Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-12-17
WE IDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Chairperson Ryan Fitzgerald Commissioner Lisa Holland Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Steven Yearsley ADOPTION OF AGENDA -Adopted CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the December 3, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM Consulting, Located at SS7 W. Idaho Ave. and S28 W. Broadway Ave. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.S6 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.S8 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-0 zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.S6 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. Continued to January 7, 2021 4. Public Hearing Continued from November 19, 2020 for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1, Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district; and waive the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11- 3A-13) to allow in a residential district. Approved 5. Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R- 15 zoning district. Continued to January 7, 2021 6. Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located 4700 W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for January 19, 2021 7. Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning district. Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for January 19, 2021 B. Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for January 12, 2021 ADJOURNMENT - 11:55 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 17, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 17, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: Okay. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of December 17th and let's start with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Fitzgerald: Thanks, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I have -- the only item that we will be -- for those in the audience or on Zoom that -- we will be opening Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, to continue that only. We will not be hearing that tonight. So, with that notification, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Cassinelli: Hi. I'm here. Fitzgerald: Hi, Commissioner Cassinelli. How are you, sir? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 5 Page 2 of 110 Cassinelli: Great. How are you guys doing? Fitzgerald: I don't see your head. You are floating in -- Cassinelli: Yeah. I know. My -- Fitzgerald: We kind of see you. Madam Clerk, let the record show that Commissioner Cassinelli joined us about 6:02. Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: Just a thanks for letting me know. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the December 3, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway Ave. Fitzgerald: Sounds good. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda. The approval of the minutes of December 3rd, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Conner Square, file number H-2020-0107. Is there anything on the Consent Agenda that needs to be pulled out -- or not? If not I would entertain a motion to accept the Consent Agenda. Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we approve the Consent Agenda. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks so much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 6 Page 3 of 110 Fitzgerald: At this time let me explain the -- the -- kind of the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report for that application. The staff will report on the findings and -- regarding how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant -- applicant will come forward, either in person or on Zoom, and they will have 15 minutes to provide their presentation on why the application should be approved or recommended for approval and, then, respond to any comments from the Commission. After that we will allow the public testimony. So, we have folks possibly in person, in chambers, and, then, also, obviously, on Zoom as well. We appreciate you guys being flexible as we continue to do the work of the city by having this kind of dual platform world we are in as we deal with response to the pandemic. So, as you have your time in front of the Commission we ask that you -- a couple things. You have three minutes to make your presentation to the Commission. Please don't go over issues that we have already heard. Focus on issues that are important to you, but if we have heard it a number of times focus on issues that might be new to you. We don't allow a second set of testimony from the same person. So, take that three minutes you have and use it wisely. If there is an individual that is here speaking on behalf of an HOA, we will give you some additional time to speak on behalf of that HOA, because you are representing additional people, but we would ask that those additional people don't speak as well, if you are covering their HOA, they don't have the same issues that they bring up, so we would ask you to limit that. If there is people you are speaking on behalf they don't speak as well on the same issues. After all testimony from the public has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come up and respond to public testimony and answer any questions that we might have and, then, we will close the discussion. At that time we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to deliberate and, hopefully, either make an approval or -- move for an approval or make a recommendation to City Council on a decision on the application. So, with that as we deal with the public on -- public testimony on Zoom, obviously, if you are in person we ask you to sign up for the hearing you want to -- or the application you want to be heard on back in the back on -- on the iPads that are back there. If you are on Zoom when the application comes up that you want to be heard on, we would ask you to raise your hand via the Zoom application and we will get you plugged in and so you can be part of the testimony. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-O zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 7❑ Page 4 of 110 B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #:2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. Fitzgerald: So, with that we would like to open the public hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision, that's file number H-2020-0108, and Bill or Joe, can you give us an idea of what -- what's the scoop with Vicenza and their request that it continue to January 7th. Dodson: Mr. Chair, this is Joe. Fitzgerald: Go ahead, sir. Dodson: Absolutely. Yeah. The applicant's wanting to continue -- or really as a -- they are requesting continuance per staff's recommendation. There was some public testimony and phone calls that the neighborhood meeting did not occur in accord with the UDC requirements. So, I have recommended that they hold another meeting and bump them out a couple weeks to help alleviate any concern that they are -- that that did not occur. They held their meeting on the 8th. So, they are in that ten day window right now per city code for the formal application, which, obviously, is already in, but just to give them enough time to respond to any questions and have the public have enough time to participate in the process we are just requesting to continue them out two weeks -- three weeks. Fitzgerald: That's perfect. Makes total sense. With that background, any questions for the staff? Could I get a motion to continue with Vicenza North Subdivision to January 7th, 2021, where we only have one other item on the agenda currently. McCarvel: So moved. Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have multiple motions and multiple seconds to continue Vicenza Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108, to the date of January 7th, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you so much. We will see them on the 7th. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 $ Page 5 of 110 4. Public Hearing Continued from November 19, 2020 for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1 , Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district; and waive the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11- 3A-13) to allow in a residential district. Fitzgerald: Moving on on the fourth item on our agenda is the continued public hearing for Poiema Calvary Chapel, file number H-2020-0095, and I will turn it over to Joe for the presentation. The staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Good evening. So, this got continued from a month ago, from November 19th, in order to amend the CUP request. My explanation of everything will be fairly quick and concise, because it's a fairly simple application. The site is a lot and block within the Poiema Subdivision that was approved earlier this year under H-2020-0035. The specific area for the CUP application is for a new church facility and it can -- it's on approximately seven acres of land, which is now zoned R-15. It directly abuts Lake Hazel. The conditional use permit request is to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build out and the change, which is why we had to continue it, was to include a request to waive the outdoor speaker system standards to allow them within a residential district. Without getting too much in the weeds, the UDC restricts outdoor speaker systems to be used within any residential district. Well, this use is being proposed within a residential district and in that code section that allows Commission to waive the requirement in order to allow the speaker systems. The applicant is not requesting a blanket dismissal of the requirements, they are open to keep with the spirit of the code and comply with the hundred foot requirement, but to any residential use and that would only be occurring within the amphitheater here. So, they are going to be able to easily maintain the hundred foot buffer. They just can't maintain it within the residential district, because the whole property is reserved. So, I just want to make that clear. Phase one of the site as seen here, is proposed with a sanctuary and the associated offices and rooms to the east, some shared outdoor space and the outdoor amphitheater. It also includes 155 parking spaces. Phase two includes a larger sanctuary, a few more of the offices, and additional parking to total 320 spaces. The proposed parking, just for note here, is three times the minimum required, which is 104 spaces based on the first floor area of the proposed church. Code does not differentiate the different nonresidential uses, so the minimum is one per 500. So, again, they are proposing about three times what the minimum is. Access for the church site is via driveway connection to the new local street proposed within the Poiema Subdivision. There is no direct lot access to Lake Hazel, other than the emergency only access, which is required for both this application and the subdivision, which is this here. The applicant is showing emergency access to become a parking drive at full build out, which both planning and fire staff have approved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission 191 Item 1. December 17,2020 Page 6 of 110 Because the proposed use is nonresidential, a minimum five foot wide sidewalk is required adjacent to all buildings. The applicant is showing compliance with this requirement. The staff has recommended an additional segment of sidewalk be added in the second phase of development to be located around the western side of the outdoor amphitheater. Basically add a sidewalk here along this parking and come back and connect to the sidewalk here. Staff made a mistake in how the original condition was written and has agreed with the applicant that it can be modified to be more clear. The applicant will have that requested language for the Commission tonight. Again, the proposed use is nonresidential. So, there are no amenity and open space requirements. However, as discussed with the Poiema Subdivision, the 15,000 square foot open space lot here is to be shared between the church and the residents. Its maintenance and use have already been conditioned through that subdivision application and, therefore, there is no need for Commission to act on that aspect, just to note to the Commission. The applicant has submitted sample elevations of the proposed church and concept renderings for phase one only. All nonresidential structures require administrative design review and prior to obtaining building permits. The submitted elevations show a single story structure with a maximum height of 35 feet -- or, sorry, 30 feet for any area to be occupied and, then, architectural features up to approximately 35 feet, which are just these few places. The overall site design appears to include stucco, some high end siding, and stone. In addition, the elevations show both shin roof and more traditional flat roof design, adding the architectural elements of the site. There appears to be adequate modulation in wall planes as well, especially on the north elevation that faces Lake Hazel. With all of these things noted, staff does recommend approval of the subject conditional use permit application for this proposed church and the waiving of the UDC requirement with the recommended condition of approvals. After that I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Are there any questions for the staff at this time? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Joe -- and I don't know if you are going to know this one off the top of your head, but between phase one and phase two what's the difference in parking spots? Dodson: It goes from 155 to 320. So, it's about 100 and -- what is it, a 125 more? Or 155 more? Seal: Okay. Dodson: About 165 more. Seal: That's okay. It's late. I'm having trouble mathing as well. Dodson: I hear you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Flo] Page 7 of 110 Seal: Okay. And that -- the -- in phase one, the amount of parking spots that they have is going to be an acceptable amount? Dodson: That is correct. Yes. Seal: Yeah. What -- what I'm getting at is just in case phase two just doesn't happen. Dodson: Understood. Yes. Yes, sir. The -- phase one requires about half, because it's about half the square footage. Seal: Okay. Dodson: So, phase one is proposing 155, but I believe the minimum required is like only 52, give or take, and, then, phase three -- or phase two, sorry, at full build out is 104 required and, then, they are proposing 320. Seal: Okay. And, then, a follow-up question on that. The road that's going to be there before the parking lot is put in, is that a paved road, a gravel road, how -- what kind of road is it? Dodson: Commissioner Seal, are you referring to the emergency access? Seal: Correct. Dodson: Okay. Yes. That's going to be a paved access and be constructed with the Poiema Subdivision. It will be in there before the church site is even constructed. So, they have to construct all these roads first, including the emergency access and it will be paved per Fire Department standards. Seal: Okay. One more question and I promise I will be done. The amphitheater looks like it is actually facing out into the residential area; is that correct? Dodson: It -- to be honest, I -- I don't -- it's this portion here. I think it's -- I think the stage is in the wider portion, but I could be wrong. Yearsley: The residential lots are to the west, Commissioner Seal. Dodson: To the south and east here. Yearsley: Or east. I'm sorry. The east and the south. Dodson: They show landscaping along the edge here. I believe the applicant will be able to better answer that, including the pastor of the church who is -- who is with us tonight. Seal: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Fill Page 8 of 110 Dodson: I wish I had an answer. I'm sorry, sir. Seal: No problem. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Joe at this time? Hearing none, thanks, Joe. Do we have the applicant with us at this point? Tamara, are you taking this one? Thompson: Mr. Chair, Tamara Thompson. Yes, I am. But my client wanted to say a few words at the beginning. I don't know if -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Thompson: -- he's on. We are not together. So, if he's available to start, otherwise, can -- I can jump in if he's not. Zachman: I'm here. Thompson: Oh, excellent. Go ahead, Daryl. Zachman: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, good evening. I'm Daryl Zachman, pastor of Calvary Chapel Treasure Valley, at 9226 West Barnes Drive in Boise. I just want to thank you for considering our conditional use permit tonight. As you would recall from the hearing in August, the church building site is part of the Poiema Subdivision as has been stated already. Poiema -- we got that word -- it's a Greek word for workmanship or masterpiece. It comes from Ephesians 2:10 that says we are His workmanship, Poiema, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. So, we are sort of happy about that. We think it's cool. We also get our English word poem from that. But I just want to let you know that from the outset our vision has been that the residential properties and the church would exist side by side in an integrated community. That's reflected in the -- in the common lot, as has been pointed out, and also the -- the adequate parking along the streets that will be able to be shared with the subdivision and I know you see many development plans, but you may not be aware of our background. We purchased this land in 2003 and have been waiting. At the time we were meeting at a shopping center for church, but in 2010 we lost that property because of the remodeling the landlord was doing, so we have been a mobile church for ten years and have been using either different church facilities or -- or now three different schools, so -- so with the increased development of south Meridian that enabled us to get the city services out there, which has made this project feasible. So, we are very excited to begin the construction and blessed to cooperate with Zack Evans in planning this desirable community for seniors and others who will be purchasing the townhomes. We see ourselves ministering to the many residents of south Meridian in the area, of which there is a huge bedroom community, obviously, and we are pleased that the staff has recommended approval of our conditional use permit. So, I just want to thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Daryl. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F12 Page 9 of 110 Thompson: Thanks, Daryl. If I can share my screen, I have just a really quick PowerPoint to go through. Joe did a great job and stole a lot of my slides, so -- Dodson: You are welcome, Tamara. Thompson: I can't share yet. Dodson: There, you should be able to share now. I apologize. I was hogging it. Thompson: Okay. Let's see here. Totally changed my window. Fitzgerald: Try to keep you on your toes. Thompson: Yeah. All right. Are you seeing that? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Thompson: Okay. Excellent. Okay. Fitzgerald: Tamara, you want to introduce yourself again real quick. Thompson: Yes. Yes. Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group and we are located at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Tonight before you is the conditional use permit for a church facility in the R-15 zone. The site is currently one parcel and the Poiema Subdivision was recently approved and this -- and so what I have shown here is the overall subdivision boundary and, then, this lot within it, just so you can get a context of where it -- where it sits on the property as a whole. Now north is now to the left. The -- again, the property is this location and with the subdivision as -- as Joe mentioned, the emergency access gets constructed with the subdivision. The access for the property for this parcel is off of the residential streets and not direct from Lake Hazel and Joe gave you this one, just phase one is the amphitheater. This is the stage here closer to the building and the location of this is -- excuse me -- close to 300 feet away from the residences -- residential properties. So, it's well over the hundred feet that is in code. And, then, with these two side by side. So, phase one and, then, phase two has an area for expansion, which basically doubles the site, it doubles the parking counts and doubles the -- the size of the -- of the sanctuary. And just the elevations again quickly and we have read the staff report and agree with staff's analysis and the recommended conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tamara. And thanks, Daryl, we appreciate information from both of you. Any questions for Daryl or for Tamara? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F13] Page 10 of 110 Seal: Just the question on the amphitheater as far as which direction -- which direction it faces. Is that -- is it going to be facing essentially southwest is what I'm -- that's how I'm reading it or am I looking at it backwards? And my question pertains to the sound projection. Thompson: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seal, the -- the stage is closer to the building and so the -- it would face to the west southwest. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Additional question on the amphitheater. What if-- could we get some I guess ideas of-- of usage of that and, you know, what they see -- I'm guessing there will never be anything too late in the day, probably, you know -- but if they could give us a little indication on that would be great. Zachman: I could take that if that's all right. Thompson: Go ahead. Zachman: So, the usage is primarily on Sunday mornings during the summer and it wouldn't -- it's not going to be like loud concert volumes, you know, but we are also working with Zack Evans to make this part of the CC&Rs that they are doing in the subdivision to just let people know about that, just an understanding before they are buying, so that they know that it's there. So, that's -- that's really how we see it. There may be some times in the summer, you know, we might do something in the evening, but not very often. It mainly is just going to be like a Sunday morning worship thing. Thompson: And, Mr. Chair, if I could add onto that. Fitzgerald: Go ahead. Thompson: Daryl, correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding is it's not a permanent system. There will be temporary or portable microphone and speaker that are brought out at that time. So, it's not like a big sound system that's -- that's permanent in that location. It's -- it's a portable system. Zachman: That's correct. Yeah. Because there is nothing really to shelter any of that from the weather or anything like that. So, yeah, that would be the way it would be. Cassinelli: Follow up if I could, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F14 Page 11 of 110 Cassinelli: It looks like on the landscape plans that there are some trees or shrubs on the -- that would help to buffer any possible noise, because I know there is a -- there is also the subdivision going into the -- to the west of the property, so there will be homes right there. So, is that -- is there landscaping in there that I'm seeing that will serve to buffer some of that and -- and I -- sight and -- you know, sight as well as sound I guess. Fitzgerald: Tamara, can you take that? Thompson: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, there -- there will be landscaping and there is also the Ten Mile Canal in between the two properties. The Ten Mile Canal is actually on the neighboring property, but my understanding is is that the -- the existing trees that are there that are fairly large will remain as well. So, those will help with the buffer. Zachman: Can I say something, too, on that? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Zachman: It's -- it's sloped upward. It's very similar to the amphitheater at Kleiner Park, so -- so, you are going to have a natural huge amount of dirt that's going to be helping to buffer the sound that's directly aiming at it and sloping it upward. Fitzgerald: Thank you for that. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: No. That's -- that covers it. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Commissioner Grove, did you have a question? I -- okay. Any additional questions for the applicant? Perfect. Tamara and Daryl, thank you so much. We will see if there is public testimony and, then, we will let you close real quick. So, we will get back to you. Hold on for a few minutes and we will be back. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone in the audience or online that would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we did not. Fitzgerald: Okay. If there is anyone online on Zoom with us that would like to testify on this application, please, hit the raise your hand button and we will get you over as a panelist, so we can hear from you. Commissioner Grove, anybody in -- in chambers? Grove: No one is indicating that they wish to speak. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F15] Page 12 of 110 Fitzgerald: Okay. Not seeing anyone raise their hands on our attendee side either -- Mr. Zachman -- or Pastor Zachman or Tamara, do you guys have any final words for us as we close? Thompson: Mr. Chair, nothing to add. We are just excited to get this project moving forward and we request your approval tonight. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Perfect. Well, is there any further final questions before we close the public hearing? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we close the public hearing and move to deliberation. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Who wants to lead off? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just -- I mean this looks pretty straightforward. I don't have any big concerns on it. I mean the only thing that I am a little concerned about that we have touched on is just the position of the amphitheater and the sound that carries in there. That comes from my previous life where I was a drummer and I know without amplifiers or anything that carries a really really long ways. So, just, you know, hoping that whatever is discussed, decided and ruled upon as far as the -- them being able to use amplification equipment out there, that they are aware of that and, you know, keep it to a minimum with their neighbors. I'm sure they are far enough away and with the buffering that's in there and the trees and the slope that it will be kept to a minimum, but it still can get fairly loud. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F16] Page 13 of 110 Holland: As I say, I don't have any big concerns about this application. I think they have -- they have tried to address with the slope and with trying to buffer it and I appreciated them adding it to the CC&Rs of the subdivision to give them kind of a heads up when they move in. I think it will be a nice amenity and I don't imagine that they are going to be having a lot of late night ragers and problems with -- with anything like that. So, I -- I'm in support of it. I think it looks like a nice project. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yeah. I like the -- I like the design, what we are seeing. I like the -- the layout or the -- you know, they thought about the parking and everything and -- and I think from the church's standpoint they are -- you know, they are -- they are going to want to -- they are going to want to be good neighbors. I mean it's part of -- part of being in there. So, I don't -- I don't see that as a problem and -- and, you know, I think it might be a little community draw there as well. So, I'm in support. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead, ma'am. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm in support of this as well. I think, you know, we got a little bit of a glimpse of this when we had the subdivision in front of us, the residential part of it, and the connections and everything. So, I think it's been pretty well thought out and I appreciate you telling us about the trees and stuff along the creek, because I think that will help add as a buffer to the subdivision to the west then. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. I -- I agree with all of the comments that have been made so far. I think it's well laid out. I think the inner -- inner working with Zack Evans -- he always builds nice product and I know putting it in the CC&Rs will give everybody a heads up of what's coming. So, I think that's great. I think it looks nice. I think that -- I guess like Commissioner Cassinelli I think the amphitheater may be a benefit, so I think it will be a nice thing to add to that community, especially when everybody has a heads up of what's going in, so I'm in favor of it as well. Commissioner Grove, did you -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Oh, Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: If -- if there was more comments I'm more than happy to let people talk, but I'm happy to make a motion, too, if we are there. Fitzgerald: Motions are always in order, even if someone wants to make more comments. Holland: All right. All right. After hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve the conditional use permit request for a church facility and waive the outdoor speaker system standards to allow them within a residential district. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F17] Page 14 of 110 McCarvel: Second. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second -- oh, was there -- Holland: I will amend the motion just to include the file number H-2020-0035. Cassinelli: My second still stands. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Joe, go right ahead. Dodson: Sorry. Nine five was the subdivision. Just to let you know. Holland: Oh. Sorry. I was going off of the staff memo and I -- or the staff hearing outline. It was written on their wrong. Fitzgerald: So, nine five. Dodson: Nine five. Holland: Zero nine five. Fitzgerald: And, Commissioner Cassinelli, your second -- Cassinelli: Still stands. Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. I have a motion and a second to approve Poiema Calvary Chapel, H-2020-0095. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Good luck, Tamara. Thanks, Daryl. Good luck. Look forward to seeing you. Thank you for being here tonight. Dodson: Thank you, everybody. 5. Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F18 Page 15 of 110 A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Moving on to the next item on our agenda is the public hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099, and I will turn it back over to Joe for the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we get started I just want to note, Commissioner Grove, when you speak I can barely hear you. I don't know if other people online are having trouble. You might have to eat the microphone. So, just letting you know. All right. So, Commissioners, bear with me on my presentation for this. It is a vastly more complex project than the previous one, so bear with me while I get through everything that I analyzed in the staff report. As noted this is for Mile High Pines, which is specifically located at the southwest corner of the Pine extension -- a future Pine extension and Ten Mile. It is a request for annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C and R- 15 zoning district. A preliminary plat consisting of three building lots and one common lot on approximately 16 acres and a conditional use permit for a multi-family development, consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.4 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. The application -- sorry. The proposed land uses are multi-family residential and commercial. The residential is in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and two vertically integrated buildings. Both -- or I should say the residential and the commercial uses are consistent with the land use types noted in the future land use map designation definitions and preferred uses for mixed use community. Of the 135 residential units, 87 are the detached single story cottages, 42 are townhome units, and there are six units within the two vertically integrated structures. The proposed product type is by definition multi-family, which means more than two units on a single building lot. So, the applicant has designed units to emulate single family attached and detached structures that share pathways and open space rather than public streets. For reference this is the sister project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat that was recently approved. The proposed project has -- as shown is approximately eight dwelling units per acre, meeting the six to 15 dwelling unit per acre range for the mixed use community designation. All proposed lots appear to meet the UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. However, there are some concerns over the applicant meeting the required utility separation and easement requirements, while not having any permanent structure encroachments or overhangs within the easement. It is staff's understanding that the applicant has been continuing working with Public Works to correct this, which is greatly appreciated. If revisions to the site design are required to comply with those requirements, the applicant -- or the applicable plans -- all of the applicable plans should be revised and resubmitted. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F19 Page 16 of 110 For reference, this preliminary plat here is not entirely accurate, as some of the easements have changed since this was originally approved. By that I mean just the easement widths in some of the areas. The overall site design has not changed. The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the residential portion of the site. Overall they comply with the ASM. However, the ASM, architectural standards manual, does note that no two multi-family buildings should look the same. To ensure compliance with at least the intent of this, the applicant should create more differentiation between the units by providing different colors beyond the same earth tones. I do understand the applicant's perspective that they are offering three different color variants as you can see in the center here with different ones, but it is staff's opinion that they should incorporate two more color variants, again, that just aren't the same kind of earth tones. It reminds me of being at West Point again. The -- in addition adding more of the active materials, which would be lap siding and stone, rather than stucco, would help make -- to make more of the detached units unique from one another. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to mitigate this. Despite the fact that a separate design review is required for the future commercial, staff wants to ensure the future commercial buildings integrate with the proposed residential. Therefore, the applicant should provide at least conceptual elevations for these buildings. They did not upon the initial submittal. And, again, staff is providing a condition of approval to submit those elevations prior to the City Council hearing. Just to recap really quick with these, the elevations shown on the top left are the clubhouse. The ones on the right are the one bedroom. These are the three bedroom in the bottom left. The top right are one of the two bedroom variants. And, then, the other two bedroom variant is on the left here and, then, on the right are the townhome units, which they also have the same color variance -- I believe the same three colors. And, then, these are the proposed vertically integrated buildings, just to be clear. I used the landscape rendering plan for the site plan in this, just because I think it kind of shows all of the areas better. The subject development offers approximately six acres of commercial zoning, according to the proposed rezone exhibit. However, the proposed C-C zoning does not truly reflect the commercial area, because it does not match the plat boundary. Staff cannot support split zoning on the residential lot and so the applicant should revise the rezone exhibit or the plat boundary to reflect the correct zoning. Or I should say to correct -- to reflect the correct zoning boundaries. With other revisions requested by staff within my staff report, the applicant will likely have to make other adjustments to these documents as well. All of these changes should occur prior to City Council to ensure transparency on the true amount of commercial zoning being proposed. The commercial acreage of this property is proposed as two commercial lots, one in the northeast corner of the sight and, then, the other one being the remaining area with two more buildings. The submitted plat shows two of the three commercial buildings as containing drive-thrus, which staff does not support. Despite this opinion, staff is not willing to specifically limit the number of drive-thrus --or drive-thru establishments I should say with this application, because each drive-thru will require a conditional use permit to implement that use. The proposed residential area of the site incorporates MEWs, private streets, common open space and different housing designs within the same parcel, as seen on the image here. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing two story townhomes along the southwestern boundary and on the part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile, with the rest of the site being a majority of single story structures. So, again, the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F20 Page 17 of 110 townhomes are along the western boundary here and, then, the two along here. Staff believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile with the -- is an appropriate buffer between the busy arterial, which is Ten Mile right here, and the single story structure that make up the center of the development. However, staff does have specific recommendations regarding the overall site design to better transition from Ten Mile and Pine and also spread out some of the units within the development for better utility delivery. By that I mean water and sewer. Staff notes that all of the recommendations that were made are with the overarching recommendation that additional units do not be added, even if there is room available. To be specific, staff is recommending the following changes. Remove the singular unit in the southwest -- I have another here. This just here. Remove this singular unit here, so that this area can be opened up and help limit any possible CPTED issues with having a unit back here. Secondly, replace the townhome units shown on Ten Mile with the vertically integrated structure. So, move these two units. Replace those two with this here and, then, have the additional parking south of that to be better both from the railroad tracks and Ten Mile to help activate the commercial and to vertically integrate it, which can also be accessed via the sidewalk along here and integrate with this commercial. Staff believes, again, that fronting this building onto Ten Mile will help activate the commercial. The secondary portion of this, once the vertically integrated is moved here, move these four units here -- or all of them for that matter further east and help spread them out. The point of this is to have the utility lines to be able to have them -- allow them to have more room between the units. This concern was presented by Public Works because of the proximity of the buildings. In addition, this recommendation could add -- could, depending on how they redesign it, additional open space in the center of this development. Finally, once this goes -- the vertically integrated goes here, these get spread out, as you can find my -- one of the arrows, these two townhomes could be moved up here. So, the secondary -- or the final portion is to remove all of the detached units here, which are 14 units, and put the townhomes here. I did preliminary measuring and I believe three, instead of the two, can fit here, which staff is certainly fond of. If they do six-plexes, as they can do a four-plex, et cetera. They can fill this area, in staff's opinion, with the townhomes and meet the intent of what I'm discussing. The townhomes which front on the large open space that is being proposed along Pine and have the garages face internally to the site. This removes the single family style product for being adjacent to a major street extension and removes the need for on-street parking -- I should say backup parking along the north side of this road. With this recommendation the entire northern area of the site could be pushed further north, depending on how the measurements work out. That would be advantageous to open up the site and allow for more room within the street to accommodate the required utility easements and possibly additional traffic calming. The applicant for this project and the project proposed further north -- I should say directly to the north and the west have entered into a legally binding dedication and development agreement that outlines the potential options where how Pine Avenue will be extended and constructed. In addition, ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension or road improvements can occur. At a minimum this applicant will construct the intersection improvements as a half -- as half of a three lane street section with one westbound receiving lane and eastbound left turn lane and an eastbound through lane or right turn lane with -- including vertical curb, gutter and sidewalk abutting the site. In Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F21 Page 18 of 110 addition, the applicant is at a minimum required to extend and construct Pine Avenue outside of the intersection influence area as half of a 36 foot wide section, with their half plus 12 to total 30 feet of payment and it also has vertical curb and gutter and, then, five foot detached sidewalk along Pine. The applicant's agreement discusses that whoever obtains city approval second is required to dedicate the required amount of right of way to ensure that Pine Avenue is constructed -- centered on the section line dividing the two properties. In addition, the applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at this intersection of Pine and Ten Mile. Staff appreciates the forethought of this agreement by the applicant to ensure correct construction of the Pine Avenue extension. Therefore, staff has recommended a condition of approval in line with this agreement. Access is proposed to be a one private street access off of Pine Avenue, which is here, and one driveway access to Ten Mile. So, again, this is a driveway access, not a private street access. This is a private street access. The Ten Mile access is proposed as a full access at this time and is approximately 400 feet, give or take, from the railroad tracks -- northern railroad tracks. ACHD is requiring that the applicant construct a southbound right turn lane onto Ten Mile Road, located 580 feet south of the intersection for safe access into the site on this Ten Mile access. The applicant is also proposing an emergency access through one of the private drives that abuts this cul-de- sac here. The two proposed access points have been approved by ACHD. In addition the applicant is proposing an additional private street access to the property to the west here to add additional fenesterating and vehicular connectivity and help with the mixed use policy. In general multi-family projects do not typically have private streets, but instead have drive aisles. However, because of the nature of this development private streets are being used for the purpose of having better addressing for the site. Drive aisles cannot be named and addressed, which does not lend itself to a development of this kind. Therefore, the private streets will function as drive aisles, but incorporate the ability to have street names and better addressing for first responders. No gates are proposed with development in order to improve integration and connectivity in line with the mixed use policy's goals. The private streets are proposed at least 25 feet wide, with attached sidewalks of varying widths on both sides of the street throughout the site. Both open and covered parking is also proposed along the private streets. Staff does have concern with the street layout at the main entrance off of Pine Avenue where a very uncommon three-way intersection is shown. You guys can see that here. Let me go to this plan. You guys can see that better. Albeit the intersection is internal to the private streets, all three roadways that converge on this point allow traffic in both directions, two way traffic on all three sides of this. We -- staff, including the, you know, Police Department, have concerns over how traffic will flow and navigate this intersection, especially in inclement weather. For example, when our lovely snow decides to cover all the road striping and I'm impatient enough that I would be one of the people to go the wrong direction. So, it's a safety concern and thought of staff to recommend that this be revised. Staff believes that this intersection should be redesigned in such a way that traffic can safely and efficiently navigate between the residential and the commercial areas of this site. