] D. Conceptual Colored Elevations d. 1 1 1 �4d,— . ;, � �111�ai��:-` '-. lilt►: � ,�,� ��.�, �S�r�w111AA11A���Al11AAA11r [I 11AAAA1A1AAAE11111111�111111 E��!• L L RQ f�RRMQR Page 10 Item 6. F167] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative design review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. The applicant will either meet all architectural requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)or apply for a design exception as part of the CZC submittal. 2. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two(2)years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 3. The site plan prepared by Architecture Northwest,dated July 27,2020, is approved as submitted with the following modifications: a. A cross access easement will be recorded and shown on the site plan with instrument number noted that provides access from N.Nola Rd across the south side of 1771 E. Pine Avenue to the subject property. b. A cross access easement will be recorded and shown on the site plan with instrument number that provides access from E. Pine Avenue across the subject property and to 1771 E. Pine Avenue. 4. The landscape plan prepared by Rodney Evans+Partners, dated July 27, 2020 is approved as submitted: 5. Parking requirements associated with the indoor/outdoor recreation facility shall comply with the commercial parking standards; 1 per 500 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy,the applicant shall replace all dead or dying trees that are within the 25' wide landscape buffers adjacent to E. Pine Avenue and N. Locust Grove Road. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 9. The Applicant shall comply with the structure and site design standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. 10. The applicant shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13. 11. The Applicant shall provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the location and design standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. 12. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F1; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F4. Page 11 Item 6. ■ B. Public Works 1. No proposed changes to public sewer infrastructure has been shown within record.Any changes or modifications to the public sewer infrastructure shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 2. There are two existing water stubs at the northern boundary that either need to be used or abandoned per Meridian Public Works Standards. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192428&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C ky 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. The site meets all dimensional and development regulations in the I-L zoning district. The site already contains landscape buffers,parking is adequate, and the parking area will be landscaped as required by UDC 11-3B-8. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 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 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Facility will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V of this staff report. 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 subject site is within an industrially-zoned area. Directly south of the site is a trucking company. East of the property is an existing daycare.Across E. Pine Avenue to the north is research and development and office uses, with similar uses across N. Locust Grove Rd. to the west including auto body repair. The site will be adequately landscaped, and architecture will be required to meet the Architectural Design Manual(ASM) at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). The business will only operate between 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and any training in the outdoor area will take place during this same time. Staff finds the proposed use should not change the character nature of the area as there is a mix of uses developed or developing in the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Facility complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII and UDC 11-4-3-2 as required, Staff finds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Page 12 Item 6. F169] 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 proposed use will be served adequately by all public facilities and services. 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 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. This proposal is for an Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Facility, by appointment only, in an area zoned for light industrial. The use would be surrounded by office and light industrial uses, as well as an existing daycare to the east. The proposed facility is appropriate in this location. 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 on this site; thus, Staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 13 Item 7. 170 0��W El ty PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: August 6, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for 1625 E. Bentley Drive (M-2020-0078 b Clint Hansen o Land Solutions,Located at 1625 E. Bentley Dr. Request: Annexation of 1.03 acres of land with the C-C zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 6, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: 1625 Bentley Drive (H-2020-0078) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 8/6/2020 Legend DATE: ® 0 ❑ leiPraject Lacs=or ' i ❑�L TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -FT - ---, FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: H-2020-0078 1625 E. Bentley Drive p -- LOCATION: The site is located within the southeast --- quadrant of S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Bentley Dr. (north of I-84)., in the SW 1/4 of Section 17,Township 3 N.,Range 1W. Igo rWJ IMWNMI�R i I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&zoning of 1.55 acres of land with Community Business District(C-C)zoning district to allow a 4,800 sf+/-office flex building,by Clint Hansen of Land Solutions. The applicant may eventually build a second commercial building. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.55 Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use(s) Single Family/Rural Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial Office Flex Space Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 2 parcels Number of Residential Units(type None(existing house to be removed) of units) Physical Features(waterways, No significant physical features. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of May 26,2020— 14 attendees signed in. attendees: B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No Page 1 Item 7. F172] Description Details Page • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State There is only one point of through access Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) to this property—From S. Locust Grove Rd.to S.Truss PI/E.Bentley Dr. There is presently no eastern through access due to cut-de-sacs and dead end streets. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access There is an unnamed stub(ROW in front of the property)that dead-ends just east (but does not connect)to S.Locust Grove Rd.Westbound E.Bentley Dr. connects to S.Locust Grover Rd. Existing Road Network Arterial and Local Streets Existing Arterial Sidewalks/Buffers The applicant will be responsible for a 25'wide landscape buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd(sidewalks already exist in this area), 10'buffer and curb,gutter and sidewalk along S.Truss Pl.,and a 25' residential buffer along the south property line. Proposed Road Improvements S.Locust Grove Rd.has recently been widened and there is a roundabout planned for the S.Locust Grove Rd./E. Bentley Dr. intersection. Fire Service—No comments submitted Police Service—No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services 0 • Sewer Shed dM Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See Application • WRRF Declining Balance 13.97 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • No proposed changes to Public Sewer Infrastructure has been shown within record.Any changes or modifications to the public sewer infrastructure shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water ERU's See application • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Water N/A Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns No changes to public water infrastructure proposed. Page 2 1 1 1 I IUIIP,�... ■.■.■ .■.■4uIIINI� ._.. FN +�t TY� �� �5 :■11■ � - 84 WNW ERIL- ■■ i■u NINE CAI MENEM �lI.I 111 n..■ 41111111.111mon _.ti-L.r_.=. Si L■ iG■:aKill��f:l$ on I iuuul—III■I■1 1•� .:.12-2 JI_! ■•�'� MEN Li�4t ■ ■ 84III I 16 �,,■■ ■ 1 .. i 1oon .. .. i..■.■■. loom 1 1 , ■ , • •I Item 7. F174] IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/7/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 7/14/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 7/24/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 7/14/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan) This property is designated as Commercial on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation is to provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail, restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi public uses. The annexation area is near existing public services and is adjacent to the city limits.Although the majority of the properties in this area east of S. Locust Grove Road and north of I-84 are rural residential, the land directly surrounding the subject property is recommended for commercial uses.Also, approximately 350 feet to the east of the property, the FLUM recommends mixed use neighborhood. Most of the land on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd. and south of I- 84 is zoned commercial; directly across S. Locust Grove Rd. there are several large non- residential developments such as the Renaissance High School and the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine. The professional office flex space (for professional services)proposed under this annexation complies with the recommendations of the FLUM and would provide an appropriate transition in intensity from a commercial corridor to the existing residential at the north and east. 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 HIL.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan): The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • Focus on developing industries that tend to exceed the living wage, such as technology, healthcare and other similar industries. (2.06.01E) Page 4 Item 7. ■ This annexation proposes a 4,300 square foot building for a land surveying company. This is considered a professional service, which may be a primary employer with higher wages. • Work with existing industrial businesses to expand or relocate operations to appropriate areas. (2.08.03C) The business proposed with this annexation is presently located at 213 E. Sth Ave. in Meridian in a shared 3,800 square foot building. The existing business leases approximately 1,300 square feet of available space. The applicant has stated the size and configuration of the present building does not lend itself to the existing operations and there is no room for expansion. The applicant intends to construct and own a larger building designed for the operations which would also allow more flexibility in workspaces. According to the conceptual site plan submitted by the Applicant, the new office building would be constructed on the southern half of the property, to allow the possibility to eventually construct a second commercial building on the northern portion. The Comprehensive Plan supports this type of business in the proposed location. • Encourage infill development. (3.03.01E) The Comprehensive Plan defines infill as "development on vacant parcels, or redevelopment of existing parcels to a higher and better use that is surrounded by developed property within the City of Meridian." The subject property is surrounded by existing development on all sides, is directly adjacent to a commercial corridor, contains a vacant single family residence and is already connected to city water and sewer. • Focus development and redevelopment intensity on key transportation corridors. (3.07.02C) The proposed office flex building is proposed adjacent to S. Locust Grove Rd., a key transportation corridor. • Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (3.07.00) The surrounding neighborhood consists of primarily low density single family residential. The FL UM recommends the subject property and to the south for commercial uses, medium density residential to the north and mixed use neighborhood to the east. To the west of the property(across S. Locust Grove Rd.) are higher intensity non-residential uses such as the Renaissance High School and the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine. South of the property(south ofI--84) are intensive commercial uses such as drive through restaurants and movie theaters. The proposed office flex building in this location will provide an appropriate transition from the residential and mixed use residential uses to the east to the commercial uses to the west and south. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available along S. Locust Grove Rd. and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC I1-3A-21. Page 5 Item 7. F176] C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing 2,123 single family residence on the property, constructed in 1972. As the property is proposed to be zoned to C-C, which does not allow single family residential, the existing house should be required to be removed as part of the annexation agreement. Proposed Use Analysis: Office buildings are listed as a principal permitted use (professional services) in the C-C zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2B-1. The applicant's intent is to construct a new 4,800 square foot building on the southern portion of the property. However, the applicant has indicated a second commercial building may be built to the north. The property consists of a I acre parcel and a small.2 acre `strip of land"so it is possible the applicant could do a boundary line adjustment to create an additional buildable lot. At staffs request, the applicant has provided the conceptual layout for both buildings. The site plan provided reflects commercial buildings at the north and south perimeters of the property, with parking central to the development. Staff believes the layout as proposed is an efficient design for the property. As the applicant intends this project to build out in two phases, staff has concerns that the undeveloped half of the property will remain a "no-man's land"while the other half builds out. Staff recommends that the undeveloped portion of the property be seeded with native seed and maintained free of weeds until such a time as future development occurs. D. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The zoning is proposed to be C-C. This requires no street setback but does require a 25' landscape buffer along arterial roads (S. Locust Grove Road) and 10'buffer along S. Truss Pl.A 25'residential landscape buffer is also required at the south of the property, adjacent to the neighboring existing single family residence. Building height is limited to 50'. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): There are specific requirements regarding flex space. This includes roll-up doors not being visible from a public street and loading docks being prohibited. The conceptual elevations show the roll up doors on the north side of the building(away from S. Locust Grove Road),parking oriented toward the center of the buildings, and no loading docks. If a second building is constructed as proposed, this will also help minimize the view of the garage doors from public street view. F. Access(11-3A-3): Access to this property will occur from two points off of S. Truss Pl. S. Truss Pl. connects to E. Bentley Dr. and out to S. Locust Grove Rd(an arterial). The applicant has stated ACHD will require them to add curb,gutter and sidewalk along S. Truss Pl. to the south extent of their property. There is an existing stub off E. Bentley Dr. north of the subject property, which terminates in a dead end east of S. Locust Grove Rd. The applicant does not propose access from this street and ACHD is not requiring improvements to this road. G. 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 commercial districts based on one space per 500 feet of gross floor area. With a Page 6 Item 7. F177] proposed building size of 4,835 square feet, 10 parking spaces would be required. The conceptual site plan indicates 17 parking spaces for the first building, and the same amount of parking spaces for a conceptual second building. The parking requirements are satisfied, but staff notes the final number will probably be less because UDC 11-3B-8 requires an internal planter island of at least 50 square feet for every row of more than 12 parking spaces. H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks already exist along S. Locust Grove Rd. The Applicant is required to add curb, gutter and sidewalk along S. Truss Pl. to the south extent of their property line. I. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): No parkways are proposed with this development. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): The applicant will be required to install a 25'wide buffer along S. Locust Grove RD. as is required for arterial streets, a 10'landscape buffer along S. Truss Pl. and E. Bentley Dr. as is required for local streets, and a 25'wide landscape at the south of the property as is required for any parcel sharing a contiguous lot line with a residential land use per UDC 11-2B. Parking lot landscaping, including 5'buffers adjacent to parking, loading and other vehicular use areas, including the possibility of planter islands, will also be required per UDC 11-3B. As mentioned, the applicant's plans reflect the desire to construct the first commercial building as phase one, and eventually construct a second building on the other half of the property. As mentioned above, staff is recommending the undeveloped portion of the property be seeded with native seed and maintained free of weeds until such a time as future development occurs. K. Tree preservation(11-3B-10) There are several existing trees on site.At time of CZC submittal, the applicant will be required to work with the City Arborist if removal is proposed.A mitigation plan may be required which would be required to indicate the total number and caliper inches of trees proposed for removal and the total number of replacement trees proposed. L. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): There are no significant waterways on the property. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The concept plans do not indicate any fencing. All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. The subject property is already connected to City water and sewer which was installed with recent expansions to S. Locust Grove Road. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the proposed office flex building for this project (see Section VII). Page 7 Item 7. ■ The conceptual elevations show a one-story office building comprised of metal and fiber cement siding, with a sloping roof.As is required by UDC 11-4-3-18 for flex space, the roll-up doors are faced to the north, away from public streets. At time of CZC and DES submittal, complete architectural elevations with materials called out will be required and the architecture will be reviewed against the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). It does appear that the conceptual elevations might not meet the standards of the ASM in regard to buildings with rooflines SO feet in length incorporating roofline and parapet variations. Also, the Applicant should be aware that untextured concrete panels and prefabricated steel panels are prohibited as field materials for building fagades, except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials and meeting all other standard fenestration and material requirements. The applicant site and building design is required to comply with the design standards in the UDC and the ASM. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 8 Item 7. F179] VII. EXHIBITS A. Concept Site Plan(date: 7/30/2020) I AA rr f w - 'F ; f P,)INT OF ' BEGINNING _ F'27"E S99'57'27'E 21'11.5{ c� 201.47' LA.V,1 .A'E A�Dr 9.0-7, UILDIN YOUT v ' EITI r T E F T E IL ::.: L.`T E T -L.' cif` Ld TiTnL HEA = F �0.4¢ Ak. 'E.: 19 ..�. Si M -� ' BLOCK 1 1. ' TCT:AL AREA = 22.9E7 S = (0.55 ACRES) - D I f.. U) f 4,835 S ' LAND SOLUTIONS L '`H� I i Lr} Imo_ 107' N89'57'A'V--. 204.59' i I i JNrL.ATTED � PW,:EL S1117-325700 AW Page 9 Item 7. ■ B. Elevations(date: 6/26/2020) ffiQP o -o - 9DUIH H.EVA➢ON 477 Ff7R ~~ -5 T.OP.-OffICF�� ��� IAP.-CffICE 3D Vi 1 EASi BEVAiION ..N'BT BE'VATgN 1® i it-w iINFH W1 n 3DY 2 NDfFIFi ELEVATION VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The existing house shall be removed prior to certificate of occupancy. c. The undeveloped portion of the property shall be seeded with native seed and maintained free of weeds until such a time as future development occurs on that portion. d. The applicant will submit a tree mitigation plan at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC). This mitigation plan shall indicate the total number and caliper inches of trees proposed for removal and the total number of replacement trees proposed. Page 10 Item 7. 181 e. There shall not be direct access to N. Locust Grove Rd. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. No proposed changes to public sewer infrastructure has been shown within record.Any changes or modifications to the public sewer infrastructure shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 2. There are two existing water stubs at the northern boundary that either need to be used or abandoned per Meridian Public Works Standards. C. ACHD https:llweblink.meridianciV.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=192567&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192349&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCi ty 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; Stafffinds annexation of the subject site with a C-C zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial FL UM designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff ,finds the proposed office flex building will be consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in that it will support the purpose ofproviding for the service needs of the community, in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed annexation and zoning should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed annexation and zoning will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city Staff ,finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 11 Item 7. Fl 82 Page 12 Item 8. 183 0��W El ty PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: August 6, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision (H-2020-0067) by Bonnie Layton, Located on the South Side of W.Victory Rd.,Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Meridian Rd. 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots in an existing R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 6, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 8 PROJECT NAME: Jocelyn Park Subdivision (H-2020-0067) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 ` 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 8. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 8/6/2020 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission •`1_s FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner , 208-884-5533 ® f Y SUBJECT: H-2020-0067 ®� Jocelyn Park Subdivision m LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of • �' W. Victory Road, approximately 1/4 mile west of S. Meridian Road,in the NW 1/4 - of the NE 1/4 of Section 25,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. L PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots in an existing R-8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 12.675 (R-8 zoning district) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 74 total lots—67 single-family residential;7 common lots. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one phase Number of Residential Units(type 67 units—detached single-family homes of units) Density(gross&net) Gross—5.1 du/ac.;Net—9.76 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 3.75 acres total—2.56 acres of qualified open space [%]/buffer/qualified) (19.8%) Amenities 4 qualifying amenities—walking paths; shaded picnic area; tot-lot;and additional qualified open space. Physical Features(waterways, Ridenbaugh Canal—along northern and northeastern hazards,flood plain,hillside) borders of property. Existing pond in south end of site is proposed to stay. Neighborhood meeting date;#of April 28,2020(Online Zoom Meeting due to Covid-19 attendees: Virus)—4 attendees Page 1 Item 8. 185 Description Details Page History(previous approvals) H-2018-0100(PP,set to expire in December of 2020);AZ- 13-014,DA Inst.#114007668. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Draft Staff Report • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via extending existing and proposed Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) local streets into the development from the west and southeast.No access is proposed to W.Victory Road. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access into this development would be from stub streets of Access adjacent subdivisions.The stub street in the southeast from Meridian Heights Subdivision currently exists;the stub street from Timberline No.2 is proposed and approved in their final plat. This property is proposing a stub street to the adjacent property abutting the site in the northeast. Existing Road Network No Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ The subject property has a small area of arterial street Buffers frontage along W.Victory Road that is between the right- of-way and the Ridenbaugh Canal.This area is not improved with curb,gutter,and sidewalk at this time. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not proposing to improve any right-of-way along W.Victory Road. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 0.8 miles to Bear Creek Park(18 acres in size) size) Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.9 miles from Fire Station#6 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#6 reliability is unknown at this time due to it being the newest station. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(open waterways) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all Fire required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Police Service • Distance to Station 3 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 3 minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 3/l/2019-2/29/2020,the Meridian Police Section Department responded to 459 calls for service within a VIII.D mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 26. See attached documents for details. Between 3/l/2019-2/29/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 8 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None Page 2 Item 8. F186] Description Details Page West Ada School District—West Ada did not send any comments for this project. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services N/A • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.96 • Project Consistent with WW YES Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Committed additional 1,530 gpd to model. Water • Distance to Water Services 0' • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water YES ' Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns There is an existing 8-inch diameter water main on the west side of the existing pond that is not shown on the conceptual engineering plan;this water main is to be abandoned. See Exhibit VII.D for illustration of the extent of this main to be abandoned. COMPASS Job/Housing Ratio 0.5 (range of 1-1.5 is ideal;lower number indicates an employment need) Nearest Services Bus Stop— 1.5 miles Public Park—0.8 miles Grocery Store— 1.1 miles Additional Comments The site is not currently served by public transportation, although ValleyConnect 2.0 proposes bus service from downton Kuna to the Boise Research Center along Victory Road and Stoddard Road.The closest bus stop would be less than 1/4 mile in distance when that route is operational. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes and safe crossing of Victory Road are recommended. Page 3 1 1 1 L• 1,� I . ■i 4 � `__ IIIIIIIIIIr�■ '?,r' J ` I , -■--MEN ■ ar in aJ - ul......—.1,/ICT`OFR�Y—.�/ _� �. s�-s: -VICTO'r'" .i'C •11 Q :■� \ � 5 -s.T Ali tom,IN j _ w IN moommomm Olson • IiiU -• e r I I ��16 i;�'�,� I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 ■ai l■■■■ ■■i ��..... son r•• __' � a ram--■p=' �• • - • • • h-:-- _ • - • • • h�:-is ■__R>t.'_a :: ■ 1.111 In 1� =- I���r L�■>•� �.1� Illlllllnnn=r ■ice- �.1� 11111111111■C■ in IN AS _ '" •�-� �i ■ Ilniun■� 1/ICTOr- ■ Inni.iiir �_1/TCTIO r- - f[ r--p i _ 11 `01►`I Z 1. IN �� n.a ••. ;�. �. �>, n.r■ ••. •1. ��'a G: un■ � ryi well �i un. .ilh� pr■t ri ' I i►� 1:43- .Ai r pra ro ' � :.►� mn ■■■■ n■n �/ i•. � r�_= nnn-:C nm.■■■■ n■■u= �`i i 1• l '�=e1'��n .W....L.■■■■■■..■■■tY. \..�.1 : t W milli I MUNE= n■nunall.�\..�: r W F n. •� �Illpml dun m -� � •; � �tiiiii ii 1 a • �� � � I��M y�li :: nn nnPr � , w nu n��l llllll■ " ��i•�• �yl�1 111� �.iiiiii=� C rn■ ■nm 11 fill. _ IR B .■.I�■r n ■■nm •I 1�.,'1�1 ■ �•..... 1 in nn■nry � Iluunnuur��r - y i�1�,�.11-..�r-r �m h�♦ ,l illlll �=_ -- Item 8. F188] IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/17/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 7/14/2020 Site Posting 7/20/2020 Nextdoor posting 7/14/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property was annexed in 2013 as part of a larger area known as Victory South(AZ- 13-014).There is an existing Development Agreement(DA) associated with this annexation and property but the requested application and the recorded DA do not require modification as the proposed development is consistent with the provision contained in the agreement.In addition, a preliminary plat was approved for this property in 2018 for the same titled plat name,Jocelyn Park. The existing plat is set to expire in December,2020 but the current developer wishes to obtain approval of a new plat with higher density more in line with the dimensional standards of the existing R-8 zoning district.Please see further Staff analysis below. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject site is located in an area of the City where low and medium density residential developments are existing and anticipated. The subject site is surrounded by existing City of Meridian zoning and development except for a small parcel that abuts its northeastern property boundary. Therefore, this project is an infill development per the definitions in City code. The proposed development has a gross density of 5.1 du/ac meeting the density requirements for this future land use designation. In addition, the existing R-8 zoning allows for detached single-family residences with average lot sizes above 4,000 square feet. The proposed development meets these requirements as well. Staff finds the proposed use and gross density to meet the intent of the future land use designation of Medium Density Residential. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G). The proposed development has existing R-8 zoning on the subject site. A majority of the surrounding development has R-4 zoning which requires lot sizes twice as large as the ones proposed within this development. There is a pocket of additional R-8 zoning to the east of the subject site that the proposed density is consistent with. Overall, adding a development of this density flows with the existing development naturally and adds to the availability of smaller lots in this area of the City. "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 proposed project design connects the two local streets that are stubbed to this property which adds to the overall connectivity in this immediate area. In addition, the proposed density of this project matches that of adjacent subdivisions to the east and west and therefore is not in a Page 5 Item 8. F189] geographic position to offer transitional density. This development would be screened from Victory Road, an arterial street, by way of a large open space lot in the north of the site. The Applicant is also proposing a large open space lot in the south of the project site which also offers further buffering of this development. Sidewalks are shown throughout the project with some micro path connections that will help connect open space in this development to that in adjacent developments. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing subdivisions surrounding the development. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal and the Meridian Police Department has stated this development can be serviced if approved. W. Victory Road is only a 2-lane road in this area of the City but there is no access proposed to Victory other than through the approved access through Timberline No. 2 to the west(this road network has not yet been constructed). Instead, access to this development will be through two adjacent subdivisions, one to the east and one to the west. West Ada School District has not offered comments on this project at this time. Staff understands that school enrollment is a major issue that is continually being monitored and worked through. Stafffinds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for adequate levels of service to for this proposed project. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.0117). There is an existing open water pond in the south end of the subject site; the Applicant has proposed to keep this pond open and beauty it with landscaping and will recirculate the water according to city code. This pond is in excess of the 25%of the common lot and therefore cannot count towards the qualified open space. However, Stafffinds that preserving and beautifying this pond is a great asset to this development and likely the development directly to the east and south because this open space lot abuts open space in adjacent subdivisions to the west and south (Timberline No. I and Biltmore Estates, respectively). In addition to this pond and open space lot, the Applicant is proposing nearly twice as much qualified open space than is required by code. Stafffinds the areas of open space in this development will be extensively used despite not being wholly located in the center of the development. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity" (2.02.01 D).Jocelyn Park is proposed with attached sidewalks throughout the subdivision that are also interconnected via micro paths and open space. The non-qualifying open space lot in the south of the development with the open water pond abuts open space in two other adjacent subdivisions which offers connectivity between the developments.In addition, the Applicant is using the micro paths and sidewalks as an avenue to promote pedestrian connectivity and link this subdivision to adjacent ones,specifically, by placing one of the micro paths on the west boundary and in line with adjacent open space in the Timberline Subdivision to the west, the interconnectivity and overall pedestrian access is further increased. Stafffinds this development to be generally consistent and in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject site is vacant at this time with no known site improvements. There is an existing open water pond at the south end of the site that has been used for irrigation only. The applicant Page 6 Item 8. F-19ol intends on preserving this pond for the benefit of the development. There are no existing improvements along Victory Road. The previous preliminary plat that was approved in 2018 received conditions from ACHD to construct curb, gutter, and attached sidewalk along W. Victory Road. Staff has not yet received a draft staff report for this application but has been notified that this condition will remain. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to revise the plat and landscape plan to show these improvements along Victory Road, including 5-foot attached sidewalk. Furthermore, the adjacent property owner to the northeast has a shed that is actually on the subject property. The Applicant has created a specific lot(shown as Lot 1, Block 3) in the plat in order for the adjacent property owner to later purchase the property and correct the boundary dispute. Staff supports and appreciates this consideration from the property owner regarding this property boundary issue. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is single-family residential; single-family detached dwellings are listed as principally permitted uses in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. This development is proposed as one(1)phase with no direct accesses to W.Victory Road. The average lot size is 4,455 square feet with the largest lot being 7,238 square feet. The proposed use appears to comply with all UDC requirements for the R-8 zoning district. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The submitted Preliminary Plat shows lots that are at least 4,000 square feet in size with street frontages of at least 40 feet in accord with the required dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district. In addition, all local streets are proposed with 5-foot attached sidewalks as required by code. Subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat appears to meet the UDC requirements for the R-8 zoning district as well as those requirements in UDC 11-6C-3. F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to and for this development is proposed via extension of local stub streets. The stub street located in the southeast corner of the site (W. Winnipeg Street) is an existing stub from Meridian Heights Subdivision. The other proposed connection is located in the northwest corner of the site but is not yet constructed.This stub street will be built with the second phase of the Timberline Subdivision directly to the west of the subject site. These two local streets will supply the access points for this development. In addition,the Applicant is proposing to stub a street to the property located to the northeast of the site for fixture connectivity. On this stub street,the Applicant is also constructing a temporary hammerhead type turnaround to ensure safe fire turnaround.NOTE:In discussion with ACHD the hammerhead type design will not meet their requirements for adequate turnaround and the Applicant will have to construct a temporary turnaround that meets both ACHD and MFD requirements. G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. In addition,the Applicant is proposing 33-foot street sections within 47-feet of right-of-way which would allow on-street parking where there are no driveways. Staff finds that if the single-family lots are developed according to UDC standards,the proposed plat offers adequate on and off-street parking for the development. Page 7 Item 8. ■ H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): There are no multi-use pathways proposed or required with this development. There is existing multi-use pathway on the north side of Victory Road,directly north of the subject site. However, the Applicant is proposing micro-pathways in multiple locations in the development to add pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout. These pathways connect the central open space area with the 5-feet attached sidewalks located along the local streets throughout the development. The Applicant is also proposing a micro-pathway connection on the west side of the project to connect with a pathway and open space connection in Timberline No. 1. In addition, a pathway is proposed within the large open space lot abutting the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff supports the addition of micro pathways throughout the development but has some concerns regarding their placement. First, Staff believes the micro path connection from the central open space lot to the western street should be relocated two lots further north, between Lots 10& 11, Block 3 to help with potential visibility issues and crime prevention. Second, Staff has concerns over how the pathway within the large open space lot along the Ridenbaugh Canal is depicted on the submitted plans and where it shown to connect to the Timberline Subdivision to the west. The Timberline lot directly abutting the subject site in the northwest corner is a buildable lot and will have a privacy fence on the shared property boundary. Therefore, the proposed layout of the pathway shown would likely never become a reality. The only other pedestrian access out to Victory Road from this site would be via the irrigation district access road but this is not supported by staff nor the irrigation district at this time. This access road will likely be fenced off from this open space lot to ensure a safer open space area along the canal. Because of these issues, staff proposes that the proposed pathway be completely out of the irrigation district easement and looped around this northern open space lot for a walking path around the perimeter of the lot and connect back to the proposed sidewalks along the extended W. Cumberland Drive. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal streets as part of the overall pedestrian circulation,in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation plan for this development with the specific changes noted above and in the conditions of approval. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W.Victory Road, an arterial street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The Ridenbaugh Canal and the Victory Road right-of-way appear to take up all of the required landscape buffer along the arterial street. Because of the physical lack of space between the right-of-way and the irrigation easement, the Applicant is not proposing any landscaping directly along Victory. Despite the constrained area,Staff recommends that the Applicant coordinate with the irrigation district to determine if landscaping along the north side of the canal is feasible or doable prior to the City Council hearing. If allowed, the applicant would be required to obtain a license agreement for these improvements, subject to NMID requirements. Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro-pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees are NOT included in the Landscape Calculations table but the Applicant appears to show the required number of trees per the UDC. Staff is ok with this as the correct number of trees are shown. Page 8 Item 8. F192 Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC I I- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is included in the Landscape Calculations table. Although the correct number of trees are shown on the landscape plans and within the calculations table, the required shrubs and other vegetative ground cover is not depicted on the landscape plans. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to show the required shrubs along the micro pathways per UDC 11-3B-12C.2. K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the proposed plat of 12.93 acres,a minimum of 1.29 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy this requirement. According to the open space exhibit(see Exhibit VII.B),the applicant is proposing a total of 3.65 acres of open space. The exhibit shows three (3)distinct areas of open space: one area in the south that contains the pond; one area along the entire northern boundary of the subject site; and one centralized area. The large open space lot containing the pond abuts open space area in the Timberline No. 1 subdivision currently under construction.In addition,there is an end cap lot and a micro-pathway connection to the west shown on the open space exhibit. The submitted open space exhibit shows all of this area as qualifying but upon Staff s review, some of this area is not qualifying. The existing pond is more than 25%of the lot in which it resides and therefore the entire lot is not qualifying open space per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. The other area of open space that is listed as qual,fying but is indeed non-qualifying is the end cap lot located at the south end of the lot(approximately 4,200 square feet)directly north of the pond. This area meets neither the 50'by 100'dimensions nor the 5,000 square foot minimum size in order to count towards the qualified open space. After removing the end cap lot and the lot containing the pond from the open space calculations, there are 2.46 acres of area that is all qualifying open space. Staff is recommending a condition to revise the open space exhibit prior to the City Council hearing to ensure a clean record. An area of additional concern for Staff is the open space area directly north of Lots 35-37, Block 3 (the lots at the end of S. Garibaldi Court in the eastern half of the site). The Applicant is proposing to leave an area of open space between the rear yards of these three homes and the irrigation district access road. The access road must be fenced off from this development which leaves a thin area behind homes with the only true visibility coming from the open vision fencing of these three homes'rear fence. This area leads to nowhere and does not appear to offer any usable benefit for the development if left as is. Even with the required open vision fencing along the rear of these lots, Staff is concerned this area of open space will be neglected due to the slope of the terrain and its location. Therefore, Staff is recommending that this area be added to the adjacent lots, Lots 35-37, Block 3, instead of remaining open space. The open space calculations should then be revised to remove this area from the calculations table. L. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(12.93 acres),a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant is proposing four(4)qualified amenities to satisfy the requirements in this section of the UDC: a child's play structure,a shaded picnic area,walking paths, and an additional 20,000 square feet of qualified open space. The proposed amenities exceed the minimum Page 9 Item 8. F193 requirements of the UDC. Staff finds the proposed amenities to be great additions to the community and should serve as more than adequate for the proposed development. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-61 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Proposed fencing is shown on the landscape plans submitted to Staff and as seen in Exhibit VII.C. The proposed fencing does not meet all UDC requirements. The non-qualified open space area containing the pond(Lot 24, Block 2) abuts open space in the adjacent Timberline subdivision, as noted above. This area of open space was not fenced by the developer of Timberline No. 1 and Staff supports no fencing along this shared boundary to allow better integration of both open spaces as required by the UDC. The submitted landscape plan shows closed vision fencing along this shared property line which is not in line with the UDC. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to remove the fencing in this area so that the open space is continuous between the two developments. The proposed children's play structure located in the north open space lot should also be fenced off from the Ridenbaugh Canal to ensure an area of safe play for everyone within the development. The only fencing shown on the submitted landscape plans in this area is a fence on the north side of the irrigation district access road.As noted in the comments from the Parks Department, the fence should be on the south side of the access road, in order to separate the access road from the open space and proposed play structure. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to correct this and show the fencing on the opposite side of the access road. N. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations for the single-family homes for this development as seen in Exhibit VILE. Staff has been made aware that the submitted elevations do not show the full mixture of materials that will be used and the Applicant states that some high- end masonry will be used with most of the housing designs. The submitted elevations, with the inclusion of masonry elements, meet the required design standards for detached single-family homes. O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Ridenbaugh Canal runs through the northern portion of the subject site. Per UDC,this waterway is required to be tiled. However,the Applicant wishes to keep the canal open and act as a buffer between W.Victory Road,an arterial street, and the common open space lot proposed south of the canal. Staff supports this proposition by the Applicant. The Applicant is requesting a Council Waiver to keep the canal open. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat application per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 10 Item 8. Fl 94 Page 11 Item 8. Fl-951 VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(dated: July 17,2020) _ _ C31[]N SY L'dld3fJ��—z 8&4000� W S Aioens)iw j Nvigwr o �m�irJ■r� � d1l'0�3031111'v213c003 d ; �a�m wt�`a-'l a 1Vld AJVNIAIIDldd MR ax 8`�g o - ( x� r 3nau I' I i 4 ,I I @@ Y' 'g88 ff �� x�a 2 Page 12 Item 8. Fl 96 8 66 N'4r E I=Dd I mot r 2z 14 SECTION 602mE4 25 36 5 44- ✓ ' tK ywa W O-LUNIYLN GIB s w G4SuE-!IWXnD y}l Lk"X.7Y'1 di f 51diM M1I"L[+rt'f * S SOS LL'J8"� I opI 5 5ti'�5 Wk IL 5.55', GF 41 'f b11 ,� r. I iW S Ii.I.pQ '• � q� y fsjc$ y I I } �2' g III M J r f 168E lFl�I I + ;llyl�J WIpI�Ir f, WOOLS * 1277 II+� r it `, 4 � i1�7 � 4 - i4 1 {7 S ]5(�',• a >aJ 5�pg ` iQ4, i I K4 S {pj�}4 yy 5S l+w S S -14sr i JJ lid�r ~ei•k� iI a�x w I 'w. �r� � — I �.'—_ Y II TO 9E ----- 5 n Isxn.h rnlr-as�+ Page 13 Item 8. Fl 97 B. Open Space Exhibit(date: 6/2/2020) i 1r 9 9 0 OPEN SPACE EXHI9RSFE DATA txa sa u.oa �ea~oeuyoa� � � oex.�ce�mareae �� A°11°O°14RO°" I Haan iN I R •� X .......... 4 SL R u� .S A a% g 2 S Q JL s — a $ R ! z A 4 R L LLI A A f Ajk � SZ L - J IL A OFEH SPACE I � E;4HIBIT y I y l4 None .�.�r.e -- L1-01 5 6 r 8 3 1❑ Page 14 Item 8. Fl-981 C. Landscape Plans(date: 7/22/2020) 19 ` 9 1 _ i - L— o E io 1 - 1_ 1� 1 R x 1 P ir _ 1 mp 1 1 � 1 > 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 w ; ; A-----------------------------------------------------------J i Asl� ® = JOCELYN PARK SUBDIVISION / e s a g8 fn ?"`" MERIDIAN,ID ' _ - - -�`SEA Page 15 Item 8. Fl 9-9 1 STACK ROCK T -------------- .......... N PE C5 Re US po" 1 1 ANC CAPE PV5N NORTH LI.02 LL—————————————————————————————————————————————————— ——— 4 1 7 Page 16 Item 8. F200] D. Water Main Exhibit—portion of water main to be abandoned(per Public Works) IA 3 S Abandon existing water M 81358 a•11159E � �' ��hiYk b,131912._ main-extents shown In T orange . 3 Wi Win ipeg 5 141,1 62 —8•. - _ r--? �ti -_ y 8.1313 9: O12f8 •F f L F r !!lSrr~ —a-191"0 W 24 �w 17 1�1 56 --me.W Ta[I•Prairiel�T�t r•r. 6 r r a� A� Page 17 • _� _ _ ,• r�"mow ` flu . ; 'kit 1 1 hr����- `-� ___ - .- -, ,fir•' r r ■ �R kkk F� 77 ttqq rw y' -�r., fly..• 7i is ,� .-. .� •:'q Page 20 Item 8. F204] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A,dated July 17,2020, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the plat to include some of the area behind Lots 35-37,Block 3 as part of these building lots instead of common open space up to the boundary of the irrigation district easement. b. Revise the plat to show the micro-pathway to be located between Lots 10& 11,Block 3 instead of between Lots 12 & 13,Block 3. c. Revise the plat to show the additional right-of-way along W. Victory Road as required by ACHD; this should include a 5-foot wide sidewalk located at least 31-feet from centerline. d. Replace the temporary hammerhead type turnaround with an approved temporary cul-de- sac at the terminus of W. Cumberland Drive at the eastern property boundary in accord with ACHD and Meridian Fire Department standards. 2. The landscape plan included in Section VIl.C,dated 06/18/2020, shall be revised as follows prior to Final Plat application submittal: a. Revise the landscape plans to show shrubs and other vegetative ground cover to the areas along all pathways in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C. b. Revise the landscape plans to show the fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal to be on the south side of the irrigation district access road and maintain accordance with UDC 11- 3A-6 to separate the open space and play structure from the canal. c. Show the micro-pathway to be located between Lots 10 & 11,Block 3 instead of between Lots 12 & 13,Block 3. d. Show the required sidewalk along W.Victory Road. e. Remove the fencing shown along the western subdivision boundary located on the common open space lot, shown as Lot 24,Block 2. 3. The Open Space Exhibit and calculations table shall be corrected as follows at least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the calculations table to show the correct amount of qualified versus non-qualified open space in accord with UDC 11-3G-3. b. Revise the open space exhibit and calculations table to remove that area behind Lots 35- 37,Block 3 up to the boundary of the irrigation district easement. c. Revise the open space calculations to remove that area where the required temporary turnaround is located on the common open space lot,Lot 2,Block 1. Page 21 Item 8. F205] 4. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall revise the preliminary plat, landscape plans, and open space exhibit to show the proposed pathway in the northern open space lot(Lot 2,Block 1)as completely separate from the irrigation district access road and loop through the open space lot to connect back to the proposed W. Cumberland Drive in the northwest corner of the site. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per dwelling. 7. The Applicant shall be required to fence the proposed children's play area separately from other fences to ensure a safe play environment; the fencing shall meet UDC requirements in 11-3A-7. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 10. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 11. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall coordinate with the irrigation district to determine if landscaping is feasible on the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 12. Prior to the City Engineer's signature of the final plat,the Applicant shall transfer ownership of Lot 1,Block 3 to the owner of the parcel located to the northeast(parcel#S 1225110160)to ensure the existing shed is not spanning property lines. 13. Architectural design of the future homes shall be generally consistent with the submitted building elevations with the addition of masonry finishes as proposed by the Applicant. 14. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of preliminary plat approval by City Council(date unknown at this time); or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 15. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 16. 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. NOTE: The applicant is seeking City Council waiver to leave the adjacent waterways open. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 There is an existing 8-inch diameter water main on the west side of the existing pond that is not shown on the conceptual engineering plan; this water main is to be abandoned. See Exhibit VII.D for illustration of the extent of this main to be abandoned. 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. A fixture installation Page 22 Item 8. F206] agreement is required for the streetlights on Chinden Blvd. Contact the Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 1.3 A sanitary sewer service will need to be installed to serve the parcel at the end of W. Winnipeg Street. 1.4 Much of this development is within an area once occupied by a sanitary sewage lagoon. The area has been reclaimed by means of imported fill materials of various sources. The GeoTehhnical Engineering Report by Materials Testing&Inspection Co. (MTI) dated March 14,2019 makes note of the various materials found at ground surface,as well as the special considerations that must be followed to ensure that structures are constructed on suitable bearing soils. It shall be required that personnel from MTI,or another qualified geotechnical engineer,verify the bearing soil suitability for each structure at the time of construction. Evidence of such determination shall be presented to the Meridian Building Inspector prior to footing inspection. 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 map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed Page 23 Item 8. F207] 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. 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. Page 24 Item 8. F208] 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(MFD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191324&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=191275&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192297&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192103&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky G. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191405&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky Page 25 Item 8. F209] H. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192040&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=191385&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191616&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) Only a draft staff report has been submitted at this time. Following receipt of the final report and the Planning&Zoning Commission hearing, Staff will add the link to their report. IX. 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, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance 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 Section VIII 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 VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Page 26 Item 8. F210] 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 but has not provided comments at this time. 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. The Applicant is proposing to keep the existing pond on the property for the benefit of the development which Staff fully supports. Page 27 Item 9. F 11 0 0��WEII IDIAN:--- PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: August 6, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 9. F 12 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING August 6,2020 Legend DATE: Iff Project D=-fiior TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 --- SUBJECT: H-2020-0074 TM Center-PP LOCATION: East of S. Ten Mile Rd. &south of W. - Franklin Rd.,in the north half of Section 14,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. _ I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-8, R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 132.42 Future Land Use Mixed Use—Residential(MU-R),Medium High-Density Residential Designation (MHDR);High Density Residential(HDR), Mixed Use—Commercial (MU-C)and Commercial in the TMISAP Existing Land Use Agricultural,commercial,restaurant,carwash,office,multi-family residential Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial and high density residential Current Zoning Mostly R-40,C-C and C-G with small remnants of R-8 &TN-C Proposed Zoning NA Lots(#and type; 83 building(74 commercial,9 high-density residential)/2 common bldg/common) Phasing plan(#of 6(conceptually,based on market demand) phases) Number of Residential TBD Units(type of units) Density(gross&net) TBD Page 1 Item 9. ■ Open Space(acres,total TBD with future residential development [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities TBD with future residential development Physical Features The Ten Mile Creek and Kennedy Lateral cross this site (waterways,hazards, flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting March 12,2020;6 attendees date;#of attendees: History(previous TM Creek East—H-2015-0018(MDA#2016-037777); approvals) Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (DA#2014-065514); Calnon—H-2015-0017(AZ/CPAM,DA#2016-030845); Bainbridge Franklin—H-2018-0057(AZ DA#2019-077071) [Associated but not part of this application: TM Crossing—CPAM-12- 001/AZ-12-005(DA#114002254)/PP-12-0031H-2016-0054(MDA #2016-062220)/H-2017-0027(MDA 2017-051907)/H-2018-0122(MDA #2019-011700);and TM Creek—AZ-13-015(DA#114045759)/PP-13- 030/H-2016-0067(MDA#2016-072497)/H-2017-0124(MDA#2017- 113747)J B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) A full Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required. • Existing Conditions Abutting roadways(Ten Mile&Franklin Rds.)are fully improved. • CIP/IFYWP NA Access One collector street access(S.New Market Ave.)and two(2)driveway (Arterial/Collectors/State accesses are proposed via Franklin Rd. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"D") Franklin&Ten Mile Roads(acceptable level of service is "E") Stub Cobalt Dr.is being extended from the west boundary to the cast to New Street/Interconnectivity/ Market;Wayfinder is being extending between the two roundabouts;and New Cross Access Market is extending from Franklin to the south boundary for extension from TM Crossing Existing Road Network Ten Mile and Franklin Roads exist along the west and north boundaries of this site.Vanguard exists at the southwest corner of the site and provides a connection from Ten Mile Rd.to the south and includes a roundabout with a stub to this property. Existing Arterial A detached sidewalk exists along Franklin,no buffer;an existing asphalt Sidewalks/Buffers pathway exists along Ten Mile,no buffer Proposed Road None Improvements Page 2 Item 9. F 14 Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.7 miles—Fire Station#2 Station • Fire Response Falls within 5 minute response time Time • Resource 76%for Fire Station#2—does not meet the target goal of 80%or greater Reliability • Risk Identification Risk factor of 4—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project(see comments in Section VIII.C) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds • Special/resource An aerial device is required;the closest truck company is 6 minutes travel needs time(under ideal conditions)—Fire Dept. can meet this need in the required timeframe if required. • Water Supply Requires 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours;may be less if building is _ fully sprinklered,which all are proposed to be • Other Resources NA Police Service • Distance to Police 4 miles Station • Police Response 3.5 minutes Time • Calls for Service 577 within a mile of site(3/l/2019—2/29/2020) • Accessibility No concerns with the proposed access • Specialty/resource No additional resources are required at this time;the PD already services the needs area • Crimes 67 within a mile of site(3/l/2019 2/29/2020) • Crashes 25 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) West Ada School No comments were received District Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.96 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Cobbalt and New Market Avenue,flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction.This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction.Based on conversations with applicant 8" sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. Page 3 Item 9. F215] Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project See application . Water ERU's • Water Quality This development will result in a long deadend water main which may result Concerns in poor water quality. Connecting to the south will eliminate this deadend and correct this problem. • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •To aleaviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12"water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). •Make sure to tie into the existing 12"water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1 C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend . WOO Legend P•o'ea- Loc 'cr ProjEct Lcca4:o- r� 14 e0 igh Hi h-a n, ify Rdustna`I _ r 4� idential7 I I _ MU 'Res I . i High sid n ial i ' _nt I ; I WNW Res' N �. t Page 4 — Item 9. F 16 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend - RUT R. Legend ff IdPrayect Lcoo-non R. - - I Project Lacafian r L• — +_i GIY Lines _-- R-15 RUT I-L I•L — Planned Parcels I-1 � —R-8 R•40 RUT ll TN R C. fi fRUT -----40 R1 1T1•C C•C- r UT R-8 --- -- R1 U. - - R - RUT I-L RUTS III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: SCS Brighton, et al—2929 W.Navigator Dr. #400,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: SCS Brighton,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr. #400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Brighton II, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Investments, Inc. —2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 SCS TM Creek,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 Brighton Land Holdings,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Michael D. Wardle,Brighton Corporation—2929 W. Navigator Dr.#400, Meridian,ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 7/17/2020 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 7/14/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 7/21/2020 on site Page 5 Item 9. F217] Nextdoor posting 7/14/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is primarily designated on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan for High- Density Residential(HDR),Mixed Use—Residential(MU-R),Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-C)and Commercial uses with a small portion designated for MHDR(Medium High-Density Residential)uses that is part of a larger MHDR designated area to the east. Development of this area is governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). Seepages 3-6 thru 3-9 in the Comprehensive Plan for more information on these specific land use designations. Conceptual development plans and/or uses have previously been approved with Development Agreements(DA's) for the land proposed to be subdivided as follows: TM Center(Inst. #2014-065514), Bainbridge Franklin(Inst. #2019-077071), Calnon(Inst. #2016-030845)and TM Creek East(Inst. #2016-037777). TRANSPORTATION: No road improvements are planned adjacent to this site as Ten Mile Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes, curb and gutter; and Franklin Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site. A traffic signal exists at the S.Vanguard Way/S. Ten Mile Rd. intersection and a signal has been installed through the poles at the W. Franklin Rd./S. Wayfinder Way intersection—ACHD will hang the mast arms when warranted. Conduit was also installed at the New Market Ave./Franklin Rd. intersection with the Franklin Road widening project to accommodate installation of a future signal which is required to be constructed through the signal poles and luminaires prior to signature on the final plat. When ACHD determines it's warranted in the future,the District will complete installation of the signal and put it into operation. Street Network(3-17): The Transportation System Map included in the TMISAP (pg. 3-18) shown below depicts collector streets through this site connecting to existing and future collector streets to the north and south. These street locations coincide with the towncenter collector streets depicted on the Master Street Map(MSM). Roundabouts are also depicted on the Map at the Cobalt/Wayfinder and Vanguard/Wayfinder intersections,which have been constructed. —" Legend Roan Baba ut rem 1 runaooasaslgnaoaed 2 A Way Stop 1 _ •- 3 2 Way Slop -_-- r f � 4 1 N1ay Smp ■ n' $ Rl9M in-RigltR Out ■ • /kte W ww.n.iw.� Polanfial Arieria:E:kntian i' � �� Colleclw a• wo...��••.t■! poleAV21 Coll,Cw b%,nalon i.•.•.• UmiledAcomiHi9 wvy) i ............• Potentlel Slip Ramp 6 � • -- Local • Erlstlnp 4 ocal - - i • P[o�neeC P91114Ydyi PropdElound■ry W OVF.iL D Rp E; 'Hp FOR lYfnO Nip he alfnwgi al This intebe ruon F■ Page 6 Item 9. F218] Two(2)north/south collector streets(S.Wayfinder Way and S.New Market Ave.)are proposed on the plat in locations consistent with the Transportation System Map and the MSM. An east/west collector street is not proposed along the southern boundary of the site because a collector street(W.Navigator Dr.)was constructed further to the south with development of the adjacent TM Crossing subdivision, which was deemed to meet the intent of the Maps and provide the desired east/west connection. Another east/west collector street(W. Cobalt Dr.) is proposed through the middle of this site for a connection between Ten Mile Rd. and New Market Ave. that is not depicted on the Transportation System Map or the MSM,which provides more needed connectivity in this area. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile area and optimize performance of streets, direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. Access to arterial streets should occur via the collector road system. Two(2) driveway accesses via Franklin Rd. are depicted on the plat.These accesses are prohibited unless specifically approved by the City and ACHD. The City conceptually approved the eastern driveway access via Franklin with the Bainbridge Franklin annexation as set forth in the DA(see provision#5.1i). ACHD has not approved these accesses and is requiring a traffic analysis be submitted to demonstrate additional driveways are necessary to serve the site. Complete Streets(3-19): Streets should be designed to serve all users—motorists,bus riders,bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities. Bicycling and walking facilities should be incorporated into all streets unless exceptional circumstances exists such as roads where bicyclists or pedestrians are prohibited by law,where the costs are excessive,or where there is clearly no need. The following are features that should be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders,crosswalks,refuge medians,bus pullouts, special bus lanes,raised crosswalks,audible pedestrian signals,sidewalk bulb-outs,street furnishings and on-street parking.The street sections depicted on the plat incorporate detached sidewalks/pathways,planter strips and bike lanes along all streets and on-street parking and 2-way left turn lanes within Wayfinder and New Market. The Applicant should address at the public hearing(or before the hearing in writing) what other features are proposed in accord with this guideline.Staff believes the elements are integral to Ten Mile area to keep many of the multi-modal options envisioned by the Plan. Street Design(3-20): The TMISAP includes several street section types for specific uses and conditions based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired parking conditions, specific physical conditions,public emergency access, and streetscape character. Streets within the Ten Mile area should be designed and sized to optimize pedestrian comfort and to facilitate slow-moving traffic. It's desirable that lanes on streets be 11 feet in width with the exception of those lanes closest to the intersections with Franklin and Ten Mile Roads which can increase to 12 feet from the point of the intersection with the arterial street to the point of the intersection with another street or access point. The Street Section Map contained in the TMISAP(pg. 3-22) shown below depicts specific street section classifications for each of the streets shown on the Transportation System Map. These classifications have both a functional and a design-related classification to balance the design considerations for pedestrians and motorists. Page 7 Item 9. F 19 i r i r �w,.. --•-----------�k: i !! The western north/south collector street(proposed as S. Wayfinder Way) designated as"E",which is a minor collector street,will extend to the north to a future signalized intersection at W. Franklin Road and to the south to Vanguard to a signal at Ten Mile Rd. This street should be constructed in accord with Street Section E shown below with two(2) 11' travel lanes, 6' bike lanes, 18' diagonal parking and 12' sidewalks with trees in wells (see pgs. 3-21 &3-23 in the TMISAP). Minor collector streets serve as the primary retail streets and are pedestrian-oriented and defined by street-level storefronts. Buildings are built to 12-foot wide sidewalks with street trees in wells and pedestrian-scale lighting. A 5-foot wide dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb;both wet utilities may be located in the street; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. i,M iDW � _ Street S a C I I a n E hrftcWym i This street is designated on the Master Street Map (MSM)as a towncenter collector street,which differs from the minor collector street in the TMISAP in that it has a center turn lane and parallel parking(see ACHD's Livable Street Design Guide,pg. 23). The proposed plat depicts a north/south collector street(S. Wayfinder Way)in alignment with that shown on the Street Section Map and the MSM. The street section from the plat and a detail is shown below consistent with a towncenter collector street and generally consistent with Street Section E except that it has a center turn lane and on-street parallel instead of diagonal parking. This section may be modified to allow parallel parking as a local section in these areas;parallel parking was allowed in the section of Wayfinder north of the Ten Mile Creek bridge. Staff is amenable to parallel parking being provided in this section of Wayfinder consistent with that to the north if determined appropriate by City Council.Note: Construction plans for completion of this street were submitted to ACHD earlier this year and have been approved per the ACHD report. Page 8 Item 9. ■ zu r icc� ma-ntrr. +' CM514G rr,.or+a f- dtilf•` % %1.1rC/i 46 wif9L Trt l,.•_ 41ti�'C7@ E . W.L&mnm OaG223M adz: 5 ii•YF'S Fr�llh'JJdS STREET SECTION; S. WAY FIINDER AVE. SCAM 14's Three-Lane+ Label Phpkar[huaclerwsdc% Parallel Parking A Sidewalk:Y t°8' +Bike Lane Tree Lawn:lC to 10' TTree Grate OD Bicycle Lane A `C Two-Way Leh Turn Lane r e ire • Ire e I r r OF Center Landscaped Median is a ee m n uar ,ar n ee+etir G Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The eastern north/south collector street(proposed as S.New Market Ave.) designated as"D",which is a residential collector street,will extend from Franklin Rd. to the south boundary of the site and connect to Navigator Dr. in the TM Crossing project. This street should be constructed in accord with Street Section D shown below with two(2) 11' travel lanes, 6' bike lanes, 8' parallel on-street parking, 8' planter strips, 6' detached sidewalks and 10' buffers(see pgs. 3-21 &3-23 in the TMISAP).New Market will connect to W. Franklin Rd. at the north boundary and extend to the south with future development of TM Crossing subdivision to W.Navigator Dr. Residential collector streets serve the local access needs of residential,live/work, and commercial activities within a residential neighborhood or mixed use residential area. Buildings on these streets should have limited setbacks behind the sidewalk and a tree lawn should be provided. On-street parking is allowed. A 5-foot dry utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb;both wet utilities may be located in the street; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. m I !w' S i r e e l ;3 rl•�l l o� b a.ra.wraaw.a This street is designated on the Master Street Map (MSM)as a towncenter collector street and differs from a residential collector street in the TMISAP in that it has a 11' center turn lane and no buffer(see ACHD's Livable Street Design Guide,pg. 23). Page 9 Item 9. F221] The proposed plat depicts a north/south collector street(S. New Market Ave.)in alignment with that shown on the Street Section Map and MSM. The street section from the plat and a detail is shown below consistent with a towncenter collector street.ACHD has approved the street to be constructed as a towncenter collector street consistent with the MSM although the MSM designation differs from that on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP,which is a residential collector street. Staff recommends the detached sidewalk on the east side of New Market is constructed as a 10' multi-use pathway in accord with the Pathways Master Plan and buffers are constructed at the back edge of the sidewalk/pathway where residential uses are proposed along the street consistent with that depicted on Street Section D.Where residential uses are not constructed along along the street,a 12' sidewalk/pathway with tree grates should be constructed. JJ. µILL r dr N=V ro *—I mwwl— IV L.! i_" .�2.• - -i} •.(, 4'Lil.4.4 J.•:,.,f._f.+�'�...... - fIF Owew+llfd��l'+ 1f4••YXIr[PIJLLItI�• fflKw a•y 1'MkIR Fr-"%rW4r STREET SECTIOW S. NEW MARKET AVE. Three Lane+ Label�kal[harastarirtics Parallel Parking 5idewalk:5,to8' +Bike Lane Tree Lawn:8'to 10' IL a Trelr Grate led Bicycle Lane ►� ` ri D E � L J Two-way Left Turn Lane Center Landscaped Median �yp fJ��i r rf.[Ay r M EMI r G Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Street Section Map shown above,nor the MSM,depicts an east/west collector where W. Cobalt Dr. is proposed to extend between Wayfinder and New Market although it does depict such further to the south in alignment with the access via Ten Mile Rd. along the southern boundary of this site which was actually constructed further to the south(i.e.Navigator Dr.) as discussed above. This southern section is designated as a minor collector street("E") on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP and as a towncenter collector on the MSM. The portion of Cobalt west of Wayfinder is designated as a residential collector street(Street Section D). The proposed street will provide a connection from Ten Mile between Wayfinder and New Market which Staff believes provides more connectivity in this area as desired. The street section from the plat and a detail is shown below consistent with a towncenter collector street. This segment of Cobalt was previously approved as part of ACHD's action on the TM Creek East Apartments that's currently under construction. A buffer area was depicted on the landscape plan for the apartments project on the north side of the street at the back edge of the sidewalk consistent with Street Section D for residential collector streets;this should be continued to the east(and south if applicable) with future residential projects. Page 10 Item 9. F 22 „'aKM.rr-rr NO r ux�.a ,,.•2-Q y. r smrx rw a'rwrta 's�aru.. �arn� LN e rse wr-zia alga¢ STREET SECTION; W. COBALT DR. .Y +� 1a6a1 Wrykal Chara[hslalln Three-Lane-P •• Parallel Parking Wemiilk:5'toW +Bike Lane ."� Tree EsYm;$'to i4' idlw�*&A IT Tree Grace OBicycle Lane ►� G Q E (E) Twa-way Lett Turn Lane r We . We r � e � Center Landscaped Median .�twit.r+n. n rr .se cbererrt r �7 Paratiel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ South Ten Mile Rd., an existing arterial street along the west boundary of the site,is designated as a modified 4-lane parkway("A") on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes and a wide tree lawn and detached trail should be provided as shown on Street Section A below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and should be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. — ... ALI m w x r f.rvvw lodrti.W k.i6lan Metxv IM-�1 wJrbxd e.W.i W 'u! fmWe f�l Aad 5 l r e e! Section A �,,�,� (Actual road section under design by ITS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ West Franklin Rd.,an existing arterial street along the north boundary of the site, is designated as a typical 4-lane parkway(`B")on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway edge to provide for a tree lawn and detached sidewalk to provide security to the pedestrian as shown on Street Section B below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. Page 11 Item 9. F 23 �� Iw Street 6eetIom 6 Note: If land uses in this area change with a future PUD application,changes may be required to the street sections approved with this application.If improvements are needed that can't be accommodated in existing right-of-way,such improvements may be required to be placed in an easement or additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated. Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout. Public Art(3-47): Public art with a high quality of design should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes.No public art is proposed. Staff recommends public art is provided in the streetscape in accord with the TMISAP. Public transit(3-25)—Commercial and employment activity centers need access by multiple modes of transportation and should be pedestrian and transit friendly. Public transit is also important component of residential developments as it effectively decreases parking needs by reducing the number of cars needed for residents. Transit stops should be designed with shelters for weather protection to patrons;the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center. Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter Valley Regional Transit(VRT)currently has an intermediate stop at Ten Mile Crossing in its Boise- Nampa service. As the project's employment and residential population grows and more of the internal street systems are completed,the opportunity for expanded transit service will also grow. The Applicant's narrative states Stephen Hunt,VRT Principal Planner,has been tasked to work with Brighton to determine the nature and timing of that service. Public transportation, specifically VRT service and facility needs,is proposed to be addressed in the future with the PUD application. Staff recommends public transit accommodations are provided in this development in accord with the TMISAP. 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): • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy Page 12 Item 9. F224] pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities." (2.02.01A) Pathways are proposed throughout the development along at least one side of internal public streets as shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.C. A pathway is planned with future development to the school site to the east for connectivity and a safe route to the school. A multi-use pathway is proposed within the Ten Mile Creek corridor as an amenity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial,industrial and residential areas."(4.05.01D) The Ten Mile creek runs east/west through this site and is proposed to be improved as an amenity corridor with a multi-use pathway. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid- mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B) Collector streets are proposed consistent with the MSM. • "Provide pathways, crosswalks,traffic signals and other improvements that encourage safe,physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists."(5.01.01B) Pathways are proposed within the development per the pathways plan in Section VIII.C. Crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals and other improvements to encourage safety should be considered and provided as appropriate for pedestrians and bicyclists. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 83 (74 commercial, 9 high-density residential)buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-8,R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. The plat is conceptually proposed to develop in six phases. Phase I consisting of multi-family apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16,Block 3 is currently under construction;no development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase 2 is proposed to commence this year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts. The development of Phases 3-6 may vary in area and sequence based on product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor which includes a 10-foot wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system on one side and the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District's (NMID)maintenance road on the other side(Lot 15,Block 3); and the relocated Von Lateral, which will be deeded to NMID (Lot 1,Block 4). Page 13 Item 9. E The Applicant is in the process of preparing a Planned Unit Development application which will govern future development of this overall area in conjunction with the TMISAP. A modification to Development Agreements governing this site to replace the agreements with one overall new agreement is also anticipated along with a rezone to align zoning boundaries with the proposed lot conifgurations and change the zoning of Lots 20 and 21 and remnant pieces of Lots 19 and 22 that are currently TN-C to the R-40 zoning district. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. West Cobalt Dr. has been constructed east of the Cobalt/Wayfinder roundabout in front of the TM Creek East apartments project but the design of such was not previously approved with a subdivision plat for consistency with the TMISAP. South Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Rd. and the roundabout at the southwest corner of the site was constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6(R-8), 11-2A-8 (R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-C and C-G) and 11-2D-5 (TN-C), as applicable. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Previous projects(i.e. TM Crossing and TM Creek)in this area established collector street intersections with S. Ten Mile Rd. (i.e. Cobalt and Vanguard)and W. Franklin Rd. (Wayfinder); extension of these streets(Wayfinder and Cobalt) are proposed with this application as depicted on the plat. One new collector street access (New Market)is proposed via Franklin Rd. which will align with the segment of New Market to be constructed to the south in TM Crossing Subdivision. The proposed access points, road alignments and street sections generally conform with the Transportation System Map in the TMISAP and the Master Street Map. Two(2) driveway accesses are depicted on the plat via W. Franklin Rd. on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4, Block 4. The access on Lot 4,Block 4 was previously conceptually approved with the Bainbridge Franklin annexation by the City(DA provision#1.1.1i)and ACHD(Site Specific condition#B.1) as a temporary full access which may be restricted to a right-in/right-out at any time as determined by ACHD —other than this access, all other access via Franklin on the Bainbridge Franklin site was prohibited. Per the guidelines in the TMISAP for Street Section B (pg.3-22) and access control(pg.3-17),access should be restricted to collector streets. The(UDC 11-3A-3) also limits access points to arterial streets. City Council approval of the proposed driveway access on Lot 4,Block 3 is required; ACHD has approved this access. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be granted via a note on the plat between all non-residential lots and to the parcel to the east(#R8580480020,Twelve Oaks)per requirement of the existing DA for Bainbridge Franklin in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2.A note should also be placed on the plat that direct lot access via S.Ten Mile Rd. and W.Franklin Rd.is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system on this site as follows: on-street within the street buffer along Ten Mile Rd., along the Ten Mile Creek corridor and along New Market Ave. Multi-use pathways are required to be 10-feet wide within a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement with landscaping on either side per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A pathways plan was submitted by the Applicant, included in Section VIII.0 that depicts 8 to 10-foot wide pathways throughout this site and the adjacent properties owned by the same developer consistent with the PMP totaling 3.5 miles of pathways. These pathways connect to the City's multi-use pathways Page 14 Item 9. E and provide a pedestrian connection to the school site to the east. Pathways and associated landscaping should be depicted on a revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat(s)in accord with UDC standards and the Pathways Master Plan as recommended by the Park's Dept. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): The UDC(11-3A-17)requires minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets. In the Ten Mile area,wider sidewalks are required ranging from 6 to 12 feet depending on the street section classification; detached sidewalks should be provided at the widths noted in the Plan as discussed above in Section V. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C in accord with the TMISAP,which requires 8-foot wide tree lawn areas between the curb and sidewalk, except for Street Section E(i.e. Wayfinder and New Market; and Cobalt if non-residential uses are developed on the south side of the street)where trees should be in wells between the street and walkway. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided along all streets as follows: 25-feet wide along W. Franklin Rd., 35-feet wide along S. Ten Mile Rd., and 20-feet wide along S.Wayfinder Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr., S. New Market Ave., and S.Vanguard Way,measured from back of curb, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat(s) should depict landscaping as required. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): Common open space and site amenities are required to be provided in residential developments of five acres or more in size per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. Although a portion of this site is planned to develop with residential uses in the future,no development is proposed with this application. Future development should comply with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3 as applicable. As mentioned above, 3.5 miles of pathways are proposed in the area shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.0 as an amenity for this development. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Waterways: The Kennedy Lateral and the Ten Mile Creek run east/west across this site and the Von Lateral runs across the northeast corner of the site. The Ten Mile Creek lies within a 100-foot wide easement in Lot 15,Block 3 and is a natural waterway; as such, it should remain as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered and be improved with the development and protected during construction in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. A maintenance road exists for NMID on the north side of the creek and a multi-use pathway is planned on the south side of the creek. The Kennedy Lateral lies within a 55-foot wide easement and is required to be piped unless left open and improved as a water amenity or linear open space. The Von Lateral lies within a 40-foot wide easement and is proposed to be relocated along Franklin Rd. in Lot 1,Block 4 and deeded to NMID. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required 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 and the TMISAP. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Page 15 Item 9. F227] Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): 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. 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) (TMISAP The Applicant submitted pictures/renderings of 14 existing and approved buildings at TM Crossing: commercial,office,retail and residential structures including multi-story office buildings; single-story commercial structures (medical,hospice,gym,restaurant and food service,retail, auto service); and the first two multi-family projects (see Section VIII.D). The Applicant proposes to include these as"typical" elevations in the future PUD application as a point of reference for future design review submittals. Final design of structures in this development is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat per the conditions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 16 Item 9. F228] VIII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/29/2020), Conceptual Phasing Plan& Street Section TM CENTER SUBOIVI510N PRFUMINARV PILAT � a,Fahtrlar uio ll.■n rra�rtx5x ae nrt.�owrnwi,�ya►„a Rran7,cw Wi`c �i �' WEST Y20F T"E NaFRWAST LM OF HUM 54 T4WMWIP3 HOM-H.RJWE 4 WM. }T BOISE MFAftW€FSY€FFMEHQih,"4€OLN+.IDA"D.b12D , _I+ b r— # � i d & Ir N n ■ ■ r Ie ,■ao aRx■;. r . ir II I+-. ,—=- -..tip �• ,�' I i 1 f 7 3 WAK �° ilrF� I xFMna� -_-- T��•— ThJ Page 17 Item 9. F 29 �I I � } ,wayrosaa qm �Jij�J vnlww.wyc �In I + .� _ .1L 3 i AL �. .. I x .. — .f FA I t 3 E : . ' V,�1�l7CJlq�,'4y11YJR�RLwR —• ,WmnL�weaMsc+ 'ire��.u:•rr-���'saa��ra_ __ - �o- Page 18 Item 9. F 30 kti7Cx la[-SEE SHEM FV2.G � r � �. & IL JL s 4 1 ` _ r 3 A .L TunrRRw�er�llr+ �avw owo- I" ikm. - T I- 7T mEk - —. — • a a OVA LINE'XI ElIEET-0Pl1 ��4+ H �wMwa $TgFF:T KCWH:S.HFLM KWE FAVF I mo Page 19 Item 9. F 31 �ii a.w t��` rSiEwi�['FR37 a �IIN 1 IM s # It 6 p � I I � iECu !� �•' �!� STREE:F S£{TEEEH:S.WAVFIWRER AWE TY# .. _ rr avm�virxv�oe rgrrtna STREET'SECFIEIN.W.0099LLT OR. 0 - Fl9l I 0 LI r � . - -- TEN •MILE Phasing Plan — ' canrepE�al-subjEti to shenge 1 - . T E N *-- Page 20 Item 9. F 32 Three-Lane Lobel a�xdli C mrwrlWcm Pa rallel Pa rk I ng ;Aij Slde►wa1k5'no8' +bibs Lane + Tree Lawn,Kza IT Tree Came Bleyclr Lenc f E " 15�•.` Two-fty IaR Turn I,pnr f r . r . 7:r . :,. , . - . i f., Center Landsraped Wdlan . ,ry.k* F yr. - {G; Parallel Parking B. Landscape Plan(date: 5/28/2020) MONN -kY.: ' ' k -----------_'_� JAi * y Ems' - reaaaw y �rl- � a:r.• 1�1f"w�wF r---------- -- IL � _ 1 , �_ nwvalwnl.c�ro-fa7w�crrna I � _ � 1rA tenr:e 7�rton•elwl YrRW SY![I 716X1�1A1 Ir ve�Rlm IdVlo W3JQ5CAFF 51 IF F'1 AN Page 21 Item 9. F 33 t� .I i F1//lIIFIG OFTAllY rm - �• �� 'n DEC-z" ,X-M - 1 _ Jn* % 41 t J .. Y+{ A Y1101 W 4 + =— MME T rl L -- �a C. Pathways Plan TENb _�. i i ir — :to, Y i. WAY 06 i Midti-Purpose Pathways 1 TEN :-MILE - Roads&Pathways - - y � Ten MileGrossingS]fsSrkt - W to 10'Pathways 2 _ ! i Page 22 Item 9. F 34 D. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives 1� 11 IN _ L r .. BRI HTON BUILDING foompleftj PAYLOCFTY BUILDING Ccampletej r�i'F'.7 Ex<:1B[•'.S•'•v IlA tBFTFAi1�GIV1518N iL � �.4.. �..0 .�,� � IrAN11r QYF111E147dK.i1L I — ur AMERIBEN PHASE II under coastrj SALTIER MEDICAL under constr) I t7:i h�I M1'�.I111r�5'1511�.`. r.*�f rl l-11 i V tll:14�4%vl LASM-11 RUILIIIN =der constr E STMG SINGLE.-STORY SHOPS MOENTER WB WMkGN r}Jt1wrER&LPwVdm1y Page 23 Item 9. F 35 r, EXISTING SINGLE-STORY MEDICAL ]EXISTING CARWASH ti Y' ZCY+J I I R S1IEDIVISICIN 7M LVWLR&UAUW%MX}N IUlp XG11 M11(.IIOX r+f/.+ll �IX�IX!1`C4FfGl Th71CIL1 �i :Jt y { I s' � M i l.'XISTING RESTAURANT/SHOPS (front) EXISTING RESTA.UR,ANTJSHOPS gear) W 51 Y I I P%.1111JIVI1ICICJ �LLrAI SAYJl} TMEENTEI: umbe .,••. Page 24 Item 9. F 36 - l i �.� I f EXISTING AUTO SERVICE THE LOFTS at TEN MILE cO Plere [M CEM-ER}UMMUM+ I M tYNTEN W501vL%Wm nraxcarwrww mr_us w6o�n[wtinor mr_us r THE LOFTS at TEN MILE (garages) THE FLATS at TEN MILE under cons&) TFACEWgl SUEDWE TM CENTER iV9EH MON IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Development of this site shall comply with the terms of the existing Development Agreement's [i.e. TM Center(Inst. #2014-065514),Bainbridge Franklin(Inst. #2019-077071), Calnon(Inst. #2016- 030845) and TM Creek East(Inst. #2016-037777)], all conditions of previous applications approved for the subject property, and the conditions contained herein unless subsequently modified. 2. The final plat(s) shall include the following revisions: a. South Wayfinder Ave. shall be constructed consistent with the street section in Section VIII.A in accord with Street Section E in the TMISAP and shall include pedestrian-scale lighting. A 5-foot dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb. Both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. b. South New Market Ave. shall be constructed consistent with the street section in Section VIII.A except that a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided along the east side of the street Page 25 Item 9. F237] consistent with the Pathways Master Plan and landscaped buffers shall be provided at the back edge of the sidewalk/pathway in accord with Street Section D in the TMISAP where residential uses are developed along the street. If non-residential uses are developed along the street, a 12- foot wide sidewalk/pathway with tree grates and pedestrian-scale lighting shall be constructed instead.A 5-foot dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb. Both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. c. West Cobalt Dr. shall be constructed consistent with the street section in Section VIII.A except that landscaped buffers shall be provided at the back edge of the sidewalk/pathway in accord with Street Section D in the TMISAP where residential uses are developed along the street. If non-residential uses are developed along the street, a 12-foot wide sidewalk/pathway with tree grates and pedestrian-scale lighting shall be constructed instead. A 5-foot dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb.Both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. d. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk) along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. e. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk)along W. Franklin Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B(see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. f. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along S. Ten Mile Rd., an entryway corridor, measured from the back of curb, in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B- 7C. g. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-C and C-G zones,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. h. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer along W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave., S.New Market Ave., and S. Vanguard Way, collector streets,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-C and C-G zones,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-313-7C. i. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. unless otherwise approved by the City of Meridian and ACHD in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 and access control provisions in the TMISAP. j. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement between all non-residential lots in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. k. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement to the parcel to the east(#R8580480020,Villas at Twelve Oaks)per requirement of the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-077071) for Bainbridge Franklin in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Page 26 Item 9. E 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Pathways, 8-to 10-feet wide, shall be depicted in accord with the pathways plan in Section VIII.0 and with the Pathways Master Plan as required by the Park's Department in Section IX.E. At a minimum, 10 foot wide pathways shall be provided along S. Ten Mile Rd., the east side of S. New Market Ave. and along the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan; 8- foot wide pathways may be provided in other locations. b. Depict 12-foot wide sidewalks, street trees in wells and pedestrian-scale lighting along both sides of S.Wayfinder Ave.; and W. Cobalt Dr. and S.New Market Ave.where non-residential uses are proposed as set forth in the TMISAP for Street Section E(pg. 3-23). c. Depict a 6-foot wide detached sidewalk along the west side of S.New Market Ave. and a 10- foot wide detached multi-use pathway along the east side of S.New Market Ave in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.Where residential uses are proposed along the street, an 8-foot wide tree lawn parkway is required in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section D(see pg. 3-21). d. Depict a 6-foot wide detached sidewalk along the north side of W. Cobalt Dr. and a minimum 8- foot wide detached pathway along the south side of W. Cobalt Dr. in accord with the pedestrian plan in Section VIII.C. Where residential uses are proposed along the street, an 8-foot wide tree lawn parkways is required in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section D (see pg. 3-21). e. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn area along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). f. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn area along W. Franklin Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B (see pg. 3-22). g. Depict street buffers as follows: minimum 25-feet wide along W. Franklin Rd., 35-feet wide along S. Ten Mile Rd.,and 20-feet wide along S.Wayfinder Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr., S.New Market Ave., and S.Vanguard Way,measured from back of curb, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. h. Include mitigation information on the plan for all trees on the site that are proposed to be removed that require mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Contact Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to schedule an appointment for an inspection to determine mitigation requirements. 4. Future structures on lots fronting on S. Wayfinder Way, designated on the Street Section Map as Street Section E, shall be built to the sidewalk as set forth in the TMISAP (pg. 3-23). 5. Future residential structures on lots fronting on W. Cobalt Dr. and S.New Market Ave., designated on the Street Section Map as Street Section D, shall have limited setbacks behind the sidewalk and a tree lawn shall be provided as set forth in the TMISAP (pg. 3-23). 6. Future structures on lots fronting on S. Ten Mile Rd. shall address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway edge to provide wide tree lawn and detached trail to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes as set forth in the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). 7. Future structures on lots fronting on W. Franklin Rd. shall address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway edge to provide for a tree lawn and detached sidewalk to provide security to the pedestrian as set forth in the TMISAP for Street Section B(see pg. 3-22). 8. The Ten Mile Creek is a natural waterway and as such, shall remain as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered and must be improved with the development and protected during construction in accord with UDC I I-3A-6. Page 27 Item 9. F239] 9. In accord with the TMISAP for"complete streets,"the following are features that shall be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders, crosswalks, refuge medians,bus pullouts, special bus lanes,raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, street furnishings and on-street parking. The Applicant shall address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing)what design features are planned for internal public streets within this development aside from the sidewalks/pathways,bike lanes and on-street parkng proposed. 10. The Applicant shall work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT)to determine the nature and timing of public transit services needed in this area. Shelters should be placed at transit stops for weather protection to patrons; the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center. Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter. 11. All future development shall comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 (R-8), 11-2A-8 (R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-C and C-G) and 11-2D-5 (TN-C), as applicable. 12. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathways within the site prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 13. Public art with a high quality of design is required to be incorporated into the design of streetscapes as set forth in the TMISAP(see pg. 3-47). 14. Final design of structures in this development is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP. 15. Development of the plat shall occur generally consistent with the phasing plan. 16. If land uses in this area change with a future PUD (or other) application,changes shall be required to the street sections approved with this application.If improvements are needed that can't be accommodated in existing right-of-way,such improvements shall be required to be placed in an easement or additional right-of-way must be dedicated. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Colbalt and New Market Avenue, flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction. This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction. Based on conversations with applicant 8" sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. 1.2 To aleaviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12" water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). 1.3 Tie into the existing 12" water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1) 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. Page 28 Item 9. F240] 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. 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. Page 29 Item 9. F241] 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 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. Page 30 Item 9. ■ C. FIRE DEPARTMENT hllps://weblink.meridianciiy.org,/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191391&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191282&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT hllps://weblink.meridianciiy.org,/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192685&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192039&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1913 88&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianci , .org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191393&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were received from WASD. J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)—DRAFT REPORT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=l 90277&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=l 92693&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord.08-1372,7-8-2008,eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions, conditions of approval in Section IX and ACHD conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Page 31 Item 9. F243] 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 32