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in the UDC for multi-family dwellings, based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The submitted plan shows a total of 442 total spaces for the entire development. Three hundred and nineteen are for the residents, 12 are for the clubhouse, 30 are shown Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F22 Page 19 of 110 for the vertically integrated units and the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial. Of the 319 residential units, a certain number are required to be covered. The numbers on the proposed plan that I have analyzed do not seem to add up correctly. However, I counted the proposed covered spaces and there appear to be 218, which exceeds the minimum required amount of 122. Overall the proposed parking appears to exceed the minimum UDC requirements. A ten foot multi-use pathway is required along the property's boundary -- southern boundary abutting the railroad easement as seen here. This is the proposed ten foot pathway. As shown on the master pathways plan. The proposed pathway will be approximately a hundred feet from the existing railroad tracks due to the easement width and will be a segment of about 480 feet long. It connects to the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile and it also will connect to the proposed micro path, which is all along the western boundary of the site. So, again, this is a ten foot pathway here that, then, gets a five foot pathway along here. The adjacent applications to the west and north will continue the multi-use pathway onto the west, which, then, eventually connects up to Fuller Park. Sorry. The micro path also continues and connects to other sidewalks that can go all the way to Pine Avenue. The proposed sidewalks in this development internally are also essentially micro pathways. These pathways connect through -- these pathways connect throughout the entire development and traverse through every MEW as well. They offer fenestration connection and give these residents the opportunity to walk, rather than drive within the project site, especially to the adjacent commercial, and also the nearby commercial on the east side of Ten Mile Road. The proposed landscaping for the required street buffers and common open space meet the UDC requirements as proposed. However, there do not appear to be landscape strips on both sides of the proposed pathways. Now, that's -- you know, that's multi-use and the macro pathway just explained. Staff has recommended conditions of approval to correct this. In addition, the proposed C-C zoning district, according to the UDC, requires a 25 foot landscape buffer to any residential district, which this would abut. The submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement. Because this is a mixed use development and there is presence of some landscaping, a sidewalk and the street between the residential uses and the commercial, staff does not have particular concern over this discrepancy. However, in order to comply with the UDC, the applicant will have to request a waiver from City Council to reduce this buffer to a specific width or to reduce it to the buffer shown on the landscape plan. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required. Based on the proposed plat of 16.46 acres, a minimum of 1 .65 acres of qualified open space should be provided. In addition, the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards for multi-family developments also apply. Combined, the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 2.5 acres. According to the open space exhibit, the applicant is proposing a total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space. Of this area 2.47 is proposed to meet the overall minimum ten percent and that 2.47 equates to approximately 15 percent. This qualified open space consists of the ten foot multi-use pathway segment, the required street buffers and two large common open space areas. Specifically for this map, the darker green is what is being meant to qualify for the overall open space. The -- the 11- 3-G standard. The lighter green is meant to qualify for the multi-family specific use standards. The qualified -- sorry. As noted this area does exceed the minimum UDC requirements. They remaining 1.15 acres is proposed to meet the specific use standards. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F23 Page 20 of 110 These areas consist of the MEWs between the attached units, areas of open space that meet the minimum 20 by 20 multi-family open space dimensions, and the two shared plazas. This area also exceeds the minimum requirements. Based on the area of the plat a minimum of one qualified site amenity is to be provided. The applicant proposes a ten foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary to satisfy the UDC requirement. That is in reference again to the 11-3-G requirements. The rest of the amenities are proposed to meet the specific use standards. A minimum of four amenities are required per the standards, but the decision making body is authorized to consider additional amenities for developments that contain over one hundred units, as this subject application. The following amenities are proposed to meet these standards. A clubhouse with offices, a fitness facility enclosed by storage and a pool. A tot lot. Two shared plazas and pedestrian bicycle circulation. Therefore, the applicant is proposing seven qualifying site amenities. In addition to these amenities, the applicant is proposing self storage lockers each about 12 square feet spread throughout each of the garage buildings, just like the other Modern Craftsman. Despite this not being a qualifying amenity, I do find it appropriate to mention, as they will likely be very much used. To be more frank about the recommended changes that staff has made, they are in reference to helping the site open up and also maintain the integration. It is not staff's point to do complete redesigns, but staff has had a lot of these discussions with the applicant before, we have worked through a lot of these issues--or tried to at least and presented some of these changes at previous meetings. It is my understanding that the applicant is not in agreement with the staff report and they are proposing to keep the site design as such. Again, one of the main issues that we had been presented with is the Public Works issues about the easement within the street and also the service lines between the units. Staff just wants to ensure that these things can be taken care of and be taken care of up front, rather than get to a point where at final plat they don't work and now we have a major redesign and potentially have to start over. That is not what any of us want. So, that is -- that is where staff's at with that. This includes the intersection -- three way intersection here and, then, just offering some recommendations about how to better layout this site with some of the vertically integrated and the townhomes. Understand that there can be differences of opinion, but it's just recommendations by staff to help with the utility and overall site design issue. With those revisions and the subsequent conditions of approval and the DA provisions, staff does recommend approval of the subject application. And after that I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. So, just to quickly clarify. If your revisions are accepted, you have -- you feel comfortable they are covered in your-- in all those pieces, you know, that you have outlined. It was pretty extensive. Are outlined in your -- in your staff report in your requirements. Dodson: Mr. Chair, yes, sir. I -- the way that I kind of laid it out, I laid that out in the conditions of approval as well. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I was making sure you feel comfortable that they are all in there. So, that was extensive. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F24] Page 21 of 110 Dodson: Yes, sir. Yeah. Fitzgerald: We can get the applicant on their thoughts, but I just want to make sure you feel covered if there -- because my concern is we are redesigning and, then, this is just me and I will let our other fellow Commissioners -- because we are redesigning this whole thing and we are not going to have a chance to look at it before it goes to Council. That's before the applicant even gets up here. I just want to throw that out there, because that's my concern to make sure we are hitting stuff and we trust you guys to guide us on where we are headed and I'm afraid where we are headed is we need to look at this again. But any additional comments or questions for -- for Joe? Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Dodson: If I may, I do understand what you are saying and I understand that that might be a big concern for all the Commissioners. To be honest, this is something that staff has discussed or reached out to the applicant with and noting that maybe a continuance would have been necessary in order for staff and the applicant to work through. That was not taken advantage of and that's fine. Hence why staff has decided and had to take the path of conditioning the project, which is where we are at. Fitzgerald: Okay. Dodson: So, I do understand your perspective. Fitzgerald: Thank you for the clarification. That helps me. Commissioner Holland, you came off of mute, ma'am. Do you have questions? Holland: No, Mr. Chair. I was just going to go with what you said. I have got some concerns about bringing this forward to Council the way that it is right now, because it's just -- it won't even look like the same thing by the time it gets to Council. So, I -- at this point with the number of conditions that are requested by staff, without even hearing from the applicant, I would -- I would want to vote to continue it and not spend too much time looking at it tonight until we have got an adjusted layout, because I think it's going to be a moot point until we see the adjustments on it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. That would be my -- I want to hear from the applicant and get their feedback. Holland: Sure. Fitzgerald: -- but I definitely am -- that's where I'm leaning as well. Any additional comments or questions for Joe? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F25] Page 22 of 110 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Joe, can you -- what's the vertically integrated building? Can you give me -- give me some detail on it? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, so vertically integrated is what a lot of people call a live-work. It's a commercial on the first floor and, then, residential on the top. It doesn't have to be two stories, it can be three, four, whatever it needs to be. Like the Old Town Lofts across from City Hall. Cassinelli: Yeah. Dodson: The point is to just offer the integration of the residential with the commercial within one building, rather than spreading it out across the site. It's more of an urban -- urban feel. Cassinelli: Sure. That's what I thought you were going at with that building, but I wanted to double check. And, then, did anybody on that three-way intersection -- did they look at a -- at a one way, almost a -- you know, kind of a little traffic circle or roundabout in that scenario? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, great question. That is something that staff has told the applicant was something that needs to be looked at from the beginning. I don't know what they did look at in potential options. I believe that they will be able to better answer that for you. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, a final question for you, if I can. You said that you are not -- that staff was not really in favor of drive-thrus in commercial up front. Can you give us some detail on that? Dodson: Yes, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, Members of the Commission, the point of that is -- is the two -- having two drive-thrus right next to each other staff is not in support of. At least initially looking at this. Again, none of the commercial is being proposed right now, but they -- they will all have to have a conditional use permit. So, I believe that's a better time to review those uses would be at the future CUP point. Cassinelli: Okay. Dodson: That was okay with at least one, if that makes sense, at the hard corner especially, and I think the applicant and I had discussed that before, just showing two right next to each other, as we know with stacking issues and things like that, that can be troublesome. So, that was -- that was the main point of that comment. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, are you good or do you need follow up? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F26] Page 23 of 110 Cassinelli: I am -- and I know -- I mean if we are going to go the direction that we have already -- that we were talking about, I don't know if I want to spend too much time on that, but can't we -- can we condition for just -- if we were to go down this road tonight, reviewing everything, can we -- can we condition for just one or do those -- does every time somebody wants a drive thru do we have to -- do we have to look at that? Because, then, it's -- what happens is if we open the door for that, then, you know, you kind of put a second individual come in for an application or the third, it's a disadvantage, but if it's -- if it's conditioned up front for just one and one only, then, it goes to the highest bidder I guess. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Wouldn't -- don't we just see it -- wouldn't we just see the second one when it comes in as a drive-thru within 300 feet of another drive-thru? Fitzgerald: Yeah. A conditional use permit we see it again. McCarvel: Yeah. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner -- go ahead, Joe. Dodson: No problem. I guess me and Commissioner Seal get confused for each other every time. The -- in general you are correct, Commissioner McCarvel, it is -- if it's one within 300 feet of another, but because this is also within 300 feet of a residential district each -- McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: -- each drive-thru it has to obtain a CUP. So, even the first one would. McCarvel: Yeah. Dodson: This is not -- that is not part of this application. McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: I don't think the -- the applicant's not wanting to go that route at this moment, because, you know, end users are not yet known. McCarvel: Right. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F27 Page 24 of 110 Dodson: So, commercial is conceptual. That's why I -- I didn't want to limit that up front. Obviously, that is the purview of the Commission and Council if they want to. Like you were saying, Commissioner Cassinelli, I understand your perspective there, because I can see that understanding that, yes, if -- after the first one comes in the idea of another one going in is probably going to be lower. So, I understand your perspective. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Joe? Grove: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Thanks. Joe, question for you. With the improvements to Pine, is this development and the other development -- does that mean that Pine will connect all the way through? I was not completely clear on that. Dodson: Commissioner Grove, Members of the Commission, yes, I -- I didn't go into too much detail. I don't want to -- you know, because of the hearing laws and things that are well outside of my purview -- intelligence at this point. I don't want to speak too much on that application. But with both this application and the ones that are surrounding to the west and north, if both are approved, then, yes, Pine will get punched all the way through from Ten Mile and, then, over the Ten Mile Creek and connect through to Black Cat, which is the intention of both applicants. Fitzgerald: And that's the long-term plan, Joe? Either way, even if it's not these two applications? ACHD has that plan; correct? Dodson: Mr. Chair, that is correct. They don't have it on any of their CIPs that I know of, because the expectation is that some applicant's will be able to take on the burden and not put it fully on the taxpayers as those lots get redeveloped, but it is on the master street map to be a full collector, yes. Fitzgerald: And that's the expectation for development I would guess. Dodson: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Joe at this time? Okay. Seeing none, at this point would the applicant like to join us? Nelson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street here on behalf of the applicant team. I also have here with me members of the development team and they are available to answer questions with you. I'm going to -- or with me. Excuse me. For you. I'm going to share a screen here and let me know -- can you see that just fine? Great. Fitzgerald: Yep. Thanks, Deb. Go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F28 Page 25 of 110 Nelson: Okay. You know, I'm going to jump in pretty quickly to the substance, because Joe covered a lot there and you guys had a lot of questions, so I may just skip with some of these formalities. You already know about Baron Properties from their project at Black Cat and Chinden and so this is their second project in Meridian where they are starting from ground up. We are excited to bring this mixed use project right here to Ten Mile and Pine that you can see on the vicinity map. We have got existing commercial around us with the gateway at Ten Mile and the Ten Mile area specific plan to our south. A lot of employment uses going on there with the new Amazon. Additionally we have got the commercial that's immediately across Ten Mile. I want to focus on the site plan right from the get go here. I want to show you where our zones are proposed. The R-15 is 11 .42 acres. The C-C zone is just over six acres. And you can see the delineation on the site plan where they break up here. Both of these zones are consistent with your Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use community. We have heard Joe's concern about wanting to align the lots with that break in zoning and we can accommodate that. We will add a third commercial lot that will fall within the C-C zone, include the two vertically integrated buildings and the clubhouse area -- everything that's not included in the other commercial lots and we will add that to our C-C zone and update our plot accordingly as he's requested and, then, the plat lot lines will fall directly on the zone lines as he -- as he desires. I want to also walk through some of Joe's other comments. guess maybe as a preliminary matter from the development team's perspective the changes that are requested in the staff report are new and surprising, given the extent of time that the development team has worked with staff. They are very interested in getting staff support on this development, that's why they worked so hard at it. We learned a lot through the Black Cat evolution. We felt like we got a lot of good feedback from staff and from the Planning and Zoning Commission that led to a better project. We incorporated all of the feedback. We heard from staff over eight plus months of discussions. Our first pre-app with them was in February. We didn't file until October. We had many site revisions, a lot of movement with a lot of focus on integration between the commercial areas and the residential areas and that is what led us to this site plan. We had specific comments from staff about placing the townhomes along Ten Mile in the southeast portion to create framing against that street and instead moving the more activated commercial, vertically integrated uses up into the central part of the site. Staff wanted us to pull the commercial down Pine to better serve our residences -- our residents and the residences that are planned further west and with the Pine access being the full access here, they really wanted that commercial to frame that corner and further to the integration we created the crosswalks and the two plazas that are between the commercial and the residential. These vertically integrated buildings are very purposefully placed. They frame this area, they create transition from the harder corner, the commercial area, bring that activated commercial feeling -- you know, urban feeling from the parking out front, put pedestrian friendly from the crosswalk and they bring that right up around all of the activity going on around the residential area. That is exactly what your Comprehensive Plan calls for. Moving that further along Ten Mile creates islands of commercial and residential, exactly what staff has advised us for the last year to try to avoid with the site plan reconfiguration that we have done here. So, it is news to us what is being asked for now and we are not supportive of it. We like the evolution that we have come up with with staff. It's very practical and functional. We like the framing of the townhomes along Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F29 Page 26 of 110 Ten Mile. We think the better activation is along Pine and Central. We like having our single story detached units up along Pine, not townhomes there. It creates a nice visibility. It creates compatibility with the single family homes also planned along Pine. We like featuring those products there. We like the -- the --the unit that was asked to be removed entirely from our southwest side. That's part of an area that has MEWs and has connectivity. It's safe. It's well lit. It meets all of your city code requirements. We specifically reviewed that particular unit with Joe Bongiorno to make sure that all of the fire and safety issues were taken care of. From a police standpoint, again, that the lighting -- everything creates a safe environment. If, instead, we pulled it out I think we would be running into exactly what we hear from your police chief when you create an open space in the back that would, then, not have activity. So, those are some of our concerns. Additionally moving the vertically integrated down on the southeast portion creates a parking conundrum. I mean there is a different parking setup for the townhomes versus the vertically integrated product. There is access considerations there. That access, as Joe noted, is -- is not likely to be full access forever and it -- it's not going to support the same commercial activity down on that corner, where the full access on Pine will. It also doesn't work to move that access point on Ten Mile further north as he suggested as a possible fix to our functional space concerns, because it's already within the spacing minimum of ACHD. They allowed us to put it there to align with the street across Ten Mile and so it is -- it's purposely sited there. We did consider the -- the island -- the landscape island, the configuration that's causing some concern. We think it creates traffic calming. It's also aesthetically pleasing. We are happy to work with the city, though, and comply with the condition suggested by Joe to make sure that we are addressing all of the city departments concerns with. If there is a safer configuration they prefer we can abide by that condition to work through that. We -- we would also like to point out the concern about having the townhomes along Ten Mile is inconsistent with other locations and our own experience in the City of Meridian. We operate the -- Baron operates the Redtail Apartments at Meridian and Victory and has had no trouble with -- with leasing along those major streets. In fact, they have found that visibility to be great for that kind of residential product. We did hear from Joe last week, the one topic that did come up before we got the staff report on utility concerns, and we have addressed all of those now with Public Works, without needing to redesign this site. Our civil engineer has been busy working with Public Works to address all of their concerns. We now have confirmation from them that we have and so there is also not a need to reconfigure any of this for that purpose. I think with that let's try to move on to some of our other selling points here and, of course, I would be happy to address any questions you guys have if you still have remaining concerns based on what Joe has -- has raised. A couple things just to point out maybe about the vertically integrated. This is a product we introduced at Black Cat that was well received at all levels of the city, because it creates that integration, it's not just horizontal. We will have residences on the second floor and commercial on the first floor. We expect to be able to have a coffee shop, yoga studio, the kinds of uses that work great right next to the residential areas. In our commercial area we expect more of restaurant, retail, office, medical office, daycare, that sort of thing. That -- the commercial buildings -- we don't have elevations for those yet. We ask that the conditional planning those now be postponed until we do come in with future plans. The city is going to have a chance to look at them then and you still have to approve CZC, plus the design review, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F30 Page 27 of 110 and if there is a drive-thru we would need a conditional use permit. So, you have lots of opportunities to review those at that time. I just want to walk through some of our architecture quickly, show you some of the features. This is our entry monument off of Pine. Some -- some images of our clubhouse. We will have work from home space there. Private offices for resident use, as well as community meeting space there inside the clubhouse. There is also a coffee bar. There is indoor gathering and seating areas, a kitchen and a fitness center. Outside the clubhouse there is a community pool, a large deck, and covered gazebos and grill areas. This is our vertically integrated product showing at this point the commercial on the first floor, the residential on the second floor, with great layouts. I also want to run through some of our residential units, so you can see the variety and the quality of materials. There will be one, two, and three bedroom offerings in detached homes, duplexes, six-plexes. Some of them will have attached and tuck under garages. All residential uses provide private outdoor space. Most with private backyards. So, that this community really lives and feels like any neighborhood would with single family detached housing and townhomes. The residential units include modern finishes, stainless steel appliances, washers and dryers, great living spaces with spacious floor plans and high ceilings. The exteriors use quality materials, including stone and stucco and wood tone siding. This slide is showing a one bedroom duplex with a couple of different roof lines. Here is a couple of our two bedrooms. We have two different types of two bedrooms to show different layouts. Have three bedroom units as well. And this is now showing some of our six-plex townhomes with the tuck under garages -- two car garages underneath. These images show front and back with multiple color palettes. A lot of variety here. In this -- in this slide we are trying to show all the unit type variety, where they lie, so the -- the one bed one bath, two bed two bath, etcetera, are all distributed throughout the site, so that you can see that variety in the community. Architectural variety as well. Here we are trying to show what the different roof lines and color palettes -- how they are intermixed through the development, so you don't see a lot of one thing, with two different roof lines, three different exterior facades, three different color palettes. These all together can be mixed and matched to create 18 unique exteriors on these detached units. We heard the comments from Joe. We disagree that more is needed from that. We like the cohesiveness of this -- of the patterns we have selected. However, if the Commission feels like adding another color to that mix would help create more variety, you know, we are happy to work with the city to do that. We have got ample parking and storage, more than is called for with detached garages -- 30 detached garages that are shown in green here. A hundred and four covered parking spaces that are shown in orange. Plus we have the 84 attached two unit enclosed garages. We also have storage through self storage lockers that creates a great amenity for our residents. As Joe walked through the open space really carefully, I would just add in addition all the -- the green public open space and the -- and the blue private open space that you can see through this slide the connectivity really, that east-west connection where you are really pulling the residence towards the commercial and creating a nice connection there. On the -- on the pathways we have got the ten foot wide multi-use pathway on the south. But I think it's also a great point out that these all connect to the west. We are providing connectivity to our neighbors. We have got a walking loop that goes all the way around the entire facility -- the entire community. Amenities Joe walked through very carefully. They are -- they are centrally located and really connected well to all of the residents Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F31 Page 28 of 110 around. There has been no concerns raised by any of the services. We meet all of the current plans. ACHD concluded that all of the roadways have acceptable levels of service. All schools that serve this project have capacity. We did ask for a number of changes to the conditions. We have addressed them in a letter that we provided today and in the testimony tonight. I think the only thing I maybe didn't address yet are the last -- that we ask that the future CZC be specific to a zone, so that we can move forward with either the residential or commercial first and not required to develop the entire site at once. And the last one is simply to have the Public Works condition language match the city approved language that we received on the Black Cat development that better suits the timing for multi-family development. I would like to -- if you will allow me, if there is time -- I'm sorry, I can't see a clock where I am in the Zoom format. If there is time we have a two minute fly through that I would share with you if -- if I'm able. Fitzgerald: Yeah. You have got a few minutes, Deborah, if you want to go ahead. Nelson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We can't see it yet. Deborah, we are not seeing it. Nelson: Oh, it's not -- oh. Okay. We -- we did send it to -- to the clerk. I don't know if that helps the -- Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do you happen to have it? Weatherly: I have it. I don't have it pulled up. So, if you want to give me just a minute or so I can try to pull it up on my end. Fitzgerald: Okay. While we are doing that, are there any questions we can start kind of kick it off for Deborah? Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I saw you first. Holland: Deb, the overview -- we appreciate it and that's why I love mixed use concepts and I love a lot of the elements that are in this project, but I think my only concern is still that staff has so many concerns and how we move forward if they are requesting some changes and -- and how we kind of keep things moving forward. I'm not sure if you want to just kind of address that. If you think some more time with staff you guys could figure out a way to kind of bridge the gap and come together. Nelson: Well, Commissioner Holland, Chairman, I appreciate that question and we -- we do prefer to be aligned with staff as well and so I understand your concern, but we made every effort to. I mean honestly we were just really surprised by the level of changes that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F32 Page 29 of 110 have been proposed and I guess I would just point out -- and we looked at them pretty carefully to see, okay, what is this -- is this something that makes sense here and none of them are required by your code. So, there is nothing that's been proposed that needs to happen. And, then, you look at, well, your subjective criteria in your -- in your Comprehensive Plan, we think that our design, which was based on staff's input for the last year, better meets your plan. It creates more of that integration, instead of having all of your commercial along Ten Mile, it's all pulled into the site and intermixed with our residential. So, we think that we meet all of your code requirements. We best satisfy your Comprehensive Plan with our design and it is our preferred layout. We have -- we have really grown to enjoy this functionality. We have spent a lot of time and money on it. We have done all of our utilities work. I mean we have really developed this site that we worked on a long time with staff. So, we are not supportive of a continuance to revisit something that just came up, that is inconsistent with what we have worked on for a long time, that's not required -- or we think even beneficial. I mean just with all due respect to Joe, because we appreciate he's put a lot of time into this -- it feels like just a preference. Just kind of a -- you know, he rolled up his sleeves, right, the staff and thought, hey, wouldn't it be great to move this stuff around. Our preference is different. We feel like this is a great development for you to consider as a whole, so -- oh. And thank you, Adrienne. It looks like she's got the fly through ready. Weatherly: Mr. Chair and Deb, I apologize, I don't think that I can bring up the sound, but I think I should be able to get the video rolling for you. Nelson: Great. Thank you. (Video played.) Nelson: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing us to play that. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, I think I was wrapping up your -- your question. I guess one additional point to consider on the -- the layout of why we think it's -- it's -- it's beneficial and why we prefer it. That commercial -- moving that commercial down, they -- the vertically integrated down to the southeast isn't consistent with what we have -- understand from working with our brokers on what's going to be viable there. I mentioned the access limitations, but they really think that corner -- the -- the north corner and the centrally located commercial is going to create better access vehicularly. Also from a pedestrian standpoint we think that, you know, some of these users, particularly those that are in the vertically integrated buildings -- you know, the coffee shop, the yoga -- the yoga facility, the yoga studio, those are the uses that people need to walk up to and the further you put that away down in the corner the less they are going to get used. You put those right around the clubhouse and -- and the main central part of the neighborhood, we feel like that's going to activate those. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Commissioner Holland, do you want to follow up? Holland: No, I don't know that I have any follow ups. I'm just -- I just feel like we are between a rock and a hard place, because I don't like being stuck in a spot where staff Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F33] Page 30 of 110 doesn't agree with it and I hear where the applicant is coming from, too, and I like a lot of the elements of it. I think they have -- they have shown that they are a good developer and they think outside of the box in how they bring projects together and I agree with you, I like how a lot of those elements flow together, because mixed use concepts that draw people towards kind of that central congregating area tend to be more effective in the long run anyway. So, I don't disagree with that. But I'm not sure how we mitigate some of staff's concerns here, too. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: I echo what Commissioner Holland is saying and after listening to the applicant I mean what she said was basically that they have worked everything out with Public Works and -- I mean I don't see anything on record as far as what was worked out, how it was worked out, what that's going to look like. So, it sounds like some middle ground was met, but there is -- there is no record of what was -- essentially what's being recorded for that. So, it would be nice to remove ourselves out of that and let it -- let that come to where it needs to be before this comes back, basically. That's -- that's my opinion of it. I mean -- I mean there is a lot of things I really like about this product and, you know, I like that it's here, but there are some big concerns. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm -- I'm actually kind of liking the commercial where the applicant has it. I think the big -- the issue that -- part of the issue that staff had moving it was the utilities and I agree with Commissioner Seal that-- I mean I would like to see maybe more on what the resolution was on that, rather than just having to say, well, we resolved it. I think since it's been brought up as an issue. If we could see how that was resolved I think that would alleviate some things for me as far as all the moving around. I think the other stuff we can kind of discuss, but I think like that I would like to see some more information on. Fitzgerald: Agreed. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to those two comments? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Nelson: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Seal and Commissioner McCarvel, since you both asked the same question. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think -- I think it's -- it's covered in the conditions that staff brought forward and so in their condition A-7 they contemplated that there could be some continuing resolution of the concerns and -- and so there is an express condition that allows, you know, at least ten days prior Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F34 Page 31 of 110 to the City Council hearing the applicant will obtain that approval and so we have submitted the updated plan to resolve their -- their minor concerns and they have approved it and our civil engineer is here, David Bailey, if you would like more details about exactly how they did it, but I guess the punch line that I want to make sure we -- we all have in front of us is it doesn't cause us to rearrange the site, so there is nothing new to consider there and, two, that staff has already thoughtfully put that into the conditions of approval as a forward looking way that -- so long as we have resolved it that can move forward with the Council, so -- and, like I said, our civil engineer is here if you would like to ask him anymore detailed questions than that. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. I think the -- my only concern is I -- we haven't, as a Commission, heard from the Public Works. That's the only challenge. We usually have all that information in front of us and I don't want to hand City Council something that we haven't tried to work out all the details on before it goes to them. That's our job. But I appreciate the feedback there. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Joe, go right ahead. Love to hear from you. Dodson: Sure. Thank you. The last thing I want to do is get into a tit for tat with Deb. I very much respect Deb, so I'm not trying to do that at all. I -- I, too, have not gotten any kind of-- I shouldn't say any kind of. I have not gotten a final approval from Public Works that the utilities match and will be functional a hundred percent. I have not received that. I have been told that we are a lot closer than what we were, which is fantastic, and that's why I mentioned that in my initial presentation, because I -- we need to keep working there. But, again, I -- like the Commission I have not seen that final approval, which is why I put that condition in there and I was being courteous to say prior to City Council, as you guys are discussing. That is part of why some of the changes that we recommended are based somewhat on the incorporation of the utility concern, not only -- yes, can it fit in the street, but also the service lines as well, even though I have been told by land development that some of those discussions have occurred and we are a lot closer, they still have concerns whether or not this will functionally work and I want to --to ensure that the site design is -- is okay, that I want that final -- I guess formal -- whatever word you want to use there -- approval in order to make sure that this works. I'm not going to fall on the sword for moving that one vertically integrated building. I'm fine with that staying there. But the point of moving that was to avoid removing some of those units on the internal area to help spread those out and help with the service line issues as discussed, not by just myself, but also Public Works. That's -- that was one of their conditions on the other Modern Craftsman and finally conditions on this one. In regards to the other condition that they would like to modify regarding -- I believe they said it's one of the Public Works conditions regarding modifying it to match the Modern Craftsman one, staff is not supportive of that, because the only reason that combination was made previously is because they did not do a preliminary plat, they did a short plat. So, it was all done up front. In this case that's not true, they will have to come back for a final plat. So, that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F35] Page 32 of 110 condition is written in line with our current processes. So, I just wanted to clarify those few points there and, hopefully, we can keep moving forward. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Dodson: In addition -- sorry, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Go ahead. Dodson: I wanted to ask Deb if I saw that -- the parking plan that you had, ma'am, has that been updated to the new or the latest easement changes that have occurred? Because it doesn't look like it. So, I just wanted to clarify if that parking matches what's been changed to accommodate the easement. Bailey: If I can speak here. This is David Bailey. I'm with Bailey Engineering and the project engineer on this and we -- we actually got notice of the issues that we had here a couple of weeks ago on the Black Cat project and the Black Cat project was a little different in that the water lines within that subdivision are -- are under the jurisdiction of Suez and they have slightly different easement requirements and so we were able to make a minor adjustment to those plans that we could accommodate both the city's and -- and Suez's requirements on that. So, since then we have gone through several iterations looking at how to locate the water and sewer lines within the street and this was the primary requirement and just for the record this is new to us and the city on this project is the first time they will enforce not putting the -- not allowing the easements underneath the covered parking on the project, so we moved things around a little bit and we were able to move a few of the carports around and adjust the location of the sewer and water lines within the drive aisles, so that we would provide the full easement required for the city for both the sewer and water lines without either of those easements being underneath any carports or any garages and it gets difficult when they are across from each other, as it has on previous projects, because your drive aisles are 25 feet and 30 feet is total required to provide those two easements for the sewer and water. So, we have made those adjustments. My engineer Kevin Craig has submitted those changes to the Public Works. Public Works come back and had a question about a separation of a storm drain line on the plan, whether it would be four feet from that. He made that additional adjustment and submitted that to Amanda McNutt on Tuesday, December 15th, and she sent an e-mail back, which I just forwarded to Joe, that said thank you, Kevin, appreciate your showing that. I think you have a good plan in place that should work with our standards. So, we have a specific e-mail from Amanda McNutt saying that this was completed. I guess Joe didn't get the copy of that. Fitzgerald: Thanks, David. Appreciate it. The only challenge -- I will be fully frank and honest with you -- is I think we are in the middle of designing still. This just feels like we are -- we are still at the pre-app table. I mean just to be frank and honest with you, it's -- this is supposed to be done and cooked, so we can make good recommendations to Council and you guys are still designing a little bit in the middle of our meeting and that's -- that's rough to put our Commission in the middle of and so I don't want to put -- I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F36 Page 33 of 110 appreciate both sides and I respect both sides of our team and your team, but I also want to make sure we are -- we are staying in the process and it's -- it's difficult for our Commissioners to have to -- a little bit call balls and strikes and this is a -- it's a weird position to be in, to be totally frank. So, I don't know where my fellow Commissioners are. I would love to get your take. But this just seems like we are not there yet. Bailey: Can I answer that question? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go ahead, David. Bailey: Great. Thank you, sir. I don't feel we are in the middle of designing this and, in fact, we don't do final designs for preliminary plat. Never have in the past. We submitted this in accordance with the standards and designed it in the way that we have for all of the projects we have ever done in Meridian. They have acknowledged -- your Public Works staff has acknowledged that your standards have not changed, but they have decided to start enforcing this in the middle of our project. So, it's not you that are in the middle of this, it is our client and this project that is in the middle of this and we are as frustrated as you are at this point of how we have been treated going along this way and we have made some significant efforts to make sure that we are addressing every single comment that comes up on this and we have addressed them all and we get to this Planning and Zoning meeting and your staff member is still telling me that I haven't resolved them and let me tell you, sir, I have resolved these issues and we can meet all your standards and I can design and build this project in accordance with the way we have it set up here. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Also appreciate the position we are in. I hope you understand, we are -- we have to make good decisions and provide a recommendation to the City Council and so I'm trying to do that and give our Commissioners the best package we can see and we have definitely a different view on both sides, which is -- which is not where we like to be, if that makes sense, and so I'm not trying to place blame on any -- either side, I just want to give the best product and final package we can to City Council, if that's where the -- the decision of the Commission. So -- and I hope -- Deb, I hope you understand that we are not trying to cast blame on anybody, we are just trying to polish the truth as I call it and I just -- it's -- it's hard to do that when we have very different views in the middle of -- of our meeting, if that makes sense. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I just wanted to clarify. Again, these utility standards are not planning, so I'm not -- and I'm not an engineer, so I don't pretend to know those requirements. I have been tasked as a city planner, being the project manager, in conglomerating all of these different perspectives and issues and concerns and desires into one cohesive report, to try my own qualms with, but we are here -- neither here nor there, we are trying to move forward. The point is the instances that Mr. Bailey is referring to I -- I have been told Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F37 Page 34 of 110 specifically that they were instances in that the city had to make accommodations because things were missed and, therefore, we had to allow waivers and not to mention we have different--we have had different city engineers and this is what I have been told. I -- I feel bad that he feels that we are picking on this project and calling out this specific project for things that haven't been enforced before. I don't -- none of us want that for Mr. Bailey. So, I do apologize for that. I have been told specifically that these are our standards and there shouldn't be waivers requested to meet the standards, unless there are extenuating circumstances, which is what I was told were the situations previously. I don't want it to be misinterpreted by anybody that the city is picking and choosing who they want to enforce their standards on, because that is not what I have seen while being here at the City of Meridian and that's -- that's not what I was told either. So, I just wanted to clarify that for both the applicant and the Commission. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Appreciate that. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, may I make one further point? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Deb, go right ahead. Nelson: And we appreciate the -- all -- the position you are in and the comments from Joe. He's relaying concerns from Public Works and so I guess what I would ask for you to consider, since you are asking is this fully designed, you know, how is this before you. The way I see this is that there -- to the extent there were Public Works concerns, they have been resolved on our end on a factual basis, but from your point of view -- and I think from Joe's point of view, he set you into the right path by requiring a condition of approval that does not allow us to get to City Council ten days before. We have to show those plans and so I think from the Planning and Zoning Commission's perspective you have a site plan, you have the site plan that we are proposing and we have to get Public Works sign off on that site plan. If we don't get Public Work sign off on that site plan we are going to have to come back to you with another site plan. But if-- but if it is functionally and, you know, materially the same, then, you have before you what you need and you have a condition of approval to protect you to make sure we have to still get Public Works sign off and -- you know. So, assuming we can address that -- and it sounds like from Joe's comments I appreciate that was kind of the root of some of his redesign. He was trying to create more space. That's helpful explanation to us, because it did feel a little out of the blue. If it was just that, then, we are happy that that has been resolved and we can deal with that. If it's a preference -- you know, we don't share that preference and have already walked through why and it sounds like some of the Commission members have -- you know, also agree that they prefer the layout as it is and so I think the Commission actually has before it what you need to decide with the planning and the layout and the site plan. This is a site plan generally and the uses generally that you like. So, I would be happy to answer more questions, but thank you for allowing me to make that additional comment. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. And thank you for bringing us back to that point. I do have one -- and it's not a preference, it's a safety thing. I don't like the -- the way you have set that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F38 Page 35 of 110 intersection up at all. I think that's just waiting for somebody to get in an accident or somebody to get run over. So, if there is a different design that you would be willing to throw in there, whether that's a roundabout -- one way roundabout or something, is there a direction you can go there? Because I think if that's two way traffic all the way around that thing, with commercial and residential traffic all trying to intermix, I think that's going to be somewhat of a train wreck. So, can you sum -- can you comment on that? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are perfectly willing to work on that with the city to make sure that -- you know, that it's -- it's redesigned in a way that everybody is comfortable and that's why -- you know, we did comment on the condition of approval from Joe, but we accept the condition where he asked us to work with the city and resolve any safety concerns they have and we are happy to do that. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, ma'am. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead. McCarvel: I noticed the same thing, Deb, in the video view it almost looked like it was acting like a roundabout. I didn't really see the two-way traffic. So, it seems like it could be almost there, it's just -- it's -- I mean is that what I saw or is that really supposed to be two way traffic in there? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCarvel, I mean that may be one of the solutions is to route the traffic in that direction. We certainly like it as a traffic calming device and so, you know, if we can preserve that functionality, that it calms and slows people, that would be nice. But, obviously, want it to be safe. Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have got a -- got a couple things that I haven't -- I don't think I have heard information on. This being a hundred percent leasable product, is there a requirement for an on-site manager and -- and can you -- can you address that? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we will have on-site management in the clubhouse for the residential property there. Cassinelli: So -- and that will be staffed to the standard business hours or what -- what's that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F39 Page 36 of 110 Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, seven days a week. We have office space for them available in the -- in the clubhouse. Cassinelli: Okay. Another question I have -- and, Mr. Chair, if I can, I have got a couple here. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Bill. Cassinelli: I don't know -- if you guys -- if-- and this might be for--for Joe, but the project to the -- on the -- I guess it would be the southwest edge there where all the -- where the townhouses are lined up, I don't know what's proposed in that adjacent property, but is that a -- is that a good transition to what's --what-- because, obviously, there is something -- we have got a cul-de-sac in there and I don't know what -- if we have looked at that before. I have missed the last couple of meetings. So, if that's been looked at. But I would -- my -- I would just -- I want to know that we are not going to have an issue, I guess, with transition on those townhouses at some point down the road. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, great question. I touched on it in my staff report, but just not tonight. Directly adjacent -- abutting the property there is going to be a few lots -- not very many, but they will be detached single family homes and thankfully the applicant is proposing to have those townhomes opposite direction, I guess you could say, or perpendicular to those lots. That way the --those homes are not looking at 60 houses, they are only looking at one side of a building, which I think is a great site design by them and incorporates those MEWs as well and the pathway that's also a buffer between those that will include landscaping. So, I touched on all of that in my staff report and I think that it should be a fine transition. I don't -- I don't think we will have any issues there. Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, this is Bill. Also to that point is we -- we have an active application right now, so we can't get into too many of those details with you guys, but you will see that coming for -- forthcoming and just to let you know that the same engineering firm is representing that landowner, too, so they are working together and making sure that these projects do integrate and get some of that connectivity that we are looking for in this area. So, I just wanted to let you know, yes, that's all being worked out and everyone's working together and that's really how we are going to get this Pine Street connected and completed with this project. It's critical. To me that's the critical point -- portion of this development is really getting that Pine Street connected with the first phase and this applicant -- and even the applicant to the north is willing to do that now, because it's required of their development. So, they are working out those details, a private agreement behind the scenes, and, again, we have had conversations with the applicant, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F40 Page 37 of 110 they know the city's desire to make that happen and they are doing everything they can to do that. I did just want it basis -- at least give you guys a little bit of insight with my experience on this project, just to kind of help you guys -- guide you to a decision or some recommendation tonight I guess, because we have gotten off topic a little bit. It's -- it's not always professional for us to be here bantering back and forth about a project and this is an unusual one for sure. We --we had Public Works give us -- have some concerns -- raised some concerns and so Joe did what he did as the lead, reached out and tried to resolve that issue, although it was a little late in the process, I wish we could have got it before the app was done -- figured it out before the application was before you, but sometimes those things happen. Now, Joe and I did meet with some of the applicant's team back in October and we talked about some of these integrations and some redesign with them and we all left that meeting feeling comfortable and we were also asked to condition the project with some of those changes and so, in my opinion, I -- I left that meeting in October thinking we had -- we had a solution. I think they somewhat agreed that they could look at making some of those changes. Ultimately they didn't and so staff landed on a position that -- where we had to make a recommendation to make sure that what they were proposing was not only consistent with code, but consistent with the comp plan's policies and I think the applicant's representative Deb does a great job, I mean the comp plan is a guide, it's -- it's not thou shall, but, you know, it is -- it is open to interpretation and from staff's vantage point we feel -- maybe not always the changes that we are proposing this evening, but some of those changes could be incorporated to get this in alignment a little closer to what we feel is more consistent with the mixed use community designation and so I'm -- staff -- and staff was very adamant that potentially continuing this out and working with the applicant to smooth out some of thing is probably in their best interest, but realizing that, you know, they -- they -- they have spent a significant amount of time and money into this site design and although it's not -- it's not horrible, it's not a bad site design, I appreciate the commentary tonight and -- and Deb explaining somehow that integration and their thought process behind that. To me that helps go a long ways. So, certainly, I don't -- I don't know if we are all on the same page tonight. We will -- we will leave that up to you, but as you know, this is annexation. This is -- once we get zoning -- I mean we lose a little bit of that control. So, this is our one chance to get it right and if you guys think the plan that they are presenting is getting it right, then, by all means, you know, forward on a recommendation of approval and strike those conditions. If you feel like we haven't baked this idea -- this plan enough and you still want to see Public Works -- or at least have somebody testify at a hearing to speak about some of their concerns or if we have it worked out, that's fine, we can move forward with the condition as the applicant stated. But it's our opinion -- at least staff's opinion that there needs to be further refinement to this plan and going back to -- even going back to the Black Cat project, you know, this Commission was -- was very instrumental in making sure -- I mean this is mixed use. Although we can -- yes, we have a design review process. We know they could come back and provide elevations and go through that process and try to emulate the development. This is mixed use. This is meant to be integrated. To me all of these details should be provided to you now to make sure that it is consistent with the mixed use and that's exactly what you did on the previous project, you have told them to bring back -- you wanted more commercial and you wanted them to incorporate the commercial elevations into that design and that's what we tied them to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F41 Page 38 of 110 in their project off of Chinden Boulevard. So, to me we are treating this application -- this application the same as the last one. We worked with them. We made changes. Deb acknowledged that, that we worked very well -- I thought it was a very good effort and we appreciate their collaboration and their teamwork. I mean they did a phenomenal job. That turned out better than when they first submitted it and that's really what we are trying to do, we are trying to help guide them and partner with them, so that we can carry this along side and not bring any issues to and go forward to City Council with a project that we can all be proud of. So, I'm going to quit grandstanding now. Sorry, Deb. But I just at least wanted to share with the Commission that, you know, each project is unique, but at the same time I think we have seen this similar project and a lot of these same issues that were brought up on that project still exist on this project. So, I just want to at least try to refresh your memory on that previous project and let you know that we did work very well together and we got to the finish line. So, I will just stop my-- my grandstanding here and, then, stand for any other questions you guys may have. Fitzgerald: Bill, thank you. We always appreciate your perspective. It helps keep us moving forward and keep us focused. So, thank you very much. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I just -- if I could -- I guess questions answered, which -- which I appreciate. I just wanted to make some comments, too, on this and that was good hearing -- hearing Bill's perspective. I do like --there is a lot of elements about this that I like that are unique. I looked at some of the applicant's other projects throughout the -- the country and I think they bring a -- I think they bring a refreshing aspect that -- we seem to get stuck in some of the same things here in Meridian by the same developers doing projects over and over and over again. It's kind of a rubber stamp. Nothing unique. And I think this brings some unique aspects. So, I -- I'm 0- you know, I appreciate the comments from staff and I don't normally like to -- you know -- and I totally respect staff and -- and what they do and their -- their passion and heart for doing things right. I -- I -- there is -- there is a lot of things I like about this. The only thing that I -- to me is this a public -- Public Works issue that needs to be resolved and -- and I don't like -- you know, I'm -- I like having the complete package, so I'm a little -- I am disappointed that we didn't get it with -- with all those questions answered already. So, we are not trying to have to figure out how we move, but I did want to comment that I really like a lot of the aspects. I like -- I do like the commercial -- all that commercial tight together, because it does keep it -- it keeps it together instead of being spread about. But in my opinion what we really need to do is, obviously, figure out that Public Works aspect and I don't know if just that condition is good enough for that. But those are -- those are my thoughts right now. Fitzgerald: So, Commissioner Cassinelli, I wholeheartedly agree with you and I think that I love the productivity that's literally getting built down the street from me off of Black Cat. So, I totally agree with your comments. I think this is a unique product that is needed in our area and I don't think we would probably have a problem. I just want to make sure Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F42 Page 39 of 110 we have all our ducks in a row and -- and I'm not saying that you guys don't, I'm just saying we don't have all the information we need to -- from our team possibly to make a good decision. So, it has nothing to do with design of the project in my opinion right now, it's making sure that we have all our information. So, if it's the commissioner-- if you feel comfortable with the aspects that Joe's laid out in the conditions, I just -- my concern is looking at the response from the applicant we have five pages of response with -- that are basically -- we don't -- that they don't agree with a lot of the conditions that are in there. So, we are going to need to sit down for a while here and work through five pages of response and what I think maybe we could possibly -- as Bill suggested, continue this to the 7th of January, which is only two weeks away and I know that it's the holidays and I will let-- Deb, I will let you comment on this, but we don't have very much on that calendar -- let you guys sit down with -- with the team of our-- of staff, finalize all this stuff and give us a package that we know we can be proud of and move forward without any real issue and we can feel like we are doing our job for City Council. Deb, would love -- would love your feedback there. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on it. Now, obviously, we don't want more delay. It's been a long process and we did come forward with a fully complete site plan. But we understand your concern of wanting the Public Works item to be resolved and -- and resolved in a way that it's been for you that you know the site plan that you like is going to happen and so if we could limit the deferral to not open everything back up and just be to -- you know, confirm the Public Works, we would ask that of you if we could, to consider that, so that it is truly just to get that last item pinned down. That would be our request. That we -- we would just appreciate everything we can to move forward in a timely way and not, you know, revisit everything. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Sorry. I never want to delay you guys. I know how much time and money goes into your efforts. So, that's never my -- I don't want to delay you anymore than you have to. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: I think that was Commissioner McCarvel speaking. Fitzgerald: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner McCarvel. Sorry. McCarvel: Yeah. Do we want to discuss some of the other things before issuing the continuance and do we want to do public testimony tonight or on the continuance? Or is there any? Fitzgerald: I don't know if we have -- we didn't have any in the packets. I guess we need to check and see. We can keep moving forward. I -- I think we all -- I don't want to speak for everybody, but I -- I mean I think we -- we liked the design previously and we have worked really well to get that over the finish line, as Bill said, and I think there is some -- I know Commissioner McCarvel, you probably-- you and I probably are on the same page Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F43] Page 40 of 110 on where the commercial is and it sounds like Commissioner Cassinelli may be as well. So, I'm happy -- McCarvel: Yeah. I like where the -- Fitzgerald: -- happy to do that and just work through it. McCarvel: Yeah. I like where the commercial is. I also -- I agree I think with the applicant about that unit in the back, about not having that being open space. I think it's probably safer having the unit back there and, then, the subjective about the colors -- I actually like the colors, even though there is not that many, I -- they caught -- there is a lot of contrast. So, you know, it's -- to me it's better than having four pale colors, you know. The design I think offered a lot of kind of-- you know, was pleasing. But I do -- yeah, I think if we get that roundabout or just that entrance figured out and the Public Works. I think a lot of the other stuff in it I like, so -- Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean I'm -- if it's alright I'm just going to go through the applicant's responses here to the staff report and ask questions specific to that. So, on A-2 -- and, Joe, these --these questions are kind of coming your way as -- and if -- if you are looking at the applicant's response to A-2, what exactly -- I'm just trying to get a better understanding of exactly what that means and their response, to make sure that we have got the rest of this. Because there is five pages of it here. Two pages are basically as explanation and some of the rest of it is, you know, dotting I's and crossing T's in my opinion. I just want to make sure that, you know, like A-2, A-15, B-2-9, that those responses from the applicant are acceptable. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Seal, sure. The -- how do I put this here? I got to read their specific recommend -- or request there. Seal: Yeah. Sorry. To put you on a spot, but it's -- Dodson: No problem. Seal: -- there is just a lot of info here and I want to make sure that, you know, if we do move forward with this that it's informed. Parsons: Mr. Chair, this is Bill. I would suggest that we let Joe review the applicant's response. Let's get through the public hearing portion. Let's open this up for public Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F44 Page 41 of 110 testimony and finish that and, then, we can let Deb have a rebuttal and, then, Joe -- and, then, we can attack any of those other applicant's response and conditions and that if we -- that way you can make -- either get prepared to make a decision or make a recommendation to continue, deny, approve, whatever it may be, but let's -- let's just form a final -- follow the process first and, then, we can circle back on that applicant's rebuttal and answer some of those questions for you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe and Bill. Parsons: You're welcome. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, does that work for you? Seal: Yes. Fitzgerald: Because that -- I think that's my concern is that we are going to be here for another two hours walking through this and that's what I want to see before we get here. In normal circumstances we are -- we have a couple of items that are on -- we don't have a five page list and that's my -- that's -- and I know we are slammed and staff's busy, but that's -- usually we have most of that stuff worked out and we are on a couple of items, so -- but let's -- yeah, let's keep processing forward. Anybody have any additional questions for Deb at this point? If not, we will open the public hearing -- or open for public testimony and, Deb, we will come back to you, so you can close and, then, we will fire questions at Joe after that. Does that work, Commissioner Seal? Seal: Possibly. My -- my only concern is that if we go through with the public testimony and we come back, then, we have -- and we do move to continue it, then, we have to condition that as well, so that we refine that into the smallest amount of hearing possible the next go around. Fitzgerald: That's -- I think that's Deb's request as well. Seal: Okay. And that's -- that's my only concern. I think we are -- we are down to the meat of it at this point in time. I think we are close. I think we are -- my opinion is we are still far enough away that a continuance is there, but I just want to make sure that if we go that route that, you know, we -- we do it with the smallest footprint as possible. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Makes sense. Any additional questions or comments at this point? Okay. Deb, we will come back to you shortly, ma'am. Madam Clerk, is there anyone who wishes to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, there is not. Fitzgerald: And if you are on Zoom, please, raise your hand via the Zoom application at the bottom of the screen. Commissioner Grove, you are giving me a thumbs up that nobody is there? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F45 Page 42 of 110 Grove: We have four people in the audience, but nobody's indicating to speak on this one. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Seal, do you want to walk through with Joe or do you want me to have Deb to go ahead through and close? What would be your preference? I want to make sure we run through -- Seal: Yeah. In the interest of time let's go ahead and have Deb wrap it up and, then, we can have -- hear from Joe and I think we are ready to make a decision at that point. Nelson: I will save you the time, because I know we do --we do want to work through the conditions. We appreciate that effort. If you have questions of me I will answer them and I would like to weigh in on any comments on the conditions as you walk through them, but I think we have said what we need to say to support the development. Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Deb, we appreciate it. Thank you so much. Joe, do you have some feedback as -- I know you probably were speed reading, but you can start walking us through the responses -- walk through this? Dodson: Absolutely, Mr. Chair. The first one I understand where they are coming from for A.2. I don't a hundred percent agree with the way that they are requesting to write it, only because I do want -- and when we write these we do specifically want to note that they need a rezone exhibit and legal descriptions to be revised. I'm assuming that--that's presumed, but we also want that specifically written. If they want to take off the end, because none of my recommended changes are going to be there, I'm perfectly fine. don't -- I'm not going to -- I don't care. That's fine. So, basically, to say at least ten days prior to Council hearing the applicant shall provide a revised plat and rezone exhibits and legal descriptions of their requested R-15 and C-C zoning districts to eliminate any split zoning, that's fine with me. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, we would agree with that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Deb. Moving on to the next one, Joe. Dodson: You want to go literally to the next one, A-5, or the ones that they are amenable to, but want corrections? Which -- how are we doing this? Seal: I -- the ones -- I mean the ones that I seek to understand specifically were the A-2, A-15 and B-2-9, just to make sure that I understand what -- what that -- what the implications are with that. Dodson: Okay. All right. A-15. The applicant shall obtain certificate of zoning compliance approval for the entire subject site prior to applying for any building permits. That is in line with most multi-family and commercial projects. The point of having it for the entire site is because it's a mixed use project. If -- I'm amenable to splitting it up Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F46 Page 43 of 110 between the residential -- one for the residential, one for the commercial. That -- that's fine as well. That's also in line with the way that we do things if these happen to come in separately. So, again, I -- when I wrote that condition it was just to go along with the fact that it's one project. Granted, any approval garnered from this will also be the overarching theme. So, it works both ways. Parsons: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Bill, go ahead. Parsons: I just want -- I just want to go back to that condition a little bit more and just get explanation. Maybe even from the applicant. Is it your -- your intent to develop this in two phases? Because that's how we would do that. Your commercial would have to come in with a phase and, then, the residential could come in as one phase and you could show us a phasing plan from -- until Council -- ten days prior to City Council give us your phasing plan. But I know it's been our staff's experience that our City Council and even P&Z would like to get some of those landscape improvements along the frontage, just to kind of beautify the development and, then, hold off on the rest of the commercial pad sites, but I don't know if the applicant is amenable to maybe even adding a condition that if they do phase the development for the commercial, at least commit to doing the frontage improvements along Ten Mile with the first phase, so that we get all that landscaping in at one time. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I do have a condition already in there that requires that the frontage and landscape improvements are done with phase one, even if there is not a phase, but in general to have them done up front. So, I think we are covered there. But, then, to Bill's point -- and thank you, Bill. I agree, yes. The other aspect of requiring a CZC for the whole site is because this has not been presented to us as a phased development. So, if they are going to develop the whole site at once, then, they should do one CZC and, then, knowing that each individual pad site -- commercial pad site will also require a CZC for that building and design review for those buildings. Nelson: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Deb, go ahead. Nelson: We are amenable to providing that phasing plan as requested. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. What was the -- B-9. Dodson: Yes. B.2.9. Correct. So, this -- as I noted before, they are requesting to change it to the same one that was written in for Modern Craftsman at Black Cat, which is the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F47 Page 44 of 110 sister project to this. Again, the only reason that was changed before was because the existing condition notes a final plat, which was not applicable and the other project is applicable in this case, because this is a preliminary plat because of other legal issues regarding whether or not the -- the type of parcel it is and whether it's been subdivided before, et cetera. They have to do a preliminary plat. So, at final plat these other things need to occur and that is one of those stop gaps that Public Works has to ensure that the road base and the sewer and water systems and everything is approved and finalized before the subdivision is recorded. Sorry. And that the final plat is recorded prior to receiving any building permits. This is to ensure that we don't give building permits out before all the public improvements are -- are there. That's -- that's why staff is not amenable to changing that condition. Nelson: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Nelson: Can I just say thank you to the Commission for allowing us to do this. We can agree to the -- the B-2-9 language as presented if we could -- our concern with the final plat is that we would just like it to be approved, not recorded, because there is a significant amount of development that occurs after approval and before recording with bonding and so I think that would address our concerns and we don't have to go all the way back to the same language. We had proposed that, because it had been approved by the city, but I understand the concern that Joe's making, that there is a reason to not go all the way to that language. If we could have that the final plat for the subdivision shall be approved prior to applying for building permits, that allows us to move forward expeditiously and in accordance with the city code that allows bonding. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. So, I think that leaves maneuvering things around. Is the -- and the open lot versus the buildable lot in the rear and, then, colors. Is that my understanding? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Joe. Dodson: If I may make this easier for everybody, I will not fall on the sword for moving the vertically integrated and/or removing that lot along the southwest. I understand the explanations and the desires of the applicant. I think I have a better understanding now than what I did, to be honest, which I appreciate it. Thank you, Deb. So, that is understandable. I do still feel that having townhomes along Pine is somewhat of a better transition than those detached units. I don't want to make them lose units. That's not my intention either. If they could remove those 14 and maybe add -- add additional -- if they did three of the townhomes that would be 18. So, they actually gain some. I could see how that would work. Maybe even just two and, then, they lose two units, compared to the 14. Again, part of that point is to help alleviate some of the utility concerns of having garages or carports within the easement along the private street, which would not be an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F48 Page 45 of 110 issue anymore if you have driveways abutting that street. So, again, as I said before, I did not receive that e-mail that Mr. Bailey referenced, so he's right and I did not get that -- I did receive a separate e-mail noting that, yes, we are a lot closer, but we are still not a hundred percent clear how this is going to work and that hundred clear part is where I have concern and so that's why I have that condition in the staff report, noting that at least ten days prior, which I feel needs to be a very hard deadline that most applicants never adhere to -- needs to be held to and so that we have adequate time to both review those documents and also get a proper recommendation from Commission to Council. I think that's very important. So, the other -- like I said, the -- the southwest unit, keep it. Fine. Keep the vertically integrated where it is. Understandable. The colors. As I noted that -- the point that I was trying to refer to is that the specific use -- or the architecture standards manual says that no two multi-family buildings will be -- should look the same. However, there is 135 units and multiple, multiple buildings in here. So, you can't have, you know, 80 different looks. I understand that. My point is that both the Commission and the Council last time around, the same color scheme, had noted that it tends to blend together, which also is part of the mixed use policies. So, I can understand they are contradictory somewhat, but my point of that was just to try to help get a little bit more differentiation between the units, a little bit more pizazz, for lack of a better term, just to help bring a little bit more life. Again, if the Commission feels differently, I understand that as well. Maybe it gave me flashbacks to West Point. I don't know. Not a good time. But it -- it makes sense, though, to keep them cohesive as well. I do understand that. And, then, I don't -- I don't believe there were any other concerns, other than the internal intersection, which, again, I would like to note has been brought up multiple times and we were told to condition that. So, I -- that's what we did. So, that's where we are at with that. Fitzgerald: Joe, quick question on the -- the townhomes on the Pine side. Dodson: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: If we had clarification from Public Works on -- on waterlines and -- would that give us the ability to understand that better? And we don't have that right now. Would that -- if we did have that at a later date would that help us or -- Dodson: Mr. Chair -- Fitzgerald: -- or does that need to be dealt with now? Dodson: -- to address your -- I -- having their approval and, then, having all the plans revised to reflect that would be very beneficial, yes, because I don't know if I said it specifically, but the plans that were shown here -- at least in my presentation -- do not reflect some of those easement changes that I also received in a separate document and so my concern is that some of this may not be a hundred percent accurate. Again, I -- I didn't draw these, so I can't make those changes. I don't know if they were that major. I think some section of the roads were widened and that changed some things there and, then, the placement of the garages, carports, changed as well, which is not reflected on Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F49 Page 46 of 110 any of the CUP plan or-- I don't know the parking plan, if that was updated or not, because that wasn't in my set of plans. So, I think that having those all be reflected throughout those site plans would be a benefit, yes. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome, sir. Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions for Joe? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, are you looking for my feedback on those items? Fitzgerald: I think we are just trying to see where we -- what we have left over and where we can go. So, if you have additional comments, please, share them. Nelson: I appreciate all the work by -- and cooperation with Joe and the work by the Commission. It sounds to us like we can bring back for you before the 7th in time for you to consider a full package on the 7th. We need to address the intersection. We need to address the Public Works requirements and confirm that, in fact, they have approved our plans. And we need to provide you the updated rezone and plat lines. And so with that I think that we --we feel strongly that we can do all of that before your January 7th hearing, so that you can just have those items remaining. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Any additional questions for Deb before we close the public hearing and -- or maybe not close the public hearing -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: -- and deliberate. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Thanks. Hey, Deb, I had a question for you on something that we haven't really discussed and, sorry, I don't want to drag this out any longer, but just in regards to the vertical integrated unit that's in the center, one of the aspects that you had on the last project on Black Cat and Chinden was integration with that vertically integrated product more so with the open space and my question is how is that envisioned to work with that open space that is next to it, but not necessarily behind it? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Grove, thanks for that question. So, the vertically integrated space that we had at Black Cat was along Black Cat Road and it was separated from the clubhouse by a road and it was actually separated from the big community plaza area by the road, too. It was the pop up space that kind of opened right onto that plaza. So, I think that might be what you are thinking of. But, in any case, we -- we actually like Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F50 Page 47 of 110 that -- the way that both of these vertically integrated buildings are oriented here. They accommodate that kind of active streetscape with the parking that's available to serve them, so you get that commercial activity, but also has the pedestrian pathway that runs along both of them that is part of the -- like for the one on the north, the east-west connection for those residences as they are moving toward the commercial area and, then, you have the raised crosswalks or delineated crosswalks that are going to go just next to that that connects on the side of that northern vertically integrated building and same when you look at the one that's central. It's next to the open space, the park on one side, on the other you have got the raised crosswalk that goes across and in the middle you have got the larger crosswalk that goes over to the two central plazas. So, it's not facing the big plaza in the same direct way as that the pop up was, but it is fully surrounded by connectivity on all sides. Grove: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Fitzgerald: Any additional follow up, Commissioner Grove? Grove: No. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Deb at this time? Deb, you are awesome. Thank you so much for working through it with us and we will have a chat and we will go from there. Before we close the public hearing, do we have a direction we want to head? It sounds like Deb knows where they need to go. Do we feel comfortable bringing it back on the 7th of January with that information? Is there anything else you would like her to take into account or do we want to deliberate on anything further? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I have a list of things that I wrote down from all the comments if you want me to read through them and see if we are hitting all the marks. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Holland: Okay. I have, first of all, A-2, that we would revise the staff report to have the applicant provide a revised plat for lots and zone lines. A-15. That the applicant will phase the commercial and do the frontage improvements with the first phase. B-2.9. That the final plat should be approved prior to building permit, not necessarily prior to being recorded. We would remove the condition to relocate the vertically integrated structures and leave them where they are. That we would have the applicant revisit with staff on the types of units that are against Pine. That was a request by Bill. The color palette is still an item of discussion if we want to include something about that. I -- I'm okay with the color palette, the way that it is, but we could put a condition in there that the applicant would consider an additional color palette or accent that could help with differentiation. Confirm with Public Works on meeting their needs with this application Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F51 Page 48 of 110 and, then, the last thing I had was adjust the layout to show a revised roundabout or alternative intersection in the entrances around the commercial. Fitzgerald: Sounds right to me. Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: That's -- it's like she was looking at my notes. But very similar notes. The only thing -- I agree with -- and maybe it's because I have lived on military housing as well, so -- I mean I know in the beginning with the contrast that's there, it all looks shiny brand new and everything, but over time that's going to -- it's going to look like Army housing, you know. Navy housing. So, I just don't think there is -- there is enough color -- there is enough different -- different -- difference in there for sure, as far as what's built and how it's built and how it's put together and presented, but the color palette to me needs to be expanded to provide something a little bit less earthy in areas where applicable. Fitzgerald: Thoughts on the lot in the back? I know I heard Commissioner McCarvel's opinion on that. I -- I have mixed emotions, because I think it is a great spot for open space, even if it is in the back. So, I'm -- and it's kind of a weird spot without seeing a lot there. But I'm kind of -- I'm indifferent. So, any additional thoughts there? Grove: Mr. Chair? Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm kind of indifferent on it as well. Grove: Mr. Chair, I -- I think it's hard to fully make a decision, just because we don't know what's to the west of it and so knowing if it -- how open that would look from -- from a police perspective, I think that would be -- it's somewhat hard to make a full decision on that in that -- in that regard. Fitzgerald: Maybe we could ask Joe to get Meridian Police Department's opinion on that sort of change, if they have an opinion. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: One other thought is if we did leave that as open space it might be nice to have some sort of specific amenity to it that would help prevent crime-related type uses. Like potentially it could be a good dog park location, if you had a fenced area, or -- I don't know. Something that's a little more visible, so it's not -- not a danger zone. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: And I'm okay with keeping a lot there, too. It doesn't seem to be a conflict to me. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F52 Page 49 of 110 Fitzgerald: Okay. With that I think we have given Deb direction and I think we have space on our 7th -- July -- or January 7th calendar, so is there any other additional comments or things we need to share with them, so they can make decisions and be able to finalize everything to bring it back on a very limited public hearing package? Parsons: Mr. Chair, is there any desire of the Commission to see commercial elevations or are you in agreement with the applicant allowing that to happen when they actually have an end user? Fitzgerald: They are coming back with a CP or a CUP; right? Parsons: For the drive-thru use, yes. It's going to depend on the proposed use in the commercial zone, whether or not that's principally permitted or conditional use. Fitzgerald: Thoughts, team? Seal: I believe was -- A-11 was the one that was in there and I just -- well, no, that was A-14. I don't have a note on that one. It seems like -- you know, if there were elevations submitted, then, that seems to be covered. That said, there is -- I think there is a -- I don't have any issues with them needing to submit elevations for that. If that's what they are after. Between now and then. Holland: Mr. Chair? Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Dodson: It was Commissioner Holland and, then, myself, but -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland and -- it all forms into Commissioner Grove's voice. that was awesome. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, then, we will go to Joe. Holland: Mr. Chair and Joe, one of my suggestions would be on the commercial elevations that we could just make a note that says it would be something comparable to what was shown on the flyover video. I felt like they did kind of show some sample elevations in the way that the flyover came through, how the commercial would integrate in. I don't know. That's just a thought. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thanks, Commissioner Holland, I do understand that and that's kind of the point of why I asked for that. It's not to say that this is what you shall build, it's just this is annexation and a mixed use project, I'm not asking for something we don't always ask for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F53 Page 50 of 110 with commercial projects, which is some type of conceptual elevations. More so as a guide for future development. I do not plan on saying that these are the elevations that will be built. It's more of just conceptual, so both Commission understands what's being proposed and also Council. That's -- that was my only comment there. Fitzgerald: Okay. Holland: I'm fine adding that to the list. Fitzgerald: Does somebody want to make a continuance motion, if that's the direction we are headed, and try to make it as narrowly as possible to keep us where we -- we will work with the applicant on these specific things and we can go from there? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file number -- there is a lot of text here. H-2022-0099, Mile High Pines, to the hearing date of January 7th for the following reasons: That the staff and would work with the applicant and also make adjustments in the staff report on these items. A-2. That the applicant would provide a revised plat to align lots and zone lines. A-15. Modify that the applicant will phase the commercial and do frontage improvements with the first phase of development, but that they would also provide conceptual elevations for what the commercial could look like in the future. Modify B-2.9, that the final plat should be approved prior to building permit, not necessarily before recording. That we would remove the condition of relocating the vertically integrated structures and leave them where they are. That the applicant would revisit with staff on the type of units that are going to be placed against Pine and the transition there. That the applicant would consider an additional color palette or some sort of accent within the site development that could help with differentiation and breaking up the development. That the applicant would -- or that staff would confirm with Public Works on meeting their needs with the application and have that reported in the staff report. That the applicant would adjust the layout to show a revised roundabout or alternative intersection in the entrance around the commercial and I think that's it. Fitzgerald: Nice work. I have a motion. Grove: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue -- if I can find it -- file number H- 2020-0099 to the hearing date of January 7th, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F54] Page 51 of 110 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Deb, thank you guys. Joe, thanks for all your work. Appreciate it. We look forward to seeing you on the 7th. Nelson: Thank you. Merry Christmas. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One quick comment before we keep moving on. I know we still have three applications to hear tonight. I'm a little bit nervous about the last application, that we might lose some folks who had interest in public testimony before we even get to those applications. Do we want to confirm with the clerk if we have -- or if we have people signed up for public testimony on some of those last items, to see if we want to shuffle things around? Fitzgerald: Yeah. We can -- Madam Clerk, do we have public testimony on the last three items? Can you give us some -- I don't want to -- I mean I understand what you are saying. What I want to say is that we can call it when we think we need to and that's not putting any pressure on -- but I also want to make sure the public gets their time and they have spent some time with us tonight. But if we are feeling like we can't go further than the next two, I want to make sure we do that now. So, thank you for bringing that up. Madam Clerk, do you have thoughts there? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, since we are doing in person and online, I have some signup sheets that I have to run and get from the back. Preliminary information shows that I do have only -- on the next three applications I have a few people that have signed up for the Southridge South application. Give me 30 seconds and I will be right back to give you more information. Fitzgerald: Okay. Does anybody need a real quick break? Cassinelli: This might be a good time to take one. Fitzgerald: Yeah. While she's doing that let's do a three minute break or a bio break and get some water and we will be back in -- at 8:37. (Recess: 8:34 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.) Fitzgerald: We are mostly back. Madam Clerk, do you have more information for us? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I do. So, for Daphne Square I have a few people that are in house wishing to testify on that project. On Cache Creek I have one person in house wishing to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F55] Page 52 of 110 testify on that project. On Southridge South I don't have anybody signed up in house to testify on that project, but I do have one or two people online wishing to testify. Fitzgerald: I think we need to keep plowing forward, especially if we have people in chambers on the next two. So, if is there a time when we -- if you have a situation where you need to get off, let us know and we can make sure we have a quorum. But let's see how far we can get. Commissioner Holland, I know you are in a situation where the little one may need you, too. So, keep us in the loop and we will keep plowing forward until you -- and we have a quorum -- over a quorum right now, so if there is a situation where you needed to hop off, we totally understand. But let's see how far we can get and let me know if there is -- if there is a concern from you or from other Commissioners and we will go from there. Does that work? Holland: Sounds good. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 6. Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located 4700 W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Thank you. With that let us move on to the next item on our agenda. I think we have everybody back. The next item on the agenda is Daphne Square Subdivision, file number H-2020-0101 and let's start with the staff report. Alan, are you available? Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. If you can hear me and see my presentation give me a thumbs up. Fitzgerald: You're good, sir. Go right ahead. Tiefenbach: So, this is a proposal for annexation and rezoning to R-15 and a preliminary plat to allow 30 building -- 30 building lots and three common lots. The site is 4.97 acres of land. It's presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county and it's located at 4700 West McMillan Road. It's north -- northeast corner of North Black Cat and West McMillan. You can see the future land use map there. It recommends medium density residential. You can see the zoning map in the middle and the aerials. We will start with the plat here. So, the property presently contains an existing manufactured home that will be removed. This proposal includes mostly duplexes, in addition to several single family attached structures. Staff does believe this is a housing plat that would lead to more diversity in housing, as a majority of the housing in this area is single family residential. I will put this out. It's easier to see this color probably plat. There is two points of access proposed. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F56 Page 53 of 110 The first is an internal street that's here. It goes to the north to Brody Square, which was approved I think in July. It comes up to Daphne Street and, then, you can either go east down to McMillan or you can go west to North Black Cat. Only one street, which is this one here, will serve the internal development and this one dead ends in a cul-de-sac. So, Black Cat and West McMillan have presently two lanes. They don't contain any sidewalks at the present. The applicant is required to dedicate right of way for future widening and the construction of a five foot sidewalk. These are the same width that would connect with properties that have been approved -- the Brody Square to the north, as well as properties to the west. They are also -- it's important to note that there is a roundabout -- a future roundabout that is planned at this intersection here. The applicant has provided a parking exhibit, which indicates 30 additional on-street spaces. This is in addition to the two car garages and the two car driveways that are shown for all units. So, each unit has two -- like I said, two car drive -- two car garage and here is a parking plan which shows that in addition to that, above what's required, they have 30 parking spaces. This is the applicant's common open space exhibit. So, this property is less than five acres in size. This means that per our standards it does not have to meet the minimum -- the common open space and amenity requirements. However, this is an annexation and the applicant proposes the density that's at the high end of the MDR range. Again, the range is three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes six. Staff informed the applicant that in order for staff to support a density and size of R-15, this development should contain quality open space and amenities. If not, perhaps a lower density, such as R-8, would be more appropriate. The landscape plan indicates 12 percent of open space, amenity of a 5,600 square foot lot, which you can see right here, and staff is not convinced that this project -- that this project actually proposes 12 percent common open space. The reason why is, first of all, it counts the buffers twice. You can only count the landscape buffers along Black Cat and McMillan as one half. So, that's counted as one half. But it also looks like that they might be counting the parkways that are along this as well, which is kind of double counting. The other thing is that the parkways that you can see along Riva Capri Street, those are the detached sidewalks. You can't count the driveways and this exhibit here, from what you are seeing, shows that those driveways are being counted. And the last thing is that there is a -- as we mentioned there is a roundabout that is eventually proposed at the Black Cat-McMillan Road intersection and we don't know how much of this landscaping at the end of that cul-de-sac this project is going to lose, but we do think that that could happen. We would really want to see what this project will look like after that roundabout and after the right of way is dedicated. But also I guess staff's opinion is that the -- the common open space that they are proposing here is directly on the intersection of North Black Cat and the West McMillan. Staff doesn't believe that a park or a bench directly on this intersection would be considered quality open space, something that the residents would use. So, staff's recommendation -- there is a retention pond, which is shown up here -- let me back up and you can see it here. So, there is a retention basin that's shown here. One of staff's recommendations is that these two lots could be merged into one larger open space and this could serve as a quality open space. Per the code if it is more than five acres, if they were using the retention basin, then, they would have to provide at least 20,000 square foot of additional space. In this particular case this is much less, but we do think it would be usable. Again, staff's -- staff's thoughts on this is that they are proposing to go to R-15, which is pretty Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F57 Page 54 of 110 dense. That's pretty high on the recommendation, but staff's opinion is that if they don't provide a good quality open space for the residents, we would probably recommend something lower, otherwise R-8. Here is a picture of the elevations if you would like to see them. With that -- really that's our -- our only major issue is the merging of the two lots into the detention basin and with that staff recommends approval of the conditions as listed in the staff report. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for Alan at this point? Okay. Hearing none, thanks, Alan. We appreciate that. Would the applicant like to come forward or join us -- I think Matt's online. Matt, I see you -- thanks, Alan. Matt, can you unmute yourself and turn your video on if you would like and you can join us. Matt, are you with us, sir? Schultz: I am with you. Fitzgerald: Hey, sir. Good evening. Schultz: Get the light off my face. It's a little bright. That's a little better. All right. Fitzgerald: Please introduce yourself and the floor is yours, sir. Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile in Meridian. Here on behalf of Berkeley Communities for the Daphne Square Subdivision. Thanks for having me and staying up a little late. It's a pretty small little site that -- that Joe Atalla brought to me and said, hey, what can we do with this and even though it says 4.97, it's really about 3.75. It has an extraordinary right of way requirement being on a corner. I have done some other 4.97 sites -- acre sites that all the right of way was already taken out. This is not one of them. So, it's a really constrained site in terms of what can you do with it. We have had a similar one with Berkeley a few years ago --three years ago called Bancroft Square by Sutherland Farm. It was a cul-de-sac and your open space tends to be on the end of the cul-de-sac and -- or, if not, you are -- you are just losing lots to lose lots and I would be remiss to -- to do so without at least giving some other options and so I want to speak to that. But first I would like to kind of go to the -- the big picture of where our site is and how it relates to Brody Square to the north that was approved over the summer previous to us, because, really, this is like a phase two of Brody Square and that our access relies on it, because we cannot take access off of Black Cat and McMillan any longer with the intersection being right there and we rely on their sewer, their water, their -- everything. And they are -- they are out there right now tearing down some houses and getting going and -- and we hope to kind of come along a few months behind them and do phase two. So, if -- I don't know if Alan or somebody can put -- can you put up that -- or if I can take control of the presentation to where I can scroll forward a little bit. Tiefenbach: You should be able to share your screen there, Matt. You should have the option to do that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F58 Page 55 of 110 Schultz: Okay. Share screen. All right. Well, I have never shared a screen before, so -- Tiefenbach: There you go. Schultz: All right. All right. All right. I'm little bit -- you are screen sharing. Okay. I'm not seeing anything -- Tiefenbach: I think it's to your computer desktop right now. Schultz: Okay. You were going to put up -- you were going to put some of your slides. I gave you a couple of them. I didn't have them -- I didn't have them uploaded and ready to go, those ones that I sent you. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, Matt, this is Adrienne. I can help you. Which one do you want? Schultz: The one that shows both of Brody Square and -- it's green and white. It just has green open space and white. I apologize. I need to be more sophisticated. Fitzgerald: No worries. Matt, you can stop sharing your screen, that will give Adrienne back the screen. Schultz: Stop share. There we go. Weatherly: Okay. Commissioners, this is a pdf, so I'm trying to maneuver it, so that you can see everything here. One moment. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Weatherly: Matt, tell me if this is the right one that you are thinking of. Schultz: It is. Great. Thank you. So, you can see the -- the bottom -- the bottom rectangle down there is our five acres and the top bigger rectangle is Brody Square, which is 15 acres and this -- this whole 20 acres is about a mile away to the west of Walmart. About a mile and a half from Heroes Park. There are some R-15 and R-8. Of course, Brody Square is R-8. There is some R-15 across the street. We believe that R-15 is appropriate in this location due to the constrained location. We need some dimensional flexibility. The densities -- I would say only six for R-15, especially the medium density is three to eight. Six is in the middle. We are definitely not in the high end of -- of that medium density. I thought it was important to show how we compare -- or how we connect, how we integrate with Brody Square with their -- we have the same statistics as far as percentage of usable open space. Theirs is, obviously, bigger, because they had a bigger site and a bigger area to work with. We -- we have -- if you look at a combined density of both of our sites, they had 4.3. We have six. There are -- combined is -- thank you. The combined is 4.7, which is that fourth line there. Excuse me. Third line that says density. You can also see the percent of right of way on ours is 25 percent, which is quite Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F59 Page 56 of 110 large. And perimeter right of way. I have never had a site, I don't think, with that large of a right of way. So, kind of our net acres is 3.72 and the qualified open space percentages are very similar. So, really, what we are getting down to is even though we are under five acres, we are still providing over the ten percent and we are still providing an amenity. Now, staff is wanting a little bit bigger open space and to us to relocate the amenity and we are open to that. With that said, if you can go back to that overall look, please. Like I said, we are like a phase two of Brody Square in terms of timing, integration, access. I know Mr. Atalla is working with the other owner as far as potentially joining HOAs together, cost sharing on pressure irrigation, even buying lots inside Brody Square, in addition to developing Daphne Square. This is a very similar situation to the Bancroft Square next to Sutherland Farm that we did where we proposed -- kind of thinking a little bit outside of the box here, a condition that we replace number -- condition number two, which is that we reload -- that we combine Lot 28, 29, Block 1, into Lot 30, with -- maybe that's our second alternative, but our first alternative would be to locate a playground amenity in Brody Square on the east side of that park and if that can't happen, then, we would put an amenity at the -- at our intersection, instead of at the end of the cul-de-sac and that's something that I know this Commission has done before and allowed when we are joining or there is the potential to join, those things take time and we would definitely work all that out or we would build an amenity at the intersection. Do we need to lose two lots? I don't think so. I think we do with one extra one right next to that and still have ample open space. But if we can't get to the bigger playground amenity in Brody Square, which I don't see why we wouldn't, it's going to add value not only to Brody Square, but to us. It's going to be better centrally located to the entire 20 acres. It's just a better plan and I think with the -- with our five acres we kind of get down in the -- in the details and, then, to kind of zoom in on it -- and I understand where staff is coming from, but I think there is probably a better option. It's a third option than either we have presented, what they proposed, and, hey, here is a third option that I think would work out better for everybody. As far as the open space percentages, we did -- we did doublecheck those and we have 1 ,200 feet of park strips internal and that was a choice that we did. We didn't have to do it. Only 40 percent of that is counted because of driveways and our open space exhibit does say that, it says minus driveways. So, that was -- that was accounted for. We think it's a good product. It's got some good diversity. Berkeley's a good -- a good home builder. He's an architect. He's done some nice elevations and, like I said, the size -- condition two and condition three we do agree with staff's recommendation for approval and staff's conditions. Condition three is that we show the roundabout. We have --we have dropped a template of ACHD's roundabout in there and we have room. Roundabouts are very specialized designs. This is like ten years out. would hate to lock in on an exact design of what that looks like, knowing that even if they took 5,000 square feet out, we would still be over ten percent. We have ample room. We are giving 61 feet on McMillan of right of way, when typically you will see 48. So, we are already giving an extra width. We are also giving extra width on Black Cat. We are at 50 to account for that roundabout, whatever it may be in that location, and there may be a little wedge that comes out in the corner, but it's -- it's -- it's pretty much going to fit and we would hate to get locked in in an exact design when there is no exact design right now. ACHD does not have a design. They have a template that doesn't work at this specific location, because some offsets are going to have to be required. There is going Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F60] Page 57 of 110 to be some value engineering about power poles and canals and there is some other things that are outside of our-- our site that need to be taken into account with that design, but it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of money for ACHD to determine that. But in the meantime we have dedicated -- or we are going to dedicate ample right of way and before final plat maybe they will have a better design. But, like I said, this isn't even on their -- on their ten year plan right now I don't believe. So, we think it's a good design. We think it's the right location. We think it's a good mix with Brody Square. It integrates very well we believe. I think it's -- because of the constraints of the site this density isn't -- isn't too bad or offensive, if you will, and I think it blends in very well with what we got and depending on -- especially in this location. So, I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. Are there any questions for Matt at this time? Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Cassinelli: Matt, is this -- is this a rental product or not? Schultz: Is it -- oh, hi, Commissioner Cassinelli. I don't believe so. It could, but I don't believe -- that's not his intent. His -- Mr. Atalla and Berkeley Builders sell these. They are a zero lot line. Now they are not -- even though they are attached they are --they are individual lots per unit with a zero lot line between them, except for there is a couple of single family detached where we don't have an even -- an even lot count in the block, there is one on the end that's a single on a couple of the blocks. But they are -- they could rent, but at the price point and everything else, I don't think so. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, another question if I could. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Cassinelli: The -- the lots on the north side that back up to -- is it Brody Square on the north? Schultz: It is. Cassinelli: You got two to one and those are -- you know, two story product there, overlooking -- you know, you got one lot with two two story homes, what can we -- you know, is there anything that -- have you looked at -- at that transition along there? I'm not -- I would like to see a little bit -- I would like to see it a little thinner. Schultz: If I could, Mr. Cassinelli, just respond to that. There is eight lots in Brody Square backing up to our side. We have got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12 -- they are going to look like six buildings from the back, because they are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F61 Page 58 of 110 attached. It's going to look like six structures versus their eight structures. So, we -- and even talking to the other -- the other developer, he didn't see that as being a big deal, because they were attached, they won't -- they won't look like a bunch -- it won't look like two to one, even though it is two to one, because of their width and efficiency. So, that's -- that's how we are looking at it. You may still not like that, but that's -- it is actually less structures backing up to their more structures. Cassinelli: So, on that how close to the -- to the rear lot line are those? Do you have something that -- Schultz: I do. We have--we have looked at--we have looked at our layouts and because we chose to put the park strips in the front of these, it actually pushes your house ten feet back and at that we are meeting the 12 foot setback. If we did not do the park strips and pull the sidewalk and made it attached in the front, we would have 22 feet -- or 22 and a half feet, something like that. And so we do meet setbacks in there and they have 50 foot wide lots. Probably some two -- a lot of two stories as well. So, it will probably be two story to two story. Fitzgerald: Follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: No, that -- that answers it. Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Matt, I'm just curious. It's kind of along the same lines of what Commissioner Cassinelli just asked you, but would you consider doing a single family product that backs up to the existing single family that will be in the new -- in the other developments in the north of you and, then, doing your more dense product on the bottom where you have it? But would you be willing to adjust the northern part of that to do single family on that part, instead of your attached product? Just to create a better transition between those houses. Does that make sense what I'm asking? Schultz: Oh, it absolutely makes sense what you are asking. It's not my subdivision. Yeah. I know that -- I know that Mr. Atalla likes this product. It's something that he thinks complements it, but if that's your recommendation we would certainly go for the -- hopefully City Council with that recommendation that we convert that. Obviously, I think it would -- I mean if-- if you did 40 foot lots -- I don't know if you are looking to go one for one 50 foot lots, because once you get to 40 they are detached. Holland: You know, looking at it just first glance the way that it compares, I think one of my recommendations might be to have the lot lines match up and do single family -- Schultz: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F62 Page 59 of 110 Holland: -- on that northern boundary and, then, leave more of the attached product on the bottom side, but maybe that would help with the transition there. Because to me I look at that and it looks like a lot of density compared to the other project and I think -- I would agree with staff that I would rather see R-8 or R-4 there to tie in with the future use maps calling for with medium density housing there. Schultz: Right. Commissioner Holland, R-4 would definitely not -- be like 90 by 90s or something to hit the R-4. Probably be the reverse transition that we are looking for from that intersection. R-8 definitely is -- definitely within your purview. That would be -- if we did 40s in there we would lose probably three or four lots in that area right there to -- to get those in there. With the same setbacks -- same setbacks allowed in R-4 -- not R-4. Excuse me. R-8 and R-15. They are the same regarding setbacks. Fitzgerald: Follow up? Oh, is that -- oh. Okay. Any additional questions? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just listening to the applicant's testimony earlier about the roundabout that's going in there, as I'm looking over the -- the ACHD final report and in condition 2.13 in there they actually have -- and it is a very rudimentary drawing of how the roundabout would fit into that intersection and it actually looks like it -- well, it doesn't look like they are actually recommending that more offset -- let me see here. How do they word it? Applicant shall be required to dedicate additional right of way to accommodate the future construction of the multi-lane roundabout and they show an attachment on there. Has -- have you used that basically as, you know, essentially that kind of template to apply to what's being submitted? Because as I'm looking at that it's going to take a substantial piece of that corner away. Schultz: Right. Staff and ACHD dropped that in there really quick. When they do these roundabout designs they probably spend about four or five months and about a hundred thousand dollars designing them with civil engineers and survey and everything else and there is ways to rotate those, so the -- the legs curve a little more efficiently around there. They didn't do us any favors by how they dropped that in there, but that was definitely not a design drawing. They will be required to be shifted -- shifted over to the west, probably shifted up a little bit to the north. We have preliminarily dropped a template in there and there is a little bit of a cut on the corner, but there is more right of way there than it looks like. It's not an apples to apples comparison of the aerial overlay that you are seeing and our-- and our site plan, but-- but it fits -- it fits into right of way. We are giving exceptional right of way beyond and they said, yes, you are going to need to do a little -- you know, a little bit of additional right at the corner, but we have -- we have room there for them to take a little bit out of that corner. Holland: Mr. Chair, one more question. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F63] Page 60 of 110 Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Holland: It's -- it's kind of untraditional to have a cul-de-sac be on the hard corner of two major roadways. I have seen it done a few times in other subdivisions, too, but it's -- it's kind of atypical. Is there going to be significant landscaping, fencing, that kind of goes around that cul-de-sac and the open space? Schultz: Yes. Absolutely. I know we have submitted a landscape plan -- a color landscape plan and it will be berm and there is significant landscaping in our landscape plan there to where it's not going to be, hey, you can see the cul-de-sac on -- from the main road. It's going to be bermed up, trees and shrubs and bushes. Fencing. As you can see there. That's the intent. And, really, it's because there is -- there is no access allowed that close to the intersection, obviously, that -- that we have that cul-de-sac there at the end, which -- which happens sometimes on certain projects. Not a lot, but it happens sometimes. Fitzgerald: Following up on Commissioner Holland's comments. Matt, if that roundabout is built there and it eats into that -- all that landscaping, how close can we talk about it getting to the -- to the roundabout? It seems like that eats the landscaping completely. Schultz: Well, again, that -- that diagram that was shown there was -- it didn't do any justice to how that might land there, especially the final design work. But if it ate in there like maybe ten, 15 feet, there is -- there is 25 within the common lot and, then, there is more north of that -- 30 to 40 feet there, where 25 is required. So, there is -- there is quite a bit of room there. There is more than it looks like for these -- these roundabouts and, really, it's -- like I said, it's a four intersection design that they get into in there and what's funny is the next application up -- we have a site that's right on a hard corner where they have done 99 percent drawings and you can see exactly how it worked and these are -- but this one is -- which they are building next year. This one is not even on the ten year plan right now. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for Matt at this point? Seal: Mr. Chair, just -- Fitzgerald: Yes, go right ahead. Seal: -- I had one quick question. Well, just to the applicant when --what's your timeline for trying to essentially merge the two HOAs and provide for that, you know, kind of phase two go of it? Schultz: We-- how we have worded these before is, you know, prior to final plat signature shall prove that you have joined -- or have an agreement to put the amenity in there -- you know, whatever it may be or join the HOA, that we wouldn't have initially have to join the HOA, but, obviously, it would make it cleaner as far as use and all that -- be a cross use, cross-access. On the -- on Bancroft Square it was prior to final plat show Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F64 Page 61 of 110 documentation that you have -- you have done the merger or have an agreement to do the merger and that was -- that was enough for the city attorney and the staff on that one. Their idea being that we want to do it as soon as we can. You know, if we can get it worked out in the next month we would. Fitzgerald: And, Matt, that was just to clarify. That was -- you would remove the gazebo concept and move whatever it may be. Schultz: Yeah. Exactly. Fitzgerald: Okay. Got you. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have another question? Cassinelli: No. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: My last one just got answered. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead. McCarvel: Can we get that visual back up on the white and green with the two subdivisions back to back? I just want to look again if those -- yeah. If you are really looking at -- Fitzgerald: If there are 30 foot versus 50 foot lots. McCarvel: Right. But they will be one structure for over the line. Fitzgerald: Oh, yes. McCarvel: Yeah. I mean this visual -- what -- the other thing that kind of stands out to me, Matt, is just taken on the entry there where you have got the three lots, you know, coming right in a row from the single family. That's to the north of it. Coming right in on that -- on the entry there. It looks kind of -- maybe continue just the single family, make that one or two lots right there. I'm not sure how wide that would make those -- Schultz: Fifty's. McCarvel: Yeah. Schultz: Fifty, probably. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F65] Page 62 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. I mean -- and you don't notice it until you put the overview on it, but -- but that might look a little more appealing driving down that street if those were all in line. Fitzgerald: Any additional comments or questions for Matt at this point? Okay. Hearing none, Matt, we will be back to you and let you close after we take public testimony. Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, it sounds like you have people in -- in the audience that would like to testify on this application. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I do. First would be David -- is it Pera? Pera: Mr. Chairman. My name is David Pera -- oh, I'm sorry. Commissioners. I live on Daphne Street. I am the vice-president of the Beach Lateral water users and we have been working with Brody Square on their irrigation. We have live irrigation there. We flood. We all have five acre pieces. So, there's water ditches and there is wastewater ditches that flow right through Daphne Square. We haven't had any contact from the developer yet or anybody about what they plan on doing with this water. So, we are just asking that they come to us with some kind of plan, so we can go over it and approve it, talk to them and see what we can do to make everything work. Like I said, we have almost got everything done with Brody Square. I don't see any difference, but we just -- we need to get something from them. Fitzgerald: Sir, thank you so much for being here tonight. We will make sure they answer that. They are required to make sure that water flows through their -- their site and so we will -- we will make sure Matt answers that when he comes back up. But, yeah, the water definitely will continue to flow through the property and so they will make sure that that's taken care of. We appreciate you sticking with us tonight. Pera: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next is Mrs. Corbell. Fitzgerald: Good evening, ma'am. Please state your name and your address for the record and we will -- the floor is yours. Corbell: I beg your pardon? Lanelle Corbell. 4520 West McMillan, Meridian. And if you would put that plat back up. If you would put that plat back up that has the property lines on it. Fitzgerald: Madam -- there you go. Thanks, Adrienne. Corbell: That long side east of Daphne Square is my property. I have ten acres. It borders right on Brody Square and Daphne Square. It was my understanding that there would be that one street that would go along by my property line. We have livestock. We have ten acres. We have livestock. We are not in the Meridian city limits. I'm going to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F66 Page 63 of 110 have to have some kind of a substantial protection on that property line for my livestock. Also we depend completely on the irrigation to keep our grass for our livestock and that's a main irrigation line on McMillan Road that goes all the way down to the corner of Black Cat and, then, goes north towards Brody Square. So, we are going to have to be sure that we have no interruption in our water services, our irrigation, and we are going to be -- have to be sure that we are protected from people entering our property from both Daphne Square and Brody Square and we are going to need to have protection on the back, because our property goes all the way back to Daphne and that's where all the traffic's going to be and we do have small calves and we need to be protected from the traffic. We have got bumper to bumper traffic all day long on McMillan now. Everybody going down to Walmart, so -- and everybody going to work and into the construction sites and so we are going to need to be protected from that. I would urge you to make sure that they put some kind of a permanent substantial protection on that property line for those ten acres all the way down to Daphne. Fitzgerald: And, ma'am, I will have Matt respond to you when he comes back up, but -- regarding the fencing and the protection of your water and thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it greatly. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Randy Corbell. And he has chosen not to speak. That's all I have signed up, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone either in chambers or online that would like to testify on this application? Please raise your hand if you are in chambers or use the raise your hand function on Zoom. Commissioner Grove, don't see anybody? Okay. Matt, would you like to close and answer some of those questions -- or answer some of those questions and close. Schultz: Yes. Thanks. Thanks. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. Yeah. Appreciate David from the Beach Lateral water users showing up. We did show some preliminary lines coming along with McMillan and Black Cat. We fine tuned those, working with the area owners and if there is any lateral ditch companies in our final designs, but, obviously, we -- we maintain all historic deliveries, whether that would be wastewater or delivery water. As an ex-engineer that's -- it seems to be the number one thing that we do is figure out those things and at this juncture we -- we know we have to do it. We just don't know exactly if there is a little branch somewhere, but we have got a couple lines playing, which kind of goes along with Mrs. Corbell's comment as well about drainage. We met the Corbells at the neighborhood meeting and -- and talked to them about that -- our shared property line there on the -- on the east side of us and the west side of her. We are planning to do a -- fix a vinyl fence with a berm and what we have done in these -- in these situations where we have had livestock on the other side of a vinyl fence -- because some people are not worried about that and some people are as we put a parallel -- usually a parallel three or four strand barbed wire, you know, parallel to it, just to kind of keep them away from the vinyl. So, we end up putting in two fences and we would fence off across the stub street, that when that does continue on in the future those panels come out and it's a moot point at that -- at that juncture. But in the meantime there is no vision Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F67 Page 64 of 110 through that stub street and it's all fenced off and not a -- not an escape point for any livestock. So, those are the two issues, that fence line and the irrigation for the neighbors and I hope we have addressed them adequately. I have been texting the -- the owner a little bit here as we were waiting for -- for, you know, the responses and looking at that north property line and if we could put the diagram back up, the site plan, please, and look at it. As far as Commissioner McCarvel talking about coming in there, I don't know if you can -- okay. As you come in from Brody Square there is a T intersection. As you are going south on the left on the -- on the left-hand side there is those three lots. On the right there is the open space. We had those three lots oriented the other way previously, so they were faced internal to the subdivision, instead of, you know, they -- they are lots that you would line up with the other houses as you drive in like, Commissioner McCarvel pointed out. We had those rotated previously and staff wanted us to rotate them back this way, so -- so, kind of going in a little bit of a circle there. In looking at the question if, hey, can we go to R-8s or -- or 40 foot lots, potentially, on the north side -- we could do it if you want to. I think -- if it's your recommendation we would certainly take that forward to Council. What we have submitted I think is what we think works. We would -- they would propose that we -- like I said, get the amenity in Brody Square and for some reason we can't -- and I don't see why we couldn't, but if there is some reason we can't we would move our amenity that we are currently showing down the cul-de-sac over on this intersection and put it -- I would like to rotate those three lots north-south and lose one of the building lots and on the corner we would have our amenity as you drive in with the other two lots facing north-south. So, we would lose a lot there. That's -- I think that's a good solution to the streetscape issue that Commissioner McCarvel brought up. It's a good fallback solution to the amenity not being at the end of the cul-de-sac and being more -- I guess somewhat centrally located. There are -- and I will tell you the truth -- and we are planning on spending three times as much on that playground as we are on a sitting area in terms of what we want to put into Brody Square. Really similar to what we called Warrick a couple years ago and it's being marketed as Calistoga on Amity. It's about a 45 to 50 thousand dollar playground. That's what we would like to put in Brody Square and that's what we are approaching the owner with and in our negotiations, say, hey, let's just make a better centralized open space for everybody within those 20 acres. They had -- they just had a sitting area coming in off of Black Cat and we would have -- and there is a pond in the middle for the irrigation and, then, on the other side we have a playground and I think that's a better big picture solution that's going to give better value to everybody in the neighborhood, instead of getting down in the weeds on this little five acre site. So, that's my -- that's our proposal. We hope you would go along with us, but if you want to make a different recommendation moving forward that you approve it by -- you want 40 foot lots on the north, that's certainly something that we are open to moving forward with. But we -- we would like to -- for you to approve what we submitted, with the minor modifications as discussed. Fitzgerald: Matt, in regards to the open space lot, I mean that's a -- that's a holding pond. Are you doing subsurface water with a play area over the top or how -- what does that look like? Schultz: Are you talking about what we currently have? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F68 Page 65 of 110 Fitzgerald: Yeah. Schultz: What we currently have as you drive in -- it's -- it's just a -- it's a dry retention basin that fills up in the hundred year event. We are not counting it as open space as shown. It's not included. It's just there. The facility. It was not included -- it was not counted as usable open space in what we have shown. What we are proposing is right across the street we would have one that would be usable with -- with an amenity in it that has no drainage related to it whatsoever. Fitzgerald: But the drainage basin is it subsurface or is it going to be open -- kind of an open -- kind of swale? Schultz: It will be depressed to the low flow -- the trickle flow, the carwash flow will go underground and so it will be dry, unless there is a really heavy -- you know, really heavy downpour, it would fill up and, then, go down again and dry out again. So, you know, 99 percent of the time it's dry grass, with a little little sand window in the bottom for the -- the trickle flow that comes off of sprinklers or whatever when it's not raining. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for Matt? Grove: Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Matt, question. Would you be open to having a sidewalk that connects to the Black Cat sidewalk? It looks like there is no connector-- or easy access from here --from the subdivision going that direction. I know it's not that hard to walk around the cul-de- sac necessarily, but it seems like it would be an easy way to improve some connectivity there. Schultz: Yeah. Absolutely. We just showed it to McMillan and didn't -- didn't continue that thought process far enough and that is absolutely a great idea to make that connection through. You do --you do lose a little bit of privacy when you do that, because you are depressing the berm to punch that sidewalk through. You know, we just had one -- one little break and we are not -- we are not opposed to doing that, but that is the tradeoff if -- if that sidewalk does want to open up a view through there, which -- which isn't the worst thing in the world, but we are certainly open to doing that. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Going once. Going twice. Matt, thank you very much, sir. We appreciate it. I know we will see you momentarily again, so -- Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F69 Page 66 of 110 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we closed the public hearing for file number H-2020-0101, Daphne Square. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Motion and a second to close the public hearing on Daphne Square. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Who wants to lead off? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I kind of already made my comments to Matt there earlier, but I -- I think at a minimum I would want to see at least those lot lines align on the northern boundary of the site coming into it, because it just seems like it's an abrupt transition to density when it doesn't necessarily need to. So, I think I stand with that comment. I'm not necessarily opposed to having the attached product that's on the south side there, but I would want to see enough green space and -- and break up those a little bit. So, I would say on that northwest chunk there I wouldn't want to see more than seven lots on that north side of the cul-de-sac and, then, no more than two on that kind of eastern -- northeastern chunk that's there, too. That way they would align with what's -- what's in Brody Square. That's my initial thought. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: With -- with regards -- I think Commissioner Holland and I are -- got similar thinking there. But if I can make a comment, I believe there is eight lots on Brody Square on the north side and you just mentioned seven. One is going to already -- well, I guess one -- one will be that retention pond now that I'm looking at it. So -- Holland: Mr. Chair, that's why I counted seven was because I wanted the space for that retention pond for a little bit of green space coming in there. Cassinelli: And if he goes -- I think Matt mentioned on the -- if we were to change that there to single family instead of to detached, it would have to be 40. 1 mean would you be -- would you be okay with it, you know, if maybe it was eight or nine in there versus -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F70] Page 67 of 110 right now there is one, two, three, four, four, five, six, seven -- nine, ten, 11 -- there is 12 along there. I definitely don't like the transition, the two to one that it's at right now. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: I think that's why I was trying to come up with a compromise in -- in trying to give that single family transition that meets the R-8 standards on that northern boundary, but still allowing the R-15 style that's on the south side there and he could probably -- we could probably let him have eight lots there and he could condense it a little bit, but I would love -- I always like to see when the fence lines align, because it always seems funky when you are sharing -- when you have got a fence line like halfway in the middle of your yard. I have that -- if we can avoid it. Fitzgerald: So, I understand where you guys are headed. The challenge -- I guess the only thing I will comment back is if this neighborhood had been built already that would be one thing, but this neighbor is flat dirt right now and I would guess they are all going to get built together and they know -- they know what's going to come. So, that's my only -- I'm not saying that I disagree with you, just taking that -- taking that into account is we usually work through transition when there is people already living there, but that's -- I'm not sure that changes anybody's mind, but this is all going to be flat dirt that comes in together. It is a hard corner on two relatively busy roads. I'm not sure if that makes a difference, but it would transition from the busy road to a single family home. Yeah, I -- that's my only thought. I understand where you are going. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: The other-- the other issue there is that those are 12 foot setbacks to the rear. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: So, they are very close to -- to those lots to the north. Fitzgerald: That's true. Cassinelli: I don't know if that -- and my other thought -- as long as we are talking lots on the north -- by flipping those -- on those three, if you -- if you rotate them, then, you have two going into the site of the one house. You would have a -- Matt was proposing a -- a common lot there on the -- on the corner, but, then, the other two -- then you have -- again, you got two backing up to the side of a house. I don't know if that's -- that's only in one spot, I don't know if it would be that big of a deal there. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F71 Page 68 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I don't think I -- I think I dislike the flipping it more than I dislike leaving it the way it is, but I just thought, you know, transition wise you are driving by, you know, single family and, then, all of a sudden you get these couple of detached just kind of sticking there by themselves. Or attached. Cassinelli: If he's willing -- if he was willing to give up a lot there and if you give up a lot and just have two houses oriented -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- the way they are, maybe that's a little bit -- not -- not quite -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- radical going from, you know, single family -- you know, detached single family to -- to three, but if you just go to two, maybe -- McCarvel: Well, Mr. Chair-- and even -- even the way -- you know, I'm looking at the way the attached product is lining up, that they come in and they start right next to the open space with a detached and, then, you have got your two attached, which would make them totally offset from the attached -- or the single family on the other side. So, you would have that fence line almost office -- you know, in the halfway on those lots on every one of them, rather if you started with that first one being attached they would maybe at least, you know, structure wise they would line up a little better. Grove: Mr. Chair, from what I'm looking at -- McCarvel: But they are still really close to that back fence. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Looking at the -- the units like almost everyone's saying basically if the nonattached units were taken out it would vastly improve this project, because there is one, two, three, four that aren't attached. It seems like that starts to resolve some of the issues that we are having. Fitzgerald: You're talking about on each end? The single on each end? Grove: Correct. Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Grove: There is four of them, I believe, and -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F72 Page 69 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. Grove: -- at least three of them are problematic. McCarvel: Yeah. If you took those three -- I see what you are saying. Yeah. Take those three out, that might -- Grove: But if you took out all four it would make it seem more cohesive also. Fitzgerald: And, then, the masking that you were talking about before that -- that Matt mentioned before, it would somewhat match -- match up better. So, Commissioner Cassinelli, can I ask you a quick question? Cassinelli: Yeah. Fitzgerald: So, would you rather see an attached sidewalk and shift those houses forward than a ribbon -- than a park strip? Cassinelli: What does that do to -- what does it do to the open space? Fitzgerald: Oh. That's -- exactly. Well, I don't know if the park strips are in there. We could ask Matt. Cassinelli: Well, we would have to open it back up to do that. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: That's 22 feet versus 12. Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Or Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. Well, if you are losing that one detached there on that northeast corner and make it open space, put that back in your calculation, I don't know if that would get you where you wanted to be. But if you are taking out a few of those detached ones and make it a little more open space out of that, then, you could put -- take and push the -- the structures forward and have that sidewalk changed and probably almost gain open space. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal is being very quiet. It's unlike you. Come on, man. What are you thinking? Seal: Well, I mean I would like to see the lot boundaries line up a little bit better, but for sure I -- you know, I think that the roundabout probably is going to eat into a considerable amount of the area that's there. You know, it would have been nice if ACHD provided something other than, you know, a stencil crayon drawing in their report. A little -- a little lackluster on --on their part for sure. So, I mean it makes that --you know, it makes some kind of determination difficult on this. You know, looking at it -- I guess I'm caught in a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F73 Page 70 of 110 quandary of, you know, they -- they want to be part of Brody -- was it Brody Square? But they are not and that makes this difficult, because I'm looking at the sub to, you know, essentially stand on its own. Knowing that they want to be part of that subdivision, you know, the HOA and all of it, that would probably change the way that I looked at this a little bit for sure, where I give them a little bit more latitude and -- and look at it -- so you -- you know, lose less of the homes that are there, still provide, you know, better lineup with lot boundaries that are there for sure, but if they were part of that HOA and they could provide, you know, the amenities that we are looking for and everything, that is going to make me look at it differently and if that's not there -- and I -- I mean it sounds like we can condition that as part of it, but at the same time, without knowing if that's ever going to come to fruition, you know, what's going to happen. So, if we condition it on that and they say, no, we don't want to do that, then, do they start this whole process over again? Fitzgerald: Well, it's possibly to get it remanded back, but the City Council could take into account our recommendations. Parsons: Mr. Chair, I can certainly add in on that. Fitzgerald: Bill, go right ahead. Parsons: So, I -- I actually liked the idea of Matt working with the adjacent development and -- and making that happen. He has been successful several times over the years and I -- at least from staff's perspective we are confident that he probably can make that happen, if that is the desire of the Commission. This is annexation, so you have the ability to require that as part of the DA and I looked at the past DAs where Matt was successful in that effort and it said if you can't -- you know, the condition read if you can't get agreeance to join that HOA, then, you provide X amount of open space in one amenity. So, we can certainly tailor a DA provision to that effect and I would imagine Matt would be comfortable with that, because, again, he's -- he's been successful in two pretty tumultuous projects from my -- what I remember. They were pretty controversial projects that he was able to get that accomplished and get it done and I think that would just make it a better development overall. This really should have been part of Brody Square when it came in and when we started -- when we first pre-apped with Brody Square this piece was included and because of that ACHD requirement of dedicating that additional right of way for the roundabout, the developer didn't want to buy the property, because it took too much property -- too much land. So, he went ahead and purchased the northern five acres of Brody Square, rather than the southern end of it, and so whatever we can do -- and going to your -- to Alan's presentation to you this evening, this is under five acres. So, technically by code they don't need to provide five -- or any--ten percent open space. So, having this merge with that adjacent development, I think it's a win not only for Matt, but also Brody Square. We have consistent design elements. We have consistent maintenance. And we have got -- more likely people in this subdivision are going to go walk over there and use that park anyways and, then, we just avoid conflicts in the future. So, I think to me this is a win and if Matt is amenable to that condition, then, I would ask the Commission to include that if you choose to do that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F74 Page 71 of 110 Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Additional comments? Thoughts? Commissioner Yearsley, haven't heard from you all night. Are you -- Yearsley: I know. Am I my supposed to say something? Sorry. So, looking at this I have a tendency to agree with everybody else's comments that lining up those northern lots with Brody Square -- and I do like the idea of having them join HOAs and having them provide an amenity in their park. I think that would make the things a lot cleaner. I think with that I could support this application. I can't believe that they are going to lose a lot more property with the roundabout in that corner, because they just take up a ton of room no matter how they lay them out. They just take up so much room that it just wipes out a lot of corners. Fitzgerald: I think we are close. Parsons: Yeah. Commission, the other thing I would like to add on that as well is that's why Alan and I were pushing for showing us how that -- that right of way lands on this property, because what we don't want to happen is the road improvements go in and all of a sudden there is no landscape buffer and we have people -- people's backyards up against right of way. I think -- I think all of us can agree, we have seen that throughout our community, it's not a good look. We want to make sure that people have some -- some privacy, especially on those major arterials and looking at how this is laid out, given the fact that you have Idaho Power on one side and a pretty big irrigation facility on the south side, they may be looking for more right of way on the north side to try to -- like Matt says, value engineer the project, because it's going to get expensive to remove power lines and bury ditches. Fitzgerald: Thanks for that ray of sunshine. Yearsley: And just from a --from a practical use, we just ended up -- on Eagle Road they are putting a roundabout around our entrance to Tuscany and it's amazing what they did to our frontage and our property coming into it. They took it all. It's -- it's just horrendous what they did for the -- for the right of way for a roundabout, so -- Grove: Mr. Chair, question for staff. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: With the -- the front of the -- the front sidewalks in front of the units, does that align with what Brody Square looks like in terms of the landscaping between the sidewalk and the street or -- I guess -- my question is if we conditioned it to look like it was part of Brody Square does that provide better offsets for the -- like the southern boundary for -- if the right of way were to expand further than -- than anticipated? Tiefenbach: If you would like, if you want to give me a minute I can get the Brody Square landscape plan up. Would you like to see that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F75 Page 72 of 110 Grove: Sure. Tiefenbach: Give me -- give me -- if you want to keep going, it's going to take me a minute. If you want to keep talking and, then, I will -- I will send that over to you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Parsons: Alan, I got -- I have it pulled up. Tiefenbach: Oh, yeah. I'm not going to go through why I can't do it, but if you can do it that would be quicker. Parsons: Yeah. I'm happy to take that for the Commission. Tiefenbach: All right. Thanks. They have a color landscape plan in there that would probably be very good. Parsons: Well, we don't need to share it, but we could just tell the Commission that, essentially, they have attached sidewalks in their development, so they do not have the green strip between the sidewalk and the curb. So, to me if that's something that you -- I kind of agree with Commissioner McCarvel, if you were to pull the buildings closer to the street, you get a deeper backyard, you get a little more open space on the -- you get more buildable lot, more open space for those residents, and you get greater separation between the houses, which I think, you know, I'm not -- I'm always a fan of having detached sidewalks, but in this case with the amount of curb cuts you are not really gaining much of a parkway strip along the street, you are really getting a lot of curb cuts, a lot of concrete. So, you are not really -- to me it's almost an impediment to the development, because of the minimal amount of green space that you are getting. I would almost rather see the -- get the bigger lots, have more of a front yard, more of a rear yard for residents to use, especially when you are next to an arterial roadway like that. That's going to be their private space on their property. So, whatever we can do to do that I think that's a win. Now, it does that -- going back to the Commission's question, does it reduce the space. Yes, but it will be a minimal given that it really doesn't count because of the curb cuts. So, it to me I think if -- my recommendation to Matt, if he wants -- and the Commission, if we are going to pursue that avenue of this property joining with the adjacent property and HOAs and Matt may want to maybe crunch some of those numbers -- numbers for City Council, say, hey, even between these two projects we still exceed code -- minimum code requirements for open space and amenities. Amenities is going to be a no brainer. They are definitely going to be over what the code requires for an amenity. But as far as their open space, combined with Brody Square's, what does that total look like. So, at least we can give -- give that comparison to City Council if that's the direction the Commission wants to go. Fitzgerald: And because it's a five acre in-fill they don't really have to do -- I mean they don't have to meet that minimum. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F76] Page 73 of 110 Parsons: Yeah. This --well, this is an interesting property, because when I was reviewing the staff report for Alan it's interesting that Ada County Assessor says it's five acres, but when you draw--when you look at the surveying documents, this property--this property is under five acres. It's -- so, I don't know where that discrepancy lies, but I just know it's not a true five acre parcel based on all the documentation that we have gotten on this. So, the county may have rounded it up, I'm not sure, but it's not five acres, it's definitely under five. But it is annexation. I mean certainly it's within your purview to -- to recommend changes if you want to see that. Within reason, of course. Obviously, we can't make him lose half his lots and put in 15 percent open space, but I mean some of the discussion that I have heard this evening sounds pretty reasonable from my standpoint. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. I don't think we are very far apart, guys. I think you guys outlined it well. I think, Commissioner Groves, that-- that was a great question, because I had the same thing going on in my mind as well, is how do we give people more space and it -- aligning it with -- or whatever it's called. Square. I mean I think that makes sense. It wouldn't make any sense to look differently and lose space in the rear of the house, so -- so, are we kind of walking through it? Do we agree that we need to -- the north side needs to line up -- the lot lines on the north? Yearsley: I would agree to that. Fitzgerald: Okay. And, then, do we want to lose that lot -- that second lot -- or the third lot on the northeast corner to be replaced by open space? Or an amenity? Grove: I would -- I would be okay with it as it is, because I'm assuming they are going to have to lose lots to make the lines align on that northside to Brody Square. So, I wouldn't be opposed either way. Fitzgerald: Well, is it -- is it a qualifying where if they can't get into the HOA, then, they have to lose a lot and -- and put in an amenity that -- whatever would be that third lot? Is that the -- the tradeoff? Cassinelli: I think that makes sense. Holland: Mr. Chair, one more clarification. Are we requesting that they stay single family on the northern side, instead of attached product? Fitzgerald: I think that's up to us -- up to the crew. I -- I don't have a problem with zero lot lines, to be totally honest, but -- as long as the lots line up. But I -- if someone has a different opinion that's -- I totally am open to that. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F77 Page 74 of 110 McCarvel: I think -- I would agree. I think as long as the lot lines line up where you have got structure for structure, I'm okay with the zero lot line in there. And, then, in giving them more -- more distance, I think that makes a difference from -- from the back line. Fitzgerald: Losing the park strip, moving the houses forward, attaching the sidewalks. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Somebody have a motion? Seal: We have to close the public hearing first. Fitzgerald: We already did. Seal: We did? Okay. Where was I? Fitzgerald: It's all good. Commissioner Seal, did you have a motion you were preparing to make? Seal: I'm thinking about it. Make sure I have got the right thing. Yeah. I will take a crack at this. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0101, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2020, with the following modifications: The DA provisioned to ensure that they join the Brody Square HOA. They reconfigure the northern boundary homes to align with lots in -- that are already existing in Brody Square and they eliminate the park strips to better align with the look and feel of what's going to exist in Brody Square. Fitzgerald: Can I clarify one thing? Seal: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: If they can't join Brody Square are we going to stipulate the loss of that lot, so they can put an open space in there and an amenity on the northeast corner? Seal: Yeah. Amend my motion to include if they are unable to join Brody Square HOA they will need to eliminate -- oh, at least lot --what is it? Lot 29 of Block 1 to provide more open space. McCarvel: Second. Grove: Would that be 29 or lot one? Fitzgerald: That would be lot -- McCarvel: One. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F78 Page 75 of 110 Fitzgerald: Yeah. It would be Lot 1. McCarvel: Do we want to stipulate a lot, instead of the end one, I guess. One -- Seal: It would be the -- the lot closest to the open drain area of that. Grove: I thought we were talking about -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: Talking about those three lots. One, two, and three. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I want to make sure we are clear. McCarvel: On the northeast corner there. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, does that make sense or did you have a different idea? I know you -- Seal: It does. I'm just trying to make sure I have got -- okay. Tiefenbach: Are we talking about Lot 1, Block 2? Fitzgerald: Or that northeast corner block? Whatever block. Tiefenbach: Lot 1, Block 2, if I'm reading it correctly. I'm just trying to make sure. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Alan. Seal: Okay. So, with that -- so what we are asking -- what we would be asking is for them to eliminate lot -- Lot 1, Block 2 -- McCarvel: Yes. Seal: That's it, because we already asked them to align the lots -- the northern lots along the boundary line. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yeah. Fitzgerald: Would the second stipulate to that motion adjustment? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F79 Page 76 of 110 McCarvel: All that -- Fitzgerald: All that stuff. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-0101 , Daphne Square Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 7. Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Moving on to the next item on our agenda -- first I have to close out my agenda. What's the number? It's -- the next item on our agenda is Cache Creek Subdivision, file number H-2020-0105 and, Alan, is this yours, too? I believe. Tiefenbach: It is. I'm just trying to get my Zoom to work here. I got to -- there we go. Okay. Sorry. Give me one second here. Okay. Do you got that? That was a thumbs up? Fitzgerald: Looks good. Tiefenbach: Okay. Thank you. Sometimes there is a lot of maneuvering going on here, as you already know. Okay. Just a second here. Grove: Mr. Chair? Tiefenbach: Okay. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Sorry, Alan, I was just going to ask a question before we jumped in. We are getting close to 10.00 o'clock and I just wanted to see if we wanted to discuss if we will be hearing the -- the last one before we get started or not. Fitzgerald: Commissioners, what's your thoughts? I -- we have done late nights before, but I -- I want to be sensitive to your -- your desires and requests. So, we have got by 11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F80 Page 77 of 110 people that are online with us still and, then, we have got at least one person in chambers on this one. Do you want to see how it goes or do you want to stipulate that we are going to stop after this one? Comments? Yearsley: If we have got people waiting I would prefer not to have to have them come back and we just go a little late and get it all finished. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I know that you are -- may need to leave us, so as long as we have a quorum we can keep plowing forward. Holland: Well, my kid is asleep. I just get less sleep, but that's all right. I'm used to sleeping on -- or surviving on three hours now, so I'm good. I will power through with you guys. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, are you good? Cassinelli: I'm good. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal? Seal: Good. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner McCarvel and Commissioner Grove? McCarvel: Sure. Fitzgerald: That sounded really like robust. Commissioner Grove, are you okay? I know you are in person. Grove: I'm good. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you all. I appreciate it greatly. And we appreciate the public sticking with us. Okay. Alan, it's all you, sir. Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. So, this is the Cache Creek-- or Cache Creek Subdivision and this is an annexation and rezoning -- a zoning to R-4 and a preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and four common lots. So, this property is 13.99 acres of land. Presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county. It's located at 1560 West Victory Road and 2955 South Locust Grove, which is the northwest corner of South Grove -- or South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road. You can see it's recommended for low density residential. The zoning map showing it's surrounded by R-4 and R-8. See if I can move on here. Okay. So, this proposal includes the annexation, zoning, and platting to allow 41 building lots and four common lots. The property present -- presently contains two existing homes. The one to the south, which would be the one to the southeast, will be demolished and the one to the northeast, up at the top there, will remain. There is going to be two accesses to these properties. Each access will connect to a stub Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F81 Page 78 of 110 street in the Capella Creek Subdivision. So, one access -- so, there is a stub here. You can see this. And there is -- oh, sorry. Yeah. So, there is a stub here and there is a stub here. These two accesses will connect to those stubs. These stub streets terminate at South Bailey Way, which is, basically, running north and south here and from that, then, you can either go east up to South Locust Grove or you can go south to Victory. Within this subdivision -- the Cache Creek Subdivision applies a loop road, which you can see here. That's a 33 -- a 33 foot wide road and you have detached sidewalks and eight foot landscaped strips. South Locust Grove on the east currently has two lanes and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. East Victory Road to the south presently has two lanes with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Both of these are going to be widened in the next three years and just like the other project there is going to be a roundabout that's being planned and that's at East Victory Road and South Locust Grove Road. There is also a detention pond or a retention basin that's in the development down here as well. Ten Mile Creek runs right next to the road across the property. You can't see it here -- which I will talk about in a minute -- but it runs right through the property. Sufficient right of way presently exists for widening both South Locust Grove and East Victory Road. However, the applicant will be required to dedicate additional right of way for the roundabout. Because both of these roads are due to be reconstructed, ACHD has requested the applicant pay 38,000 dollars into a road trust deposit. This road trust deposit will be used by ACHD to construct sidewalks that abut the site as part of the future intersection project. Staff has received letters and -- from neighbors and from the president of the Cabella Creek Homeowners Association. They request to not connect to the stub streets to allow direct access, but, instead, they want to allow direct access from South Locust Grove. One suggestion was by lining up with East Sagemoor Drive. As you can see my pointer, East Sagemoor Drive is here, so the request was to see if they could line up an access here and get rid of the accesses there. It's important to note that both the city regulations and the Comprehensive Plan discourage new developments directly connecting to arterials and collectors and in addition to that I talked to ACHD today and they -- they responded that allowing a new access onto the South Locust Grove Road would not meet their spacing requirements. It needs to be at least 1,300 points -- feet. They can't get close to that. Now they could ask for a waiver from our policy, but they have noted that the only time that -- that they will -- that they will grant waivers from the policy is if the roads that they are stubbing to are deemed to be over capacity and in order for that to be happen those roads would have to be serving more than 2,000 trips per day. This proposal is estimated to generate 387. So, ACHD does not support opening up any accesses to this project. Five foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all the streets within this development. There is also a pedestrian connection, which is here -- oh, sorry. Which is here into this common lot. There is also a pedestrian connection that runs along this retention basin here. This development includes two amenities, which is the playground, as well as a very large open area that's central. Two amenities and approximately 16 percent open space. There is a regional pathway, which is down here, and that parallels Ten Mile Creek to East Victory Road and the Cabella Creek Subdivision. It runs right through this subdivision, although the pathway itself is not on the subject property. There is also a ten foot pathway -- if you can see my pointer -- over here that runs along the Eight Mile parallel lateral and it dead ends right here. So, there is not really a good crossing right now. Although the proposed plat shows that there is a five foot sidewalk Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F82 Page 79 of 110 that is running -- if you can see my pointer-- it sort of runs down along South Locust and, then, there is another sidewalk that runs along east Victory, people could come out here and walk down the street and turn. Staff thought that it would be better to actually have an internal connection where you could get a faster way -- cut through to common open space here, if you can see my pointer, and, then, you can either choose to go into the Ten Mile here or you can go and hit Ten Mile and go the opposite direction. We made that recommendation. Yesterday the applicant provided us an updated plat. Hopefully they can show you that, but I have put a picture on here, so that you can see -- maybe not very well. This is the trail -- the trail connection that the applicant is proposing to connect to. This is basically in the area -- if you read the staff report where staff was suggesting that we needed to have that. So, that's what we were looking for. Although the minimum square footage of the common open space is satisfied, one thing that's important to note is that there is an arterial buffer here and this arterial buffer does not meet the minimum 25 foot spacing requirements right here. Hopefully you can see my pointer. This is the existing residence here. Right now there is -- there is several accesses onto South Locust Grove. Those accesses are going to be closed off with landscaping and both of their accesses are going to occur from these internal driveways. There is two, which is a little strange. I thought the applicant could sort of weigh into why they actually need to have two. However, so -- so, we have got a 25 foot buffer, but it goes down to I think around nine or ten feet right here. The applicant has noted that it's not feasible to be able to --to provide this buffer, because of the engineering and because of the location of the house, but if you look at this very carefully, this is all asphalt here. Paving. We believe that at least some of that buffer, if not 25 foot, could be put there. So, we -- it was our opinion that the application needs to revise these plans to reflect a -- reflect a 25 wide -- 20 foot -- 25 foot wide buffer or as close as they can get or be -- or apply and be granted a buffer reduction through the alternative compliance process. That's an administrative process. So, what will happen is -- is that they would either provide that buffer or before City Council at the Planning Commission they would have to make an application with some specific findings that need to be met and the committee -- the planning director would have to decide whether they would grant alternative compliance. If they did it would be a nonissue. If they didn't, then, that would be something that they would have to talk to the Council about, whether or not the Council wanted to grant that. The other thing I want to mention is that the landscape plan is missing a little piece of the lot. If you look at -- this is the GIS and if you look at the -- these lots were drawn on. So, these aren't existing now. But this is the applicant's lot. If you see the corner of this, this lot goes all the way down to Victory. If you look at the landscape plan, it's kind of cut off here. Ten Mile Creek is a major amenity and our regulations and our Comprehensive Plan talks about preserving and enhancing amenities. So, one of the things that we want to see is that the landscape plan, first of all, incorporates all of the property onto the landscape plan. The second thing is that we recommend that this landscape plan be updated to design this waterway in as a natural amenity and with that staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Appreciate it. Any questions for Alan at this point? Hearing none at this point, Matt, are you still with us? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F83] Page 80 of 110 Schultz: I am. I just got to get on video here. I'm trying. I'm trying. Fitzgerald: You're good, sir. If you will re-introduce yourself and your address for the record, the floor is yours when you are ready. Schultz: Thank you. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, Meridian. I'm here on behalf of Challenger Development. It's R-4, can we just like approve it? Just kidding. Anyway, it does make it a little bit easier. We have a site that, in my opinion, is pretty straightforward. I did look at this site a couple years ago and we were looking at it like, man, maybe we could do R-8, maybe we could have an access off a Locust Grove and -- you know. And, then, last year when it was brought to me again to look at, I said, man, the roundabout is going in, there goes our access, and there is two other accesses into an R-4 sub. Comp plan. There is no step-ups anymore. Even without that rule, because of the access and how it does integrate with Cabella Creek, it really needed to be R-4, like Cabella Creek. It is -- it's pretty straightforward from that perspective and I just told my client it's R-4. So, that's what we did. That's how we did it. We didn't even think about putting an access out to Locust Grove Road, because of the proximity to the roundabout and that roundabout is based on a 99 percent plan approved, ready for bid, ready for right of way acquisition. Our layout completely matches it. They are going to widen both roads. They are going to extend that culvert to the Ten Mile drain. They are going to wipe out everything and if we would have waited another year we could have got some free sidewalk, but as it is they are going to build it next year, so we are going to put up 38,000 for our share of the sidewalk and -- and so be it. It's -- it's good to have that work done sooner than later, in my opinion, so we can have a cohesive integration with the transportation facilities in our subdivision. I do appreciate staff pointing out that a pathway would be a good idea and they were absolutely right, it would be a good idea, and we did that pretty quickly yesterday and without sacrificing our R-4 lot sizes we were able to put a pathway in across -- lining up with that -- across Locust Grove Road into our common central open space. It fits very nicely. Two quirky things about this subdivision and, then, I will -- I promise I will try to stop talking, but the -- the existing home we are keeping, they always present their challenges for setbacks and access and -- and how do you -- how do you reorient them and we are keeping the one. The Carringtons would like to stay there. The reason there is two internal driveway common -- it's just all part of their lot with frontage into our subdivision, is that if you look at the current situation --there is a driveway on the north property line that goes back to their back shops and, then, there is a circular driveway that goes to their house. Once you cut off those accesses those two driveways don't connect, without wiping out their entire backyard, and so we just did two separate -- one -- one connection to their back shop and one connection to their--their-- their--their garage, which does get a little bit close to that front buffer. Like Alan said, we propose a ten foot minimum. I still need to -- I wasn't exact in my -- my alternative compliance application, which I'm going to do so. Right after Christmas I promise to get that in and we will see how it goes administratively, but these houses sometimes beg for some administrative relief. In this case I have done a calculation, we meet the total square footage over the whole buffer, because there is some areas that are extra wide and so we are asking for a little bit narrower and I think it all comes down to landscaping. You know, ten feet or -- ten or 15 feet of landscaping is a lot better than Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F84] Page 81 of 110 a 50 foot buffer with weak landscaping. So, I think it comes down to landscaping and how you do that and everything lines up. The other issue is -- and it's the only -- it's the only condition that I would like to talk about, because we do approve -- agree with staff's recommendations and their recommendation for approval and their conditions is item number four -- and Alan talked about it. Down there in our corner -- the reason we excluded that -- and we should have done a better job of showing the -- the Nampa- Meridian hundred foot easement that's there, but really with the -- with the pathway being on the south side already within that easement, the north side is theirs, to not do anything within, so they can get in there and clean it out and do what they got to do to the Ten Mile drain, that's -- that's there -- whatever -- whatever side the pathway is going on, they take the other side for their maintenance and access. In addition, ACHD is going to totally rebuild that entire ditch in that area when they expand the road, expand the culvert, and that drainage lot that we put in there was -- it's theirs. We don't need it for open space, even though it's big enough to qualify as open space, if it's -- if it's landscaped adequately and we would ask that you provide a -- it's almost a recommendation to ACHD that they do landscape this facility to Meridian's landscape standards, because it's for the roundabout. We are not using it for our drainage. It's a roundabout drainage facility. They had one in the general area previously that was a long narrow -- along our west property line. We said, no, no, no, this is a better spot right in the corner next to the drain, we will put a pathway through, it's great. So, they are going back and tweaking their design in that area to use that as -- as a space for theirs. But if you don't encourage them they are -- I don't know what they would have done, but I know the old design was a fenced off no man's land of sterile -- sterile drainage, which they tend to do along these arterials sometimes if they are not directed -- or encouraged, like I have already done, to -- to do the landscaping that -- that's nice and integrates these transportation facility drainage areas with --with the subdivisions, instead of having a sterile fenced off no man's land. So, that's -- that's what we have shown here. You know, they will be landscaped with a pathway on one side and so with that, like I said, it's -- it's pretty straightforward. A few little quirks. But we think R-4 is appropriate. Good park strips. Good size lots. I know the access in the Cabella Creek is an issue with those neighbors, it always is on these stub streets that we connect to, but that's what they are for is for connectivity and we just don't have a high density subdivision that's going to generate the traffic that's going to cause ACHD to want to approve any other access. So, I think what we have is -- is a really good design. So, thanks. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for Matt at this point? Okay, sir. We will come back to you as soon as we hear from the public. Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have -- we have people in -- in chambers? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have Mrs. Rita Green joining us. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F85] Page 82 of 110 Fitzgerald: Mrs. Green, thank you for staying with us tonight. We appreciate you hanging in there. Please state your name and your address for the record, ma'am, and the floor is yours. Green: Rita Green. 37 East South Bailey Way, Meridian, in Cabella Creek. Okay. This -- this propose --- this proposed subdivision is east of my house and they want to use the access roads of Sagemoor and Loggers Pass, which is through our subdivision, and that's going to increase the traffic by 80 to a hundred cars going through right by my house. It's going to -- also there is no access for emergency vehicles. They have to come through my subdivision, get on Bailey or Loggers Pass to access that subdivision, so -- and I have never seen a subdivision built that doesn't have their own exits and entrances. It's just unusual to me. I have never seen it before. I just want to see something provided for those people. They are a different subdivision. They are not paying into our association or anything and it's our responsibility -- I know roads belong to Meridian, but I'm right on that corner and my husband and I are both retired, he's completely disabled, and a lot of noise upsets me tremendously. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. We greatly appreciate your being here tonight. Is there anyone on Zoom that would like to testify on this application? Please raise your hand via the Zoom app if you would like to testify on this application. Anyone new? Going once. Going twice. Matt, would you like to close, sir? Schultz: Yes. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. I do appreciate Mrs. Green not wanting any change on that vacant property next to her, but those stubs streets were provided forjust what we are saying and, ultimately, because of the roundabout being put in it's probably even better. So, no matter what those stub streets are just going to have to connect, even if we did have another access out to Locust Grove, those would still go through. ACHD never abandons those. It's a good idea for pedestrians or anything else and it is a low density-- I know it's a small cancellation, but it is a much lower density than what it could have maybe been put in there ten years ago even. And, really, it's the design, probably, that would have happened as a Cabella Creek phase two. In fact, Cabella Creek HOA president -- I might get in trouble for this, but he approached me at the -- at the neighborhood meeting and said, hey, you want to join the HOA. Said, well, we will look at it, but -- but we have got the amenities, too, so -- we will look at it, you know, but you know what I mean, it's --we are matching the detached sidewalks. We are matching the feel. We are matching the size of the houses. We are matching -- we are really just trying to get along out there and not have any -- any kind of transition problems whatsoever. So, with that, yeah, I think -- I think that's the end of my presentation and ask for your approval. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Any questions for Matt or additional comments? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F86 Page 83 of 110 Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just wanted to ask staff real quick -- on the condition four where he explained as far as making the Ten Mile Creek into a natural amenity, was -- was that enough of an explanation to -- that we can basically strike that? I mean it makes perfect sense. I live along a piece of irrigation canal like that, so it makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure that that was okay with staff as well. Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. Community development planner here. I guess my question is what's going to happen -- is that going to become a no man's land or are they going to be deeding that over to ACHD? I guess I'm not -- not exactly -- I'm not exactly sure what's going to happen with that little corner piece. If it's going -- I understand it's within a drainage easement. What we don't want to see is, basically, a no man's land there. So, it either becomes -- it's either retained with the applicant or it goes to ACHD, who I guess we can work with. But I guess we are not sure about how that's going to work. Fitzgerald: Matt, will you clarify that, please. Schultz: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Alan for-- for the -- Commissioner Seal, for the question. That's going to be a common lot owned by our HOA. The Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has exclusive rights to it and in jurisdiction over what goes in there, given that there are easements that they control in there and so we -- we have to take care of any weeds that may pop up, because they don't -- they don't do that great of a job at it. So, we maintain that access road for them on that other side, but they don't generally like to give us any kind of improvements within their right of way that they might have to replace if they have to go in and clean out that ditch, which they do every once in a while with heavy equipment on the other side and so, yeah, I think it's great just what's out there right now. In fact, if there is an existing pathway and good landscaping -- and if there is a little teeny tiny triangle right there in the extreme corner that we need the landscape just outside of their easement we will. We will get that plotted on there before City Council, so we can see. But if it is it's going to be tiny. I mean it's going to be like ten square feet I think. It's -- it's really -- there is just nothing left down there to do, so -- Fitzgerald: Matt, if you could just make sure it's being platted, so that -- Schultz: Pretty sure -- Fitzgerald: -- in a questionable area -- Schultz: It will be a lot and block and that the HOA has responsibility for. Tiefenbach: Sir, if I may -- if I may add, I think it would be very helpful if there -- if their landscape plan could just sort of give us an idea of what that's going to look like. Right Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F87] Page 84 of 110 now there is nothing there at all. I think that's part of what's making staff a little nervous is we -- we don't want to see something where people are throwing their soda cans in from the road. We would like to know that there is something happening there. They are pretty major -- there is a major trail pathway running right along it, so we want to make sure that that is maintained. Schultz: We will get it better documented for you, Alan. Tiefenbach: Thank you, sir. Schultz: Yep. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Any additional questions for Matt? And, Mrs. Green, we appreciate you staying with us and -- is she still in chambers, Nick? I just want to be clear that, unfortunately, where your house is located that stub street -- they would require us to connect that almost -- almost guaranteed with whatever was going to get built in that corner or that -- that spot of land and so, unfortunately, that kind of growth has come to that area and -- and so ACHD is required -- requires us to continue that street into whatever is built and so, hopefully, when -- I know Matt will be a good neighbor if this is approved. They always do a good job. But that is the reality of that --that land connection -- or the interconnection of the roads. So, I just want to make sure we are clear there. If there is not additional questions or comments for Matt, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? McCarvel: So moved. Seal: Second. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H- 2020-0105. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, it's R-4. Go for it. Go for it. Go. Cassinelli: Not a whole lot I can say with -- with everything we have discussed, with the conditions, you know, and to address what you just did as far as the stub streets and traffic flow, they can't access Locust Grove -- it is what it is. It's too bad there wasn't a stub street to the north, instead two out to the -- to the west, but that's not -- you know, that's not this -- this subdivision -- that's not this development's fault, basically. So, it would have been nice had it done that, but it didn't. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F88] Page 85 of 110 Fitzgerald: Well, I think, also, to that point -- and I don't want to cut you off, but to your point, I -- in this situation I'm -- probably for the Greens, it's better that it doesn't connect to Locust Grove, because it would probably be a thoroughfare through the neighborhood into that -- into Cabella Creek. So, hopefully, this is a narrowing of only the people that are in that neighborhood. So, sorry. Go right ahead. Cassinelli: If you find out. And I think one of the things --just to maybe -- to put -- to put her at ease a little bit, I think R-4, the price points in here, you are not going to be getting -- you are not going to be getting drag racers. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner McCarvel. I'm sorry. McCarvel: Oh. Yeah. Yeah, I think this -- yeah. To everybody's point, R-4 -- yea. And I think the -- I would be in for leaving the landscape buffer the way it is, just because I think most of that buffer is for the benefit of the homes that are on the other side to buffer from the street noise and everything and if it's -- that homeowner is -- I can see why they need it to have that swoop around there, but I would be in support of leaving that. Fitzgerald: Like move that through alternative compliance? McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm kind of -- I think it looks good. It was well thought out. The big -- the amenity in the central core is nice, so I -- I don't have any concerns with going through alternative compliance for Matt's client either, so -- I would like to see the landscape plan. I think that's already in our stipulation per Alan's condition, so that isn't something we have to cover, it's already in there. So, any additional comments? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I'm actually giving Matt a standing ovation for doing an R-4 finally, so -- grateful for having -- I do -- I think -- I think it looks good. I think for the most part everything is good. I -- I would try to -- like to see that detention basin be grass instead of the weeds and crap that are going to be in there if you don't -- they have got several around here and that's all they become is just a weed catcher and so if we could condition that to be grass I think that would be a much better use of that area. Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm just giving my thumbs up and saying ditto. Commissioner Yearsley, I think you should make your motion. Yearsley: Hey, let me see if I can pull it up. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F89 Page 86 of 110 2020-0150 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2020, with the following modifications: That the ACHD detention basin be landscaped instead of -- with grass, instead of just the sand that they like to put in the bottom of it. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0105 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Matt, thanks for hanging with us. Look forward to seeing you later, sir. Have a great -- Merry Christmas. Schultz: Merry Christmas. 8. Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our last item on the agenda is the public hearing for Southridge South Subdivision, file number H-2020-0083, and turn this over to Sonya. You survived until the end, ma'am. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Thanks for keeping this on the agenda tonight. The next applications before you are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. This site consists of approximately 84 acres of land. It's zoned R-2 and R-4 and is located on the south side of West Overland Road, east of South Ten Mile Road, and is part of the larger 291 acre Southridge Development currently in the development process to the east. Southridge encompasses land on the south side of Overland Road from this property to the east to Linder Road and to the south to Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north across Overland Road is vacant, undeveloped land, zoned R-8 and apartments in the development process, zoned R-15. To the east are single family residential properties in the development process, zoned R-4. To the west and south are rural residential properties in Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions, zoned RUT in Ada county. So, just to give a little history on this property, it was annexed in -- in -- excuse me -- 2007, with a development agreement that was later replaced a couple of times with new development Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F90 Page 87 of 110 agreements. The existing agreement requires a minimum of one thousand and a maximum of 1 ,286 residential units, consisting of a mix of apartments and single family residential homes to develop in the overall Southridge Development, unless otherwise specifically approved by Council through subsequent applications. Subsequent development agreement vacation applications were approved that removed the two apartment projects to the east from the overall Southridge Development and placed them in development agreements of their own, which no longer tied them to the terms of the original agreement. So, if you can see my pointer here, this orange area here on the first map is the Southridge Apartments site and, then, to the east of that is another apartment site. So, just so you have your bearings of what's going on in this area. With the 640 units anticipated to develop in Southbridge Apartments, 336 units in Linder and Overland Apartments -- and that was the furthest east apartment complex -- 221 single family residential units in Southridge phases one through five to the east and 254 in the proposed development, that's a total of 1,451 units, which is 165 units over that originally anticipated in the development agreement. Mostly the difference is in the apartment units, which were approved through subsequent applications as allowed through the development agreement, which were 848 anticipated units and 976 were approved. The single family residential units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance of -- or a balance to total of 1,286 total units with the apartment units. The total number of single family units in the overall development, if this development is approved, will be 475, which is approximately 37 over that originally anticipated. Because the subject plat is a subsequent applicant, as described In the development agreement, staff finds the proposal in compliance with the agreement without a modification to the development agreement. A preliminary plat was approved with the annexation that included the subject property as mega lots for future resubdivision. The existing development agreement does not include a conceptual design plan for this and only governs the number of lots anticipated for future development, which can be modified through a subsequent application approved by Council. I should clarify that the existing development agreement does include a conceptual development plan, but the text of the agreement only requires that the public streets be in alignment with that shown on that concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is 5.5 acres of the site and that is that green area, if you can see on the screen that I'm pointing to, and the rest of this site is designated medium density residential, which consists of approximately 78 acres. A rezone of 7.15 acres of land is proposed from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and that is along the southern and western boundary and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to R-8 zoning districts for the development of 254 single family residential detached homes, at a gross density of three units per acre, consistent with density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals for development that encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents, with a desire to avoid the centration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area and desires for diverse housing types to be provided throughout the city. With the size of the Southridge Development and no other housing types besides apartments in this vicinity, staff believes more variety in housing types is needed in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, recommends another housing type, either attached units and/or townhomes, is provided in this development. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F91 Page 88 of 110 By attached I mean two units attached together or townhomes, three or more units attached together. A preliminary plat -- actually, let me back up. I did make that recommendation and ask the applicant to submit a revised plat that indicated compliance with -- with a variety of housing types prior to the City Council hearing. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369 square feet, with an average lot size of 8,053 square feet. The plat is proposed to develop in four phases, as shown on the phasing plan. There are a variety of lot sizes proposed and a variety of styles of homes. Just not a variety of housing types, as desired in the comp plan. Staff worked with the applicant to modify the phasing plan prior to the hearing to include the large 3.8 acre common area where a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot is proposed to develop in the second phase, along with the bridge and extension of a stub street to the east, instead of with the fourth phase as originally proposed. There is one existing home on this site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision. Access is proposed via one public street and one emergency access via Overland Road. Stub streets are proposed to the west, south, and east for future extension. Off-street parking will be provided in accord with UDC standards on individual lots. On-street parking for guests can also be accommodated on both sides of public streets. Public streets and three common driveways are proposed for internal circulation and access to lots. Detached sidewalks with landscape parkways are proposed throughout the development. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast side of this development and is a large open waterway that is required to be piped, unless left open and improved as a water amenity or a linear open space. The applicant requests a Council waiver to this requirement, which is in UDC 11-3A-6B, to allow the canal to remain open and proposes to construct six foot tall chain link fencing along the waterway to preserve public safety. The Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline bisects the southwest corner of this site within a 75 foot wide easement and is contained within common lots and that is this hatched area you can see right there on the plat. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Overland Road, an entryway corridor. Ten foot wide multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with the pathways master plan on the site within the street buffer along Overland Road, along the Ridenbaugh Canal, and along the Williams Pipeline. Qualified open space is proposed in excess UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent or 8.38 acres is required. A total of 22.3 or 26 percent of the site is proposed consisting of half the street buffer along Overland Road, linear open space and open grassy areas of at least 50 feet by 100 feet in area. Parkways also qualify toward the open space requirements, but were are not included in the calculations. A minimum of four qualified site amenities are required. A clubhouse, a swimming pool, tot lot with children's play equipment, three different segments of multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space above the standards are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for each of the different lot widths proposed. Four 39 foot wide lots as shown, 50 foot wide lots, and 60 foot wide lots. Written testimony has been received from the following: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group. She is the applicant's representative. She is in agreement with the staff report, except for staff's recommendation that another housing type is provided. She would like this requirement removed and I will let her go over the reasons for that in her presentation. Letter of testimony was received from Ken and Sherry Fawcett, neighbors. They are not in favor Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F92 Page 89 of 110 of the proposed R-8 zoning and location of the stub street to the south. They would like it to be moved further to the west between Lots 4 and 5 and I will just go back to the plat here and show you where that's located. So, four and five are right to the corner -- at the southwest corner of the development. So, that's where they would prefer that the stub street be located. A letter of testimony was also received from four couples, also neighbors to this development. Scott and Jennifer Nichols. Curtis and Naomi Elton. Steven and Susan Przybos and Michael and Brenda Voglemore. They are in agreement with the location of the stub street to the south, where it's at, and that does stub to the Nichols' property and they have three requests as follows: The first they would like suitable drainage for irrigation and runoff to be maintained from the west end of the Southridge fence, northwest towards Overland Road. Second, they would like a condition placed on this development and the associated housing to only allow dark sky compliant lighting, so that it doesn't encroach on their properties. The city has no ordinance, just as a -- as a side note for such. And, third and finally, they would like Lots 1 and 2, Block 10, located on the east side of the stub street -- those are these two lots right here where my pointer is at. They would like those relocated to the north in this common area right here. And they would like the height of the residential vegetation adjacent to Val Vista Subdivision fence to be limited at ten feet above ground level for the reasons stated in their letter. Staff is recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. I appreciate it. Any questions for Sonya at this time? Hearing none, I see Tamara Thompson joining us. Tamara, you want to take it from here? Thompson: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson, I'm with The Land Group. We are located at 4628 Shore Drive in Eagle. And if I can, I have a PowerPoint for you that I will go through. I want to mention as well that with me from The Land Group is Jason Densmer. He is an engineer on the project. Okay. Are you seeing that? All right. Thank you. All right. Before you this is the Southridge South Subdivision. This is a rezone and a preliminary plat. The property is located south of West Overland Road, east of Ten Mile Road. As Sonya mentioned, it was annexed in 2007. It's gone through several different development agreement modifications over the years. The latest which was dated 2012. So, it's had the same development agreement since 2012. The rezone is necessary to clean up the zoning boundaries to be consistent with the proposed lot configurations and to be consistent with the development agreement and the future land use designation from the city. So, I have color coded this for you, so you can see it a little easier. The blue-purple color is the R-8 zone. There is roughly 68 -- or 63 acres of that and the R-2 is 22.25 acres and that's the salmon color. And, again, the proposed zones are consistent with the existing development agreement. This is the master concept plan that is in the development agreement and, please, note the different varieties of homes that are included in the overall master plan. So, in this area there are alley-loaded patio homes. They are detached units, but they are patio homes with -- that are alley loaded and in this area there is some smaller narrow lots, Blue Valley Elementary school is -- is located here along Linder Road and I can let you know that that school is currently in design and permitting. There is a commercial corner and, then, this was approved as the Linder-Overland apartments and that is -- I don't know if it's a hundred Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F93 Page 90 of 110 percent done, but the units -- there is several units that are occupied and, then, the Southridge Apartments are in this area. So, the area that we are talking about tonight is the area I have outlined in blue. So, the preliminary -- the preliminary plat is -- is what you see here. It consists of 254 single family lots proposed in four phases. The services are available to serve the site and we will go to this one here. The -- as Sonya mentioned, we have 22.3 acres or 26 percent of open space, which is in 29 common lots. Amenities are a centrally located clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot, play equipment, multiple use pathways throughout and as Sonya mentioned, we are requesting a waiver to leave the Ridenbaugh Canal as is and it's an open canal. Access to Overland Road is in one location. There will be another crossing over the Ridenbaugh Canal, which would go to the east and, then, this little connection right here is the emergency fire department connection. So, although all the units are single family residential, there are three different product types. The conceptual elevations that I'm showing here are for the 60 -- 60 foot lots and, then, we have different ones for 50 foot lots and 39 foot lots. We have read the staff report and we agree with the analysis in the conditions of approval. Although it's not a condition of approval, but, rather, a requirement on page 35 of the staff report, it states prior to the City Council hearing we request -- require -- or there is -- that we need to include another housing type and as I have mentioned before, this is part of a larger master plan and within that master plan there are several different housing types. We have three different housing types within the Southridge South and we are requesting that this condition be removed. And with that I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tamara. Are there questions for the applicant at this point? Jason, thanks for being here, too. We appreciate it. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Seal: Just in looking at the -- I'm looking at the landscape plan, but it's area three where those common driveways go down, I mean it's -- there is essentially six properties that are going to be taking access from the shared access driveways there. Considering that the staff is asking for another type of housing in there, I mean would you guys be willing to look at that as an opportunity to do that in there, because the shared driveways in there -- I mean having six properties off that is really cramming them in there, basically. I think that's an opportunity there to possibly look at a different housing style that would eliminate that altogether. Densmer: I would be happy to answer that, Commissioner. This is Jason Densmer with The Land Group, just to get on the record. My address is also 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I have been involved with Southridge since the original annexation in 2007 and so I have a little bit of background with that. The -- the type of housing that we are proposing there with the six lots along the common drive has already been built-- I believe on four other streets in the original Southridge to the east and it's really successful in helping us tackle some of the typography challenges that this site has, which makes it unique in several ways from other properties in the City of Meridian. This is kind of a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F94 Page 91 of 110 bench property where the Ridenbaugh Canal is along the edge of the bench and so below the canal to the north and east is significantly steep and, then, also on this property above the canal there is quite a bit of grade change. So, those -- that style of housing -- six lots clustered along a common drive really works well for us to create some tiered lots where each lot along the common drive is different elevation from its neighbor, which is not at all conducive to a different housing type, like an attached product as the staff report suggests we should include. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, follow up? Seal: No. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Jason. Any additional questions for the applicant at this juncture? Tamara and Jason, thank you so much. We will let you finish up and close answering questions after we hear public testimony. Hang with us and we will get back to you. Densmer: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have -- I know we have a number of people online. If you would like -- I think I will let you go down the list, ma'am. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I apologize, the two people that were signed in ahead of time were Mr. Densmer and Tamara. There are several other people signed in, but not indicating the wish to testify. I did see a hand raised earlier prior to this hearing, so we will see if that person does that. Scott Nichols. One moment, please. Fitzgerald: If Mr. Nichols would like to testify, bring him over. Hold on one second, sir. Mr. Nichols, are you -- I think you are transitioned over. Nichols: I think I'm transitioned over. Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes sir. Go right ahead, please. Nichols: I did -- I did open up the video. I don't know if you have got video. It doesn't look like there is video on me right now. How about -- there we go. Okay. This is Scott Nichols. My address is 2730 West Val Vista Court, immediately south of the Southridge South plat that we have been looking at this evening. I'm actually speaking on behalf of the four residents that Sonya was outlining earlier, Curtis and Naomi Elton to the west of me. Myself. Mike and Brenda Voglemore to the -- to the east. And Steven and Susan Przybos, the furthest eastern most residents in Val Vista. Sonya, I want to thank you for a really good presentation and thank you for pointing out our concerns. We have been working on this project with The Land Group and Jason for -- I can't believe it's been 13 years and our -- our underlying and the most important thing that we have been working on in those 13 years is to ensure that the value of the lots that we are living on and that we purchased and that we moved here for are not lost in transition from the term Val Vista to no vista. They have worked through the process with us and -- and there are some Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F95 Page 92 of 110 instances where Jason has been excellent to work with. There are some other areas that he pointed out, justly so, that he really can't represent us in -- in what we would recommend. So, we find ourselves, as we always knew we would at sort of at the 11 th hour, asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to, please, take a look at this -- and I don't think there is anything egregious or out of the ordinary or unreasonable that we would ask, other than to help us preserve the view lot that we have established. Mr. Przybos has been in his house for -- I don't know how many years. Probably 15 or 20. He was one of the first residences here, I believe, and actually constructed his -- his -- his house there. Mr. Voglemore purchased his house a number of years ago. All -- all of us for the same reason, the view that we had of the valley. I want to reiterate that none of us ever anticipated that there would not be development to the north. So, we are not opposed to the development, we just really want to make sure that if at all possible -- and we believe it is possible -- that we can integrate that development and preserve not only Southridge Subdivision's values or enhance their values, but it makes them this very simple improvement for -- for the city and for the future of Val Vista Subdivision. Sonya, again, thank you for the really good summary. I want to just -- if you can go back to that slide that shows the plat with the lots that are shown on the -- on the very bottom, the lot lines. I will let that come up real quick. So, the -- as you follow to the very southwest corner of Southridge South -- Sonya, if you can put your cursor on that stub street of Red Clay Road that heads south into Val Vista. That one -- right there. Jason did a really good job coordinating with us on the location of that. It comes out west of my house, east of the Elton's house and wouldn't -- you know, doesn't interfere with either of us. As a matter of fact, in some ways it's a benefit from the standpoint of natural gas, water, sewer, or-- or fiber optic for -- for the Curtis' and myself, potentially, if we wanted to do that. But there are two lots to the west of that stub street that will significantly -- in fact, not even significantly, they will eliminate Mr. Voglemore's view shed to the northwest and totally eliminate my view shed to the north and with the light pollution we have talked about, turn our typical dark sky that I'm looking at right now, literally just looking out to the north, will -- you know, our backyards are going to be illuminated without consideration for these -- for these two minor things and I understand the city doesn't have a dark sky ordinance. Wouldn't prevent us from implementing dark sky lighting. I cannot believe it would be any more expensive and with the additional lots that have been placed out here -- I don't remember the exact number, Sonya, but we are well above the original plat that was intended to be here and, again, this is a rezone to increase the density. So, the first issue was the dark sky. The second issue really has to do with -- with this -- the ten foot vegetative buffer right along the fence line. That's all we are asking for is that we don't have a -- a bunch of 60 foot trees that would block Mr. Przybos' view shed all the way to the east on the other side of Williams Pipeline -- across Williams Pipeline and, then, just to the west of Williams Pipeline to protect those view sheds there and, then, Mr. Elton's view shed looking to the -- to the northeast also. He's got a great view of Bogus Basin. So, we are not asking for no development, but the last point of that is that we really believe that moving those two lots right there in the corner of Williams Pipeline and that stub street, if you were to put those two lots to the left in that little cul-de-sac, they are not going to fill up that park area, but it allows that park to become -- instead of one central repository where people come and stop, it allows people to flow down the street, through the park, out to the pipeline area onto the rest of the greenscape that's integrated in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F96 Page 93 of 110 community and it would flow really really well. So, I am going to leave that with you. I think there are four really good reasons for us to make those two changes and for the Council to find in favor. These are not major or significant in terms of redesign or consideration, but they are a major impact for the residents and the future layout of the community. I guess I want to say to the other thing is is that it adds to view lots for the developer -- I'm sorry, it adds one additional view lot for the developer, instead of limiting -- limiting the view of lots that are there along Williams Pipeline. So, I am going to -- I'm sure there is something that I forgot, but we did submit written comments and I would just ask your consideration in making those changes before we issue a final plat. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Nichols. We appreciate you being here tonight. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If I could address a question to Mr. Nichols. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Go right ahead. Cassinelli: Mr. Nichols, could you just summarize real quickly -- you just -- you just want to lose -- you're asking for those two lots in that corner there to come out? Nichols: Actually, only to be moved. We will retain the two lots, let's just fit them in right there where Sonya's cursor is. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, what was your other request? Nichols: The other request was for a -- a -- just a ten foot max vegetation height on the southern edge of the subdivision on the fence line, so that we don't have 60 foot poplar trees blocking Mr. Przybos' view to the east or Mr. Voglemore's view there just along Williams Pipeline. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Scott, can I ask you one quick question? How high above the current -- it's a gravel pit now; right? How high above you guys -- or below it are you? You guys are high above them; correct? How -- how many feet would you say? Nichols: We are actually -- and I want to tell you we -- we supported the development of that gravel extraction under the guise of regrading, recognizing that it would benefit the developer and us. That was a painful process to go through with the dust and the noise and we lived through a lot, but I think the bottom of the gravel pit-- I would defer to Jason, but I believe that is 35 feet down the slope to the bottom and that would be in the area east of Williams Pipeline. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F97 Page 94 of 110 Cassinelli: Okay. Nichols: The area west of the pipeline is actually higher than where I sit right now. So, as I -- as I'm looking out my window I'm looking straight out the lot line parallel with the cross-hatching that covers the Williams Pipeline and that ground is actually a little bit higher than me. So, yeah, I -- you know, I don't -- I'm going to live with houses out there. Mike -- and we all understand that. We are just trying to buffer the impact a little. Fitzgerald: No. That helps me understand it. Thank you. I -- I was trying to pull it up on Google Maps. I couldn't get the grading. There is now, so -- Nichols: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Nichols: You are welcome. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, who might be -- if there is someone who would like to testify on this application that's online, please, raise your hand via the Zoom application to the bottom of your screen if you would like to testify. We have several of Mr. Nichols' neighbors that are still online. If you would like to testify, please, raise your hand. If not, we can -- Mr. Voglemore, we see that you are on. Would you like to testify? We will bring you over in just a second, sir. Did we lose him in the process? I don't see him anymore. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I think maybe we lost him in the process of transferring over. I didn't see any technical issues on my end, but I'm not -- I don't have an explanation. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Madam Clerk. I appreciate it, Adrienne. Jason, while we are waiting to see if he -- if he hops back on, can you answer a question for me? Do you have a topo at all on that -- on the grading that was finished out there or the -- the pre -- pre-finish where it is right now? Do you guys have a topographical, what that looks like? Densmer: We do and we have included a conceptual mass grading plan in the pre-plat materials, although I admit there is quite a few sheets there and a lot of detail that you probably haven't committed to memory. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, what Mr. Nichols was talking about there -- so, is a mound in the middle right now. Is that going to be flattened out or what's that going to look like after this is done? Is there going to be a below grade -- below Val Vista that they sit up on? Densmer: The amount of the middle certainly wouldn't --wouldn't be capped. The overall grading has lowered the property at least 30 feet, depending on where you are. Of course, we didn't lower the grade at all at the Williams Pipeline, but as you move towards the north the ground level has gone down quite a lot. I think one of the -- one of the areas where the masquerading for the gravel pit benefited the neighbors to the south is kind of right at the corner where the Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions come together, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F98 Page 95 of 110 which is just to the west of the common driveway access lots that Commissioner Seal asked me about earlier and in that corner there is kind of one particularly large lot that you can see on the screen in front of us. Probably can't see my cursor, but it's kind of dead center of the south property line. Right at that location. I think overall the mass grading resulted in that lot being lowered -- I think 27 feet from the natural grade, which certainly has lowered that lot and all the lots considerably to the benefit of Val Vista's neighbors' views. Fitzgerald: Okay. Densmer: While I'm on the topic I did want to maybe mention some of the other requirements that were encapsulated in the original development agreement in 2007 and, then, carried forward into the -- the development agreement modification in 2012. All of which were originally designed in response to neighbors' concerns about a lot of the same issues that have been brought up tonight. In particular, the development agreement required -- and the developer has already completed a very expensive six foot tall masonry fence along the entire south boundary line of the project, between Val Vista and Aspen Cove and the Southridge South project. There are specific restrictions on the heights of the homes that can be built along that shared property line. They are limited to a maximum height of 22 feet or to a -- you know, basically, the maximum height of the ridge of the -- the roof of the house has -- can -- can be taller than 22, so long as it's not higher than the top of that six foot fence. So, for the lots that have been lowered, taller homes are possible, but they still wouldn't be above the top of the fence. There is a -- there is a categorical restriction on the number of homes that can be along the shared property line. The development agreement restricts it to 14, which is exactly what we have proposed. So, we are --we are staying consistent with the promises that have been made all the way back to 2007 and, then, there is also a requirement on an increase setback for all of the lots that -- that border that property line. Although, those properties are zoned R-2 and have been since the original annexation into the city, the R-2 zoning allows a rear setback of 15 feet, but through the development agreement the property has agreed to a 50 foot setback for those lots in order to move the homes much further away from the neighbors and the underlying zoning requirement would allow. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Densmer: I sort of hijacked the original question, but -- Fitzgerald: You're fine. Densmer: -- it provides more color to the discussion. Fitzgerald: I appreciate it. No, I appreciate that. Mr. Voglemore, you are -- I think you are with us now, sir. If you unmute yourself you can join our conversation. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F99 Page 96 of 110 Voglemore: You know, with Jason -- he touched on everything. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, we all had the same understanding and so Jason did explain that well. Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Voglemore, can you introduce yourself, just so we have you on our -- Voglemore: I'm sorry. I'm Mike Voglemore. 2720 West Val Vista Court. Fitzgerald: So, any additional comments to make -- follow that up? Voglemore: No. Jason touched it very well. Fitzgerald: Okay. That was -- it's helpful. Thank you so much for the information. Voglemore: You bet. Fitzgerald: Adrienne, I see -- I think Karen has her hand up. Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair. Karen, one moment, please. Karen, if you could unmute yourself and finish transitioning. Karen, if you would like to unmute yourself and introduce yourself. Did I lose Karen? Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, we are losing people left and right. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I promise, I don't know what's happening, but I'm not doing it. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else that would like to testify, to see if Karen comes back in -- that is in the audience or online that would like to testify, please, raise your hand. See if Karen gets back on. Not seeing anyone --Tamara, would you like to take an opportunity to close and we will let Karen hop back on if she gets back online. Thompson: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this is Tamara Thompson again with The Land Group. If I could, I will just share one more screen real quickly. There we go. Let's see. Did that work? Fitzgerald: Not yet. Thompson: Okay. How about now? Fitzgerald: Yep. Thompson: Okay. So, what --just in -- in addition to what Jason said, I think he -- he did the -- replied to Mr. Nichols' points on a lot of things. As far as the drainage, the comp -- point number one that Mr. Nichols brought up, of course, we are aware and we will accommodate the drainage that he is referring to. As far as the streetlighting with the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Flool Page 97 of 110 dark sky, we are happy to include the area that is adjacent to the Val Vista Subdivision that we can include in the CC&Rs for having some dark sky light fixtures in that area. And, then, as far as the subdivision layout, Jason addressed that. There were -- this is the master plan from 2013 and the Val Vista Subdivision was included in -- in those. Mr. Nichols has lived there since 2006. So, he's been involved in this process through -- throughout and -- and I have done lots of research as far as on their subdivision and the deeds of the homeowners along that south property line and there aren't any -- any view sheds or anything like that that are deeded and, you know, you buy your property, but you don't necessarily buy the view. The view -- the view is for sale sometimes, but -- but that's not -- having conditions that are -- encumber somebody else's property aren't something that's -- that's part of your deed, but these have been -- since 2007 there has been many concessions that have been made and those are codified, they are in the development agreement and we are complying with every single one of those. So, I just want to go back that we -- we do agree with the staff report. We agree with all the conditions of approval. There is the -- the one requirement to include another attached unit and we are asking for that condition to be removed, that we would like to keep these as detached single family homes and with that we respectfully request your approval tonight and thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Tamara, real quick. Can you -- what about the vegetation buffer or the -- keeping the vegetation lower than the ridge line or ten feet? Densmer: Mr. Chairman, this is Jason Densmer. If I can jump in on a couple of items that maybe I have a little bit more background on and that might be one of them. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Densmer: Yeah. Thank you. And to the point that -- that Tamara made, certainly we have been -- we have enjoyed working with Scott and all of the neighbors in Val Vista since 2006. It really has been a partnership in working with them and -- and seeing that their needs are addressed through the development agreements and are documented. We are-- I'm quite proud of the project that's in front of you tonight, because it-- it respects all of those. It also meets the developer -- our client's goals and aspirations for the property. There were -- in addition to the vegetation -- trust me, I'm coming back to that eventually. The -- Scott did also ask about relocating two lots -- the two lots that were used for the stub street and -- in between the stub street and the Williams Pipeline. One of the things that we are particularly proud of with the layout of the subdivision is the effective use of open space and while I appreciate this suggestion that we take those two lots and relocate them into the area across the street, you can see here on the master plan that's in front of us the -- there has always been lots proposed along the south boundary line in that area between the stub street and the Williams Pipeline. On the master plan originally there had been lots across the street in the open space, but we deliberately removed those in order to increase the amount of open space and really provide open parkland in a more meaningful way that can benefit the neighborhood. The proposed design of that open space area is really -- it really meets the vision of an open space by being open. It's not cut up and it doesn't have two lots just floating out in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Foll Page 98 of 110 middle of it, which allows us to provide more sportsfield type space with a perimeter walking path that can connect in with the multi-use path that follows the Williams Pipeline. We really feel like -- while I appreciate this recommendation and the city has been great since 2006 in providing us with feedback on the design, with regard to those two lots and his suggestion, I think what we have proposed is a stronger proposal. As far as limiting vegetation along the south property line, that's really difficult and it's not a component of the existing development agreement. As Tamara mentioned, there are -- and summarized them for you -- there is a number of protections that are already built into the development agreement and that are being honored to try and control individual homeowners landscape is -- is a minefield and I don't think even the city gets into that. You provide us with recommendations and requirements for common area landscaping, but there is very few restrictions on individual homeowner plantings. It's not a requirement that we would be willing to add to the project. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Jason. Additional questions for Jason or Tamara? None at this time? This is your last chance. If anyone has a quick -- quick question or follow up. Okay. Tamara, Jason, thank you so much for being here this evening, hanging with us, and with that we are done discussing at this point. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing. Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-0083, Southridge South Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Anybody want to leadoff? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I will jump in on a couple of things. I think I would actually be in agreement with the applicant on the side of not requiring another housing type right here within this. I just -- I think there is plenty of housing types within the area. I mean we have got some decent size lots in here and -- you know. And even in the R-8s and I think there is a nice variety within the area. Fitzgerald: I agree. I think there is -- then the apartments are right next door. There is townhomes right -- McCarvel: Yeah. There is a ton of apartments. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F102 Page 99 of 110 Fitzgerald: Yeah. I agree. McCarvel: And, you know, I'm -- I'm for, you know, doing -- you know, within reason to help conserve people's views that have been there for a while, but on the other hand, you know, you can't limit what this property is -- I mean the -- there is more view lots coming. I mean they are going to have views as well. But I think there is some things that, you know, they have suggested within reason and I think Tamara was in agreement with -- already with the dark sky lighting. Yeah. And, you know, the ten foot vegetative limit on one hit -- you know, seems like a reasonable request on the one hand, but on the other who is ever going to be able to police that. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would agree with Commissioner McCarvel's comments there, too. I don't really feel like there is a need for another housing type. I think that it's well accomplished within this area regionally. So, I -- I would be okay with striking that. The only other thing I noticed was like -- and I don't think I want to change it necessarily. I appreciate that they have got a large section of open space, but I felt a little bad for all the R-8 units that just look like rows of R-8 without any breaks in them. I guess I don't know that I necessarily want to change anything, but it's something I certainly noticed. It's just a big section of R- 8 and there is not really any pocket parks or any other amenities on -- on that section for those homes, it's just kind of more on the south side. So, there are two houses that get great access to the big open spaces, but they have the bigger lots and the R-8 -- it's all kind of more packed and they don't have as much open space that's close to them, but I think they are meeting and exceeding what -- what they need to do for open space throughout the entire project, so just a point of conversation. Commissioner Seal kind of touched on it, but I always hate shared drives when you have got three -- six houses on one split down. I just hate those. I don't think they work well. I think it causes issues with trash collection, it causes someone who has got a trailer or you have got people double parked or whatever it is -- guest parking. It just -- they don't -- they don't work well and I don't think anybody on the Commission likes them, so that would be my only point of consideration if we were going to make a recommendation to see if there was an alternative way to -- to do that. But other than that I -- I am not opposed to the development. I think it's a pretty good layout and I think the R-2 was a nice transition. I would also like to make a couple comments about the view lots. It's hard to restrict somebody on a different property from what they want to do with it, but I think they have tried to do what they can to be accommodating to those neighbors. Fitzgerald: So, my only -- I agree with -- with the majority what you just said. I think the comment about the common area in the -- on the R-8, that is a pretty big field -- a pool in the middle at the southeast corner that is away from the R-2 that I think is really centralized. We always talk about -- like to break up these little pieces all over the place. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F103 Page 100 of 110 I love that central area. I know there is park strips all along that middle -- I know it's just kind of a funky -- like ribs layout, but that-- I love the Central Park they have in the middle with the pool in it. So, unless you want to trade off for a pocket park. Holland: No. And that's why I said I don't think I want to change anything, because I would much rather have a big open space and walk an extra two blocks to get to it, but it's just sad when you see rows of R-8. I wish there was an extra pocket park, but I'm not going to make them take away from something else to add it in there. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Any thought? Grove: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, you know, I think one of the banes of being on Planning and Zoning is having to look at a house with a 39 foot frontage, because all you see is a big garage door, with a little front door and it -- to me that is probably one of the most things that just -- I hate, just because it just -- all you do is you see a sea of garage and you don't see much of the house and so I guess that's more of my nitpicking versus wanting to do anything about it, but I don't know -- if we could get rid of some of those and make a little bit bigger lots I would be much happier. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, I think I cut you off. Grove: It's all good. I would echo a lot of what's been said, especially with what Commissioner Holland said. That north portion -- or northwest portion where -- there is no open space, but I don't -- normally I would probably want to change some of that, but because of what you said also, Mr. Chair, with how big the open space is and the amenities that are there, I -- I think that that works for this. I understand what Commissioner Yearsley says about the garage that -- and how those look. I think at this point, though, for me, having houses that are smaller does improve what is available for our community in allowing more people access to homeownership and so I'm in favor of -- of how this has been laid out. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I like a lot of things about the sub. I like the -- you know, the layout of it. I agree that the -- kind of the rows and rows of houses I don't necessarily care for, but I -- you know, I mean the rest of it is laid out a little bit differently, so provides some variety in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F104 Page 101 of 110 community. But the shared driveways where there is six homes on each one of those, I just -- I just can't -- I can't get over that. So, I -- you know, I would really like to see those eliminated or at least limited to three, you know, and in doing that I don't know -- I mean looking at the -- essentially what Sonya has got in the staff report, she gives an example of single family attached or townhomes that she's not necessarily saying that that's what has to go in there, but I think there is an opportunity to, you know, do both -- provide something that could be different, not necessarily attached -- you know, single family attached or townhomes or something like that, but just something different in there that eliminates the need for those shared driveways. So, I appreciate that it's a little bit different landscape in there, but even in the original drawings they had -- they had cul-de- sacs in there, so I just think that the community in -- between all of the services that need to be provided there and everything else, it would be better served by eliminating those shared driveways or at least getting them limited to, you know, no more than three on a shared driveway or something along those lines. I don't know. And I can see maybe an alley load product or something like that working well in there, especially with some kind of, you know, view in mind with them. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: I think the -- the one thing on those shared driveways -- I think what Jason was mentioning -- had with the -- with the topography and so I -- I think that they are kind of limited on that. I just wanted to throw that in while I'm thinking about it. A couple of my thoughts here. I -- I don't -- I'm in agreement with the applicant. I don't think -- I think there is enough housing types in that area that we don't need to try and just shove one in here for the sake of shoving it in and we have got some of these smaller lots -- these 39 foot lots -- I'm in agreement with Commissioner Yearsley as far as the look of that, but that will bring in a -- I think a lower price point product and open the door and some of those may be with some, you know, more patio home styles that will, you know, bring the -- bring the cap and open it up for more -- more ownership. I couldn't figure out what -- what was getting me when I looked at all of this -- kind of those that -- you called it -- you referred to it as kind of the rib effect, the rib look, and as you pointed out is that there is -- there is no greenspace there. It was all so straight. I'm -- I'm not so sold on the fact that you have got to have that huge open area by the R-2 and, number one, R-2 people, they got big lots, they are not going to be going to a huge common lot. It's going to be the other people that want that. So, you know, I would ultimately like to see that move. Again, this is a preliminary plat, but I would like to see some more -- more open space in some of those other areas. It's those smaller lots that -- that need close access to -- to a pocket park and I know in -- in my subdivision we have got one huge open space area -- nobody really uses it. Every once in a while somebody will -- will put a volleyball net up there, every once in a while that's where we have our -- you know, some -- some community events twice a year. It's not like it's full every day with kids playing in there like you might think. It's -- you know, it's actually -- a couple of smaller pocket parks that I think are used more, because they are, you know, a block away, half a block away, instead of all the way across the subdivision. So, that's my thoughts on there. And, then, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F105 Page 102 of 110 one of the comments I wanted to address to one of Mr. Nichols' comment, is in his e-mail was that, you know, they are -- the applicant is asking for a rezone of a -- significant request for a rezone and I know they have -- they have worked together a lot. I don't see -- you know. And moving those two lots -- I think it's not the -- the residents up on Val Vista didn't just say we don't want it, we don't want it, I mean they kind of -- they took -- I think they were creative, they took some time, they have, obviously, spent a lot of time communicating. It sounded like the only reason why they -- why the applicant was opposed to moving those two lots is because they had that one big open area. Well, alls that does is it kind of shifts it a little bit and, again, I would -- I would -- I'm more in favor of moving some of that open space even -- even down. So, I'm not -- it's a preliminary plat. I'm not -- I would love to see some changes in there. I would love -- I would like to see the applicant really look hard about moving those two lots. It's not -- there is not a -- there is not a real reason not to do it and I don't think that the folks up on Val Vista are asking for the moon on that and I think it could be done. So, those are -- those are my thoughts. But I would really love to see some more -- some of that open space shifted down below. And I guess I have a question if I can. Sonya, are we just approving the rezone? I think you thought -- I think your comments -- your initial comments were they are presenting a preliminary plat, but we were only addressing the rezone. Can you clarify that? Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, no, they are requesting a rezone and a preliminary plat. So, both of those items are -- are requiring a recommendation from you to Council. I would like to clarify something that's not in the staff report specifically. The -- the applicant references 39 foot wide lots. Those do not meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 district. There is a minimum frontage of 40 feet. Their plat is missing dimensions of the frontage. The final plat will have to comply with the dimensional standards of the district that they are approved with, but just --just to note that, that if there are 39 foot wide lots, that does not meet the R-8 standard and they will need to be widened a little bit. Fitzgerald: Thanks for that, Sonya. Just to follow up on Commissioner Cassinelli's comments. I -- I understand your comment about shifting a lot over into the open space. One of the things I don't want us to get into as a -- as a Commission is view sheds are not something we can -- I mean that's not -- it's not in code, it's not anywhere we can discuss it. I mean it's -- it's something that everybody has a right to. It's a property right that no one can take away from other people. When it's landowners that's -- what's on their land. So, I'm going to make sure we -- that's not the direction we go on some of these comments, because that's -- and I really appreciate that we don't want to impact the people on Val Vista, that -- I totally agree and they have been great partners, but I want to make sure that view sheds are something that get real sticky when you go into -- especially in a legal battle, because there is nothing that defines that in our code and every property right owner has a right to their own -- where their lot sits and where their view is and so does the property owner where this is developed. So, we got to make sure we don't -- we got to be real careful about how we approach that. So, I -- not that that impacts my comments about -- or your thoughts about the -- moving the lots. If that's something we think we want to do, the good kind of partner in the city, that's --that's okay, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F106 Page 103 of 110 but let's be careful about how we approach that. I think that's my--at least in my thoughts. I would love feedback there, if there is others that have different opinions. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, go right ahead. Seal: Just on moving those lots, I mean the one thing, you know, to -- to consider is if those lots are moving that becomes open space. There is requirements on the open space to have things like trees, things that are going to block that -- that view anyway. I think what we are going to run up against is the -- I think, you know, what I'm hearing from -- from the folks that live south of this is, you know, essentially, they don't want anything that's going to encroach upon their view shed -- or on their view at all and I think, you know, as long as the buildings are kept to, you know, certain height restrictions and things like that, that can somewhat be accomplished, but you can't necessarily tell somebody that they can't plant a tree in their backyard. You know. And, again, who is going to enforce that. You know, I mean we -- everywhere we go, you know, the mantra is plant as many trees as you can stand on your property. I mean I think we still have the two tree minimum in our front yards for Ada county. So, you know, we kind of get into that where, yeah, we might move two houses and, then, the next thing you know there is trees in there that are going to block the view. So -- you know. And I sympathize for them. I mean to be perfectly honest, this is a piece of property I have eyed for a long time, like if it ever comes available I'm going to start shopping, so --you know. And --and specifically for the fact that it's going to have great views, you know, and there is not much that's going to pop up in front of it. Not that I'm -- you know, I don't necessarily want to look out on a whole bunch of apartments, but you do have Bogus Basin in your view as well. So, you know, I agree we have to be careful with what -- you know, what we are trying to accomplish here by accommodating them, because in trying to accommodate them it might turn into just the opposite where we are going to have -- you know, because of the requirement to put in trees and, you know, bushes and things like that, it might end up doing the opposite for them. So, that's -- that's my thoughts on it. I mean -- Fitzgerald: And we can't plant anything besides grass on that -- on the Williams -- or on the Williams Pipeline, which is a big section of that greenspace. Seal: Right. Fitzgerald: So, just to keep that in the -- McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Go ahead. McCarvel: Oh, this -- Fitzgerald: Oh, sorry. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F107 Page 104 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. I really don't -- I don't see the real value in moving those two lots over into the middle of that green space and just kind of floating those two lots there in the middle of, you know, what looks like very nicely -- nice designed area and I agree with Commissioner Seal, you take those out you might be getting worse as far as view blockage. Holland: Mr. Chair, could we restrict them to single story? Would that help at all? Fitzgerald: I think Tamara put restrictions in place. Holland: I think that was already covered, but -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. And, Sonya, can you speak to that? Was that something that -- was it in the development agreement originally? Allen: I'm sorry, Chairman, can you repeat the question? Fitzgerald: On the height of the R-2 along the southern border. Allen: Yes. The height is dealt with in the development agreement and I believe I included those conditions in the conditions of approval of this staff report. Do you have it handy? Fitzgerald: I do somewhere, yes. And the 14,000 tabs I have open. Allen: Would you like me to review the condition or -- Fitzgerald: That would be awesome. Allen: Hang on. Fitzgerald: I think we covered it, if I remember correctly. I'm just trying to find it. Allen: Yeah. That -- the height of the homes along the southern boundary of the subdivision shared with Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivision shall be limited to a maximum height of 22 feet measured from either the midpoint of the front of the lot at the top back of curb or the midpoint of the rear of the lot, whichever is more restrictive, to the average height of the highest roof surface. In the event the maximum height of the home as so measured is lower than the top of the six foot tall masonry fence, then, the maximum height may be increased, so that the maximum height is equal to the elevation of the top of the fence at midpoint of the rear of the lot. The lots along this boundary are also required to provide a minimum 50 foot rear setback. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Allen: Yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F108 Page 105 of 110 Fitzgerald: Additional comments or thoughts? What do we need to work through? I know we are -- we have some pocket park discussions. We have common driveway discussions. And, then, anything else that's -- that's hanging out there that anybody has some concerns about? I think we all -- do we all agree that we don't need to have a different type of housing type, unless they are going to shift the common drive lots? Like are we all okay there? Cassinelli: I'm -- I'm good with that. Yearsley: I good with that. Seal: I mean I -- honestly my -- I mean the only thing I have hanging out there. I understand about the -- the parks and how things could be redone in order to accommodate, you know, losing a little bit of that larger area and making some small areas to, you know, break up the block base and those -- you know, where they are all just right in a row. You know, I -- I like to do everything we can to eliminate the -- the garage farm concept for sure, but I mean there is a lot of things in this subdivision that make that a little more difficult to do, so -- geographically that is. I mean my -- my only hang up really is those common driveways. I think we would better serve the community by trying to get -- you know, at least reduce them to, you know, no more than three at this point. Holland: Mr. Chair, I would say maybe no more than four, because, then, you could at least have them even. There is six right now on them. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Cassinelli: Sonya, back to the outline. They have proposed 254 building lots. There were a lot of different numbers there in the beginning from the original development agreement to current and -- and the apartments and all the number breakdowns. How many more units -- if you know this off the top of your head. How many more units are they -- are they proposing now than what -- what the net after -- you know, the apartments and all that, what it should have been? I think -- I see in 37 is that what -- is that correct? Allen: Well, it just depends on how you do the calcs. It's 37 in the single family homes. But there was a -- there was a variance that the DA -- the development agreement allowed, which was -- hang on just a second here. They were anticipated -- the single family units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance of the single family and the multi-family to total 1,286 total units. So, if you just look at the calcs on the single family, it's approximately 37 more. If you look at the calcs overall the -- the maximum number originally in the development agreement was 1 ,296 and today if this development agreement is approved they would be at 1,451. However, you know, it's important to note that the other -- the two multi-family developments have gone through Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Flog] Page 106 of 110 separate approvals and are now broken out into their own development agreements and were approved for that number of units, if that makes sense. So, the numbers really aren't a whole lot of applicable at this point, because there has been a lot of changes to the site and the development since 2012 when this development agreement was last modified. Cassinelli: And I guess where I'm -- where I'm going on this -- some of my fellow Commissioners -- is, you know, can we -- can we pull out some lots. A couple of you have shown some concerns over the common driveways. Can we pull out a couple there and, then, can we pull out a few in all that -- the large R-8 section and keep in mind that, you know, what they are asking for, too, is a whole lot more R-8 than -- there was R-4 in there and that's -- that's gone. They are asking to get rid of the R-4 all together and go -- replace that with R-8 and there was R-2 in there as well. I'm not looking at the -- the original right now, but, you know, I don't think it would be -- I don't -- I don't think it would be a stretch for us to ask them to eliminate some of the -- you know, some lots here and there to get a pocket park in some of those R-8 sections. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: My only concern is if you ask him to start eliminating lots to put in open space, then, we are looking more at a continuance for them to come back to us again to look at it again. I don't know that -- I don't think we need to necessarily do that. I think we are pretty close here. The thing -- I think if we were to restrict those common drives down to four, instead of six, I would feel better about that, but I think with how big those open spaces are, I would say -- you know, I lived in a neighborhood before the one that I'm in now that had a fairly large open space and it was well utilized for the neighborhood. It was mostly an R-4, R-8 kind of mixed neighborhood, but all of the kids were using that park, people were using it with frisbees and dogs and we walked four blocks to get to it and we didn't mind, because we liked having the bigger open space. So, I think it's just personal perspective and -- and preference there. I would prefer to have the bigger open spaces, so I don't know that I want to mess with it too much to have them eliminate lots. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would agree. I -- I like the bigger open space. I think maybe what we are trying to get after is fewer of the 40 foot lots, so we don't have, you know, so many of those places there be just walls of garage. Yeah. It -- you get a little bit -- better varied fronts if you just -- I mean maybe we limit the number of 40 foot lots. I don't know. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Fol Page 107 of 110 Fitzgerald: Well, I think I'm -- I'm in agreement with -- I mean Commissioner Holland and -- your comment and Commissioner Seal where if we take the -- if we start with the camera, the six lots on a common drive, and take to four -- looking at -- and I see looking and the open qualified -- or qualified open space, there is green space pretty much everywhere. It's not a pocket park, but there is green space all over the place and I do like the centralized -- you know, there are centralized places and kind of in multiple locations, but there is two big significant open spaces, which I kind of like. I don't -- I kind of like the mix of different housing types. If you are going to do that I -- I'm not sure how you do it or where you start. McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. I -- going after those -- eliminating the -- those shared driveways is the bigger deal, because it just -- talking through this, I mean those narrower lots do provide the housing, the different -- in my mind the different housing type, that it lends itself to having the different housing type is just detached. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Which I think is better than having more attached, being that they are so close to other townhomes and massive amounts of apartments. Parsons: So, Mr. Chair, if I may. Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Bill. Parsons: Thank you. So, keep in mind this is a plat. There is a rezone associated with it, but as staff has mentioned in their presentation there is no modification to the DA at this time. We have found that even with this rezone and the subdivision before you tonight it is consistent with the recorded development agreement. So, we have to be a little bit careful of trying to redesign and require people to lose lots and make -- provide more open space when they already exceed code requirements. So, I will caution the Commission on that discussion this evening. The other thing that the Commission is missing on this exhibit before you is a qualified open space exhibit, is that the applicant is going to be building a ten foot multi-use pathway along the Ridenbaugh. That is a ring around this community. So, you don't see that green line going up along that north -- north boundary of this project, which to me is probably one of the better amenities for this development, because that's a tremendous amount of pathway being added with this development and to me that's what gives you that walking path and starts connecting some of that open space in here, so -- so, keep that in mind. It's -- it's hard to see it, because it's such -- it only has to be 15 feet wide, but that's a tremendous asset to this community and it does tie -- not only does the road network tie into the -- the adjacent Southridge to the east, but it also ties into the pathway system into that development as well. So, we are going to have a mile segment of pathway through this entire development when it's done. So, I just wanted to at least bring that to your attention as you are -- you are deliberating tonight. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Fill] Page 108 of 110 Fitzgerald: No. Bill, that was hugely helpful. Thank you. And so -- but I think we can request a modification of the DA that no more than four lots come off a common drive; correct? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I probably wouldn't go that route just to modify a DA to reduce two lots. The applicant's demonstrated that it can work in the development to the east. Sonya's conditioned it appropriately to make sure that we are adequately addressing our concerns and the fire department's concerns. So, at this point -- I mean we hear you, we understand what you are -- what you are saying. If the applicant's amenable to losing a few lots, I think maybe opening up and having that discussion with them about doing that -- or maybe even Jason can explain how it worked in the previous phases, because, again, we have already done this before. It doesn't mean we have to do it again, but, again, I -- I don't know what the benefit is opening up a DA and doing a DA mod to lose four lots. At the end of the day it's got to work, it's got to meet code, and the code allows up to six units off a common drive. Fitzgerald: Got it. Holland: Mr. Chair, perhaps we just make a recommendation that the applicant might consider alternatives to that shared drive, but make it not a requirement. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Bill is all kinds of rays of sunshine this evening. He just drops like -- drops the mic and starts beating everybody about the head. Thanks, Bill. Where were you a half an hour ago? No, I'm just joking. Parsons: Trying to get you to bed earlier. Fitzgerald: Lisa said that a long -- an hour and a half long ago. Sorry. Anyway, I'm getting loopy. Anyone have additional comments around that? I -- I tend to agree with Bill's comments. I -- I think this is -- this is pretty baked into -- and it has been for a while after 13 years of working on it, so -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just to clarify, is there anything that we do want to condition, then, or we -- it sounds like we have kind of resolved almost everything at this point. We are not planning to condition much. Parsons: Well, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to mention, too, that the applicant will have to lose some lots. Some of his -- their lot sizes don't meet code. So, by virtue of just code they are going to probably have to re -- reconfigure some of those R-8 lots to meet our dimensional standards. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F112 Page 109 of 110 Fitzgerald: Then if that's the case -- I mean I think it may be -- and I will leave this up to you guys making motions, but maybe we make a recommendation that they look at losing some R-8 lots in the middle. They look at removing the six lots on a common drive and trying to find some way to put -- I don't know, pocket parks in somewhere. I mean I leave it up to you guys, but -- and it's more of a recommendation going forward than an actual condition. Holland Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to attempt something. Fitzgerald: You go. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number --just lost the file number. Fitzgerald: Eighty-three. Holland: File number 2020-0083 for Southridge South, with the -- as presented during the hearing date on December 17th, 2020, with the following recommendations: That the applicant would consider alternative options for where the shared drive meets six lots and that the applicant might also take some time considering the dense R-8 section and the possibility of removing a few lots or adding another couple spots of green space in there. Fitzgerald: And the housing type pieces. McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: And that we would remove the condition and requirement for an alternative type of housing product to be provided. McCarvel: I think it's 8-A, isn't it? Holland: Condition 8-A. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H- 2020-0083 with modifications and recommendations. Any other further comment? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Cassinelli: Nay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F113 Page 110 of 110 Fitzgerald: I have a -- Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Yearsley, is that right? Or Commissioner Grove? Yearsley: I said aye. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Grove, did you want to -- were you nay? Grove: I was aye. Fitzgerald: Oh, you were aye. Cassinelli: Commissioner Cassinelli was a nay. Fitzgerald: Okay. Sorry. Was there any other -- I just want to make sure we are clear. Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Tamara and Jason and members of the public. Hopefully we will work through this and it will be a successful partnership for everybody going forward. With that can I get one more motion? Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to let Commissioner Holland go to bed. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you, guys. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11.55 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 1 1 7 12021 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 4 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the December 3, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F44 Page 40 of 40 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:11 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 12-17-2020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 45 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway Ave. Item 2. F46 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN;�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 1DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for Conner Square,Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave and 528 W.Broadway Ave in the R-15 Zoning District,by Sarah Martz SEM Consulting. Case No(s).H-2020-0107 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. December 3,2020(Findings on December 17,2020) A. Findings of Fact I. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2020, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3,2020, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2020, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2020, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law I. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2020-0107] Page I Item 2. 47 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of December 3,2020, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 1I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3, 2020, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-617.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC I 1-513-617.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with I 1-513-6.17.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted.With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight(28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of December 3, 2020 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2020-0107] Page 2 Item 2. 48 %action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 17th Day of December 92020. COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER PATRICIA PITZER VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED AYE Ryan Fitzgerald, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. 12-17-2020 By: Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2020-01071 Page 3 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT C OMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT D EPARTMENT HEARING 12/3/2020 DATE: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach, Associate Planner 208-489-0573 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2020-0107 Conner Square CUP LOCATION: The site is located at 557 W. Idaho Ave and 528 W. Broadway Ave, in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 12, Township 3N, Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three (3) fourplex units on approximately 0.66 acres in the R-15 Zoning District. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.66 Acres Future Land Use Designation South: MDR, North: HDR Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Multifamily (3 four-plexes) Lots (# and type; bldg./common) 2 existing lots Phasing Plan (# of phases) 1 Phase Number of Residential Units (type 12 multifamily units of units) Density (gross & net) 18 du/acre Open Space (acres, total 11,118 sq. ft. total landscaping, 4,690 sq. ft. (16%) \[%\]/buffer/qualified) qualified open space. Amenities Community Garden, Enclosed Bike Storage Physical Features (waterways, Northern tip of property within 100-year floodplain. hazards, flood plain, hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; # of August 12, 2020, 1 person signed in, no issues expressed attendees: History (previous approvals) None Page 1 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Yes Staff report (yes/no) No Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Access from W. Broadway Ave, a local road. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Existing Road Network Access will occur from W. Broadway Ave (local road) Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Sidewalks exist along W. Idaho Ave, sidewalk will be Buffers installed along W. Broadway Ave Proposed Road Improvements Sidewalks and rolled curb will be constructed along W. Broadway Ave. Distance to nearest City Park (+ ½ mile to Centennial Park. size) Fire Service Only comments pertinent to building permit submitted. Police Service – No comments West Ada School District Meridian ES: .4 Miles Distance (elem, ms, hs) Meridian MS: .7 Miles Meridian HS: .8 Miles Meridian ES: 650 Capacity of Schools Meridian MS: 1250 Meridian HS: 2075 Meridian ES: 529 # of Students Enrolled Meridian MS: 1198 Meridian HS: 1975 Wastewater N/A Distance to Sewer Services Five Mile Trunkshed Sewer Shed See Application Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 13.99 WRRF Declining Balance Yes Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan No proposed changes to Public Sewer Infrastructure was Impacts/Concerns submitted with this application. Any changes or modifications, to the Public Sewer Infrastructure, shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Water 0 Distance to Water Services 2 Pressure Zone See Application Estimated Project Water ERU’s No concerns Water Quality Yes Project Consistent with Water Master Plan No proposed changes to Public Water Infrastructure was Impacts/Concerns submitted with this application. Any changes or Page 2 Description Details Page modifications, to the Public Water Infrastructure, shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Page 3 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Sarah Martz SEM Consulting – 3117 W. Smith, Boise, ID 83703 B. Owner: Tracy and Shellie Robertson – 3350 Selatir Pl, Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Sarah Martz SEM Consulting – 3117 W. Smith, Boise, ID 83703 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/13/2020 Radius notification mailed to 11/10/2020 properties within 500 feet Sign Posting 11/20/2020 Nextdoor posting 11/10/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) The properties are within two future land use designations. The southern portion of 557 W. Idaho Ave and all of 528 W. Broadway is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR). 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 northern portion of 557 W. Idaho Ave is recommended for High Density Residential (HDR). This designation allows for the development of multi-family homes in areas where high levels of urban services are provided and where residential gross densities exceed twelve dwelling units per acre. Development might include duplexes, apartment buildings, townhouses, and other multi-unit structures. The proposed density of this project is approximately 18 dwelling units per acre. This is higher than is recommended for MDR but would be appropriate for HDR. Further, the R-15 zone does not specify a maximum density range (that correlates to the Comprehensive Plan) and allows the proposed use through a CUP. In this case, staff believes the mix of residential uses in the area makes this an ideal location for infill and supports the higher density as proposed. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels, household sizes, and lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01) This proposal is to allow 3 four-plex units of between 900 and 1,000 square feet within three buildings. The surrounding area already consists of a diversity of housing types including single family attached and detached, apartments, duplexes and four-plexes. This type of housing will integrate well into the surrounding community and will continue a more diverse housing stock. Maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. (2.01.01C) Page 4 As mentioned above, the surrounding community consists of a mix of housing including single family detached, single family attached, apartments and duplexes. This proposal would enhance this already diverse mix. Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit, Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers. (2.01.01H) The proposed higher density development is within walking distance of the City’ s downtown area and essential goods and services. Encourage infill development. (3.03.01E) The subject property is surrounded by property that has been developed. Two 1950’s dilapidated homes had been on the property and have been razed. This proposal would replace them with 3 new four-plexes of units designed to complement the architecture of surrounding newer four- plexes and existing single-family. The project site is ingrained within an existing neighborhood. This is the type of infill project encouraged by the Plan. 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) As this is a redevelopment project and will be replacing homes which had previously existed, there is existing infrastructure for this project. Water and sewer is available from mains in W. Broadway Ave. Access will occur from W. Broadway Ave. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property formerly contained two single family residences and is presently vacant. Sidewalk exists along W. Idaho Ave. The north side of W. Broadway Ave contains portions of sidewalk and rolled curb and gutter. This proposal does include installation of sidewalk and rolled curb along W. Broadway Ave. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The subject property is zoned R-15. This allows multifamily by conditional use. Minimum lot size is 2,000 sq. ft. per unit. Front and rear setbacks per the Specific Use Standards of UDC 11-4- 3-27 are 10’ with a 3’ interior side setback. The application proposes 12 units on 0.66 acres, which is an average lot size of 2,323 square feet. The proposal meets the minimum standards. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Specific use requirements for multifamily (UDC 11-4-3-27) include a minimum of a 10’ setbacks, 80 sq. ft. of private useable open space per unit, 250 sq. ft. of common open space for each unit between 500 sq. ft. and 1,200 sq. ft, and at least two site amenities. All street facing elevations are required to have landscaping along the foundation of at least 3 feet wide. The proposal meets all these requirements, and specificity regarding landscaping, open space and amenities is discussed below. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): As mentioned above, the proposed development meets all setback, lot size and landscaping requirements. G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access for all three buildings is proposed to occur from two separate parking lots along W. Broadway Ave, a local street. As much of the properties along this portion of W. Broadway Ave Page 5 have yet to redevelop, most of the street in this area does not contain curb or sidewalk. There are several portions of sidewalk and rolled curb just west of the property; the applicant will be required to improve their W. Broadway Ave frontage similarly. No access is proposed to occur from E. Idaho Ave, which already contains curb, gutter and sidewalk. ACHD reviewed this project and in a letter dated November 24, 2020 noted they support the project as proposed. As mentioned above, the applicant will be required to improve the W. Broadway Ave. frontage as well as pave both of their driveways. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-6 requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for 1-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces for each 2-3-bedroom unit. At least one parking space per unit must be in a covered carport or garage. This proposal includes nine (9) one bedroom and three (3) two-bedroom units (requiring twenty (20) parking spaces). The site plan reflects 24 parking spaces, 12 of which are in a covered carport. The proposal meets the minimum requirements. On-street parking also exists along both sides of W. Idaho Ave and E. Broadway Ave. 1 bicycle parking space is required for every twenty-five (25) proposed vehicle parking spaces. A bicycle rack is shown at the front of each building and enclosed bicycle storage is provided between the two southernmost buildings. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the eastern side of the two buildings on 557 W. Idaho Ave, and along both sides and the front of the building at 528 W. Broadway Ave. The proposal also includes 5’ wide sidewalk along the W. Broadway Ave. frontage. Additional sidewalk is shown at the north side of the northernmost building, although sidewalk already exists along W. Idaho Ave (this is discussed in the Landscape Section). The plans do not indicate a connection from the sidewalks internal to the development to the E. Idaho Ave and W. Broadway Ave street sidewalks; it appears parking lots provide the pedestrian connection. As a condition of approval, the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) should be revised to include connections from the street sidewalks to the sidewalks internal to the development. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Multifamily developments are required to provide three (3) foot landscaped areas along the foundations of all street-facing elevations. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches (24") shall be planted. A five-foot (5') wide minimum perimeter landscape buffer is required along parking areas with a minimum of one tree per thirty-five (35’) linear feet. Any grouping of parking spaces of more than twelve (12) are required to provide a 50 sq. ft. parking island. It does appear the landscaping width requirements around building foundations and parking areas is satisfied. Also, a landscape strip of at least five feet (5) is provided along W. Broadway Ave (in some places it is greater) and a landscape strip of ten feet (10) is provided along W. Idaho Ave. There is not a landscape buffer requirement in this zoning district along local streets. However, the minimum density of one evergreen shrub per three (3) linear feet of building foundation does not appear to be met on all sides. A landscape plan should be submitted with the CZC that demonstrates the minimum landscape density along foundations is met. Page 6 The landscape plan reflects trash enclosures directly along the W. Idaho Ave. and W. Broadway Ave frontages. Staff does not believe dumpers in these locations is ideal. Staff notes only a 10’ setback is required along W. Idaho Blvd whereas 20’ is shown and there is already sidewalk along this frontage (the second sidewalk shown on the landscape plan is not necessary). Staff recommends all dumpers be relocated internally at the far end (north end) of the parking lot(s) and screened from view. This may require shifting the two fourplexes at 557 W. Idaho Ave north to prevent losing parking spaces. The applicant also has the option to re-orient the central open space between the two buildings to the south side of the internal building to provide more consolidated open space within the development. Either scenario gains the applicant additional area to accomplish this. There are existing trees on site although the landscape plan does not indicate whether any of the trees meet the tree preservation requirements of UDC 11-3B-10. At time of CZC, the applicant should work with the City Arborist to indicate the number of trees that will require mitigation on the landscape plan. K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): UDC 11-4-3-27 requires a minimum of 80 sq. ft. of private open space per unit, and a total of 3,000 sq. ft. of qualified open space (250 sq. ft. per unit). The applicant has responded that each unit patio meets the 80 sq. ft. requirement, although it is difficult for staff to ascertain this based on the floor plans submitted Staff will recommend an exhibit be presented at time of CZC that demonstrates this requirement is met. The landscape plan indicates 4,690 sq. ft. of qualified open space, whereas the minimum requirement is 3,000 sq. ft. The central open area has scaled to at least 2,500 sq. ft. and there are several other open spaces that easily meet the minimum requirements of 20’ x 20’ (the open area to the east of the southeastern most building is at least 1,200 sq. ft). Staff is confident the common open space requirement is met. L. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Two site amenities are required with this application. The applicant proposes a community garden within the central open space and an 8’ x 10’ enclosed bike storage. The proposal meets the minimum amenity requirements. M. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): A 100-year floodplain is shown to affect the northwestern portion of the property, although the site plan does not indicate any development within this area. The extent of the floodplain should be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and construction drawings that will be submitted with the CZC. N. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): 6’ high wood fencing already exists along the east and west property lines. The landscape plan does not reflect any additional fencing. Any new fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. O. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. City water mains exist in W. Idaho Ave and W. Broadway Ave. Sewer is available in W. Broadway Ave. Page 7 The utility plan shows water lines proposed underneath the covered carports. Typically, utility providers do not prefer this. The applicant will be required to work with utility providers prior to the CZC to determine the exact alignment of utility lines and potential easements. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual ASM): The elevations submitted have architecture similar to the surrounding four-plexes to the west and north that were constructed in early 2000. All four buildings resemble a craftsman-style architecture. Materials consist of Hardie-board, lap siding and asphalt shingles. Building elevations incorporate several roof pitches on three of the four sides with gabled elements, dormer-type modulation, and overhangs over the doors. Street-facing elevations display significantly more modulation and articulation. The elevations as submitted would meet the minimum requirements of the ASM. However, there are numerous blocks of nearby duplexes and four-plexes which all utilize the same single color with no accent colors. The color schemes submitted by the applicant reflect at least three different colors on each elevation. To reduce visual monotony and provide separation between projects staff recommends as a condition that all building elevations display a color scheme of at least two field materials and one accent color. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on December 3, 2020. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Sarah Martz SEM Consulting b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Sarah Martz SEM Consulting d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Three members of the public testified. Concerns included speeding in the neighborhood, orientation of the parking lots, trash and litter, and whether trees would be preserved. There was a request for speed bumps and additional road signs. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The Commission discussed the orientation of the parking lots and whether speed issues in the neighborhood could be addressed as part of this application. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Commissioners struck Condition No. 3 pertaining to reorienting the trash enclosures. Commissioners added a condition that the applicant should work with ACHD and Meridian Police regarding speed control and signage. Page 8 Page 9 VI. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (date: 11/17/2020) Page 10 B. Landscape Plan (date: 11/17/2020) Page 11 C. Building Elevations (date: 10/2/2019) Page 12 D. Proposed Color Scheme (date: 10/26/2020) Page 13 VII. 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. All dumpers shall be relocated internally at the far end (north end) of the parking lots along W. Broadway Ave and fully screened from view. This could be accomplished in two different ways. Both buildings on 557 W. Idaho Ave. could be shifted as much as 10’ which would reduce the 20’ W. Idaho Ave setback to 10’ OR the central open space between the two buildings to the south side of the internal building could be re-oriented to provide more consolidated open space within the development. 4. The applicant shall work with ACHD and Meridian Police regarding speed control and signage. 5. Pedestrian connections shall be provided from the street sidewalks to the sidewalks internal to the development (UDC 11-3A-19). 6. The extent of the floodplain should be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and construction drawings that will be submitted with the CZC. 7. At time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) the applicant shall work with the City Arborist to preserve any existing trees on the subject property that are four-inch caliper or greater; or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C. 8. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC), the applicant shall submit floor plans that demonstrates the private useable open space requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27 are met. 9. To reduce visual monotony and provide separation between projects, all buildings shall display a color scheme of at least two field materials and one accent color. 10. The site plan prepared by Rodney Evans + Partners, dated November 17, 2020, is approved as submitted with the modifications listed in Conditions No. 3, 4 and 5 above. 11. The landscape plan prepared by Rodney Evans + Partners, dated November 17, 2020, is approved as submitted with the modifications listed in Conditions No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 above. 12. Parking requirements shall comply with the multifamily residential standards; 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for 1-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces for each 2-3-bedroom unit, with at least one parking space per unit in a covered carport or garage. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 14. The Applicant shall comply with the structure and site design standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. 15. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards for multifamily uses listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. Page 14 16. 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 set forth for multifamily development as listed in the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-27. 17. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. (UDC 11-4-3-27) 18. No proposed changes to Public Sewer or Water Infrastructure was submitted with this application. Any changes or modifications, to the Public Sewer or Water Infrastructure, shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. B. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SCHOOL ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216461&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity C. REPUBLIC SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216804&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity D. ACHD https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=217254&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity E. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216533&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity Page 15 VIII. FINDINGS The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-15 district (see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The density as proposed is not consistent with the future land use map designation of medium density residential on the southern portion of the property. However, the entire property is already zoned R-15 which supports the proposed use and the associated density is consistent with the HDR designation. 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. With staff’s conditions, Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other residential uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Page 16 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Page 17 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2020Meeting FLUM FLUM Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 17, 2020 FLUM FLUM FLUM 14332 Changes to Agenda: Item #8: Southridge South (H-2020-0083) Application(s): Rezone Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 84+/- acres of land, zoned R-2 & R-4, located on the south side of W. Overland Rd., east of S. Ten Mile Rd. and is part of the larger 291 acre Southridge development currently in the development process to the east. Southridge encompasses land on the south side of Overland Rd. from this property to the east to Linder Rd. and to the south to Val Visa & Aspen Cove subdivisions. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: across Overland Rd. - vacant/undeveloped land, zoned R-8; and apartments in the development process, zoned R-15 East: SFR in the development process, zoned R-4 West & south: Rural residential properties in Val Visa & Aspen Cove subdivisions, zoned RUT in Ada County History: This property was annexed in 2007 with a DA that was later replaced (a couple of times) with new DA’s. The existing DA requires a minimum of 1,000 and maximum of 1,286 residential units consisting of a mix of apartments & SFR homes to develop in the overall Southridge development, unless otherwise specifically approved by Council through subsequent applications. Subsequent DA modification applications were approved that removed the two apartment projects to the east from the overall Southridge DA and placed them in DA’s of their own which no longer tied them to the terms of the original DA. With the 640 units anticipated to develop in Southridge Apartments, 336 units in Linder & Overland Apartments, 221 SFR units in Southridge phases 1-5 and 254 in the proposed development, that’s a total of 1,451 units which is 165 units over that originally anticipated in the DA – mostly, the difference is in the apartment units which were approved through subsequent applications (i.e. 848 anticipated, 976 approved). The SFR units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance to total 1,286 total units w/the apartment units – the total number of SFR units if this development is approved will be 475, which is 37+/- over that originally anticipated. Because the subject plat is a “subsequent application” as described in the DA, staff finds the proposal in compliance with the DA without a modification to the agreement. A preliminary plat was approved with the annexation that included the subject property as mega lots for future re-subdivision. The existing DA does not include a conceptual development plan for this site & only governs the number of lots anticipated for future development, which can be modified through a subsequent application approved by Council. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (5.5+/- acres) & MDR (78+/- acres) Summary of Request: A rezone of 7.15 acres of land is proposed from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district & 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 & R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the development of 254 SFR detached homes at a gross density of 3 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals for development than encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian’s present & future residents with a desire to avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area and desires for diverse housing types to be provided throughout the City. With the size of the Southridge development and no other housing types besides apartments in this vicinity, Staff believes more variety in housing types is needed in accord with the Comp Plan and therefore, recommends another housing type (i.e. attached and/or townhomes) is provided in this development. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 254 buildable lots & 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the proposed R-2 & R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 8,053 s.f. The plat is proposed to develop in 4 phases as shown on the phasing plan. Staff worked with the Applicant to modify the phasing plan prior to the hearing to include the nd large 3.8 acre common area where a clubhouse, pool and tot lot is proposed to develop in the 2 phase along with the bridge and th extension of a stub street to the east, instead of with the 4 phase. There is one (1) existing home on this site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision. Access is proposed via one public street & (1) emergency access via Overland Rd. Stub streets are proposed to the west, south and east for future extension. Off-street parking will be provided in accord with UDC standards on individual lots; on-street parking for guests can also be accommodated on both sides of public streets. Public streets & (3) common driveways are proposed for internal circulation and access to lots. Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are proposed throughout the development. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast side of this development & is a large open waterway that is required to be piped unless left open & improved as a water amenity or linear open space. The Applicant requests a Council waiver to this requirement (UDC 11-3A-6B) to allow the canal to remain open and proposes to construct 6’ tall chainlink fencing along the waterway to preserve public safety. The Williams NW gas pipeline bisects the southwest corner of the site within a 75’ wide easement and is contained within common lots. A 35’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Overland Rd., an entryway corridor. 10’ wide multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with the Pathways Master Plan on the site within the street buffer along Overland Rd., along the Ridenbaugh Canal and along the Williams pipeline. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 10% (or 8.38 acres) is required; a total of 22.3 (or 26%) is proposed consisting of ½ the street buffer along Overland Rd., linear open space, and open grassy areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area. Parkways also qualify toward the open space requirements but were not included in the calculations. A minimum of 4 qualified site amenities are required – a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot with children’s play equipment, (3) different segments of multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space above the standards are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for each of the different lot widths proposed, for 39’, 50’ and 60’ wide lots. Written Testimony: Tamara Thompson, TLG (Applicant’s Representative) – In agreement with the staff report except for Staff’s recommendation that another housing type is provided – she would like this requirement removed. Ken & Sherry Fawcett – Not in favor of the proposed R-8 zoning & location of the stub street to the south – would like it to be moved further to the west between Lots 4 & 5 (at the corner). Scott & Jennifer Nichols, Curtis & Naomi Elton, Steve & Susan Przybos & Michael & Brenda Voglemore – they are in agreement w/the location of the stub street to the south & have 3 requests, as follows: 1) would like suitable drainage for irrigation & runoff to be maintained from the west end of the Southridge fence NW toward Overland Rd.; 2) would like a condition placed on this development & the associated housing to only allow “dark sky” compliant lighting so that it doesn’t encroach on their properties; and 3) would like Lots 1 & 2, Block 10 located on the east side of the stub street to the south to be relocated to the north in the large common area and the height of residential vegetation adjacent to the Val Vista subdivision fence to be limited to 10’ above ground level for the reasons stated in their letter. Staff Recommendation: Approval per the conditions in the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0083, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17, 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- 0083, as presented during the hearing on December 17, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0083 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) th Changes to Agenda: Item #3 – Vicenza North requests continuance to January 7 hearing in order to give neighbors adequate th time to attend and respond to the latest neighborhood meeting held on December 8. Staff recommended this action to mitigate any question of whether this UDC requirement was met. Item #4: Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) Continued from November 19, 2020 to amend CUP request. Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 7 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: West – Vacant, zoned RUT; North – Residential, R-8; East – Golf Course, RUT; South – County Residential, RUT. History: Annexed and Zoned as part of Poiema Subdivision (H-2020-0035) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium-High Density Residential Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit request to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1, Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district and waive the outdoor speaker system standards to allow them within a residential district. Phase 1 is proposed with a sanctuary and associated offices and rooms, an outdoor amphitheater, an outdoor patio area that is shared with a pond-less water feature, and includes 155 parking spaces. Phase 2 includes a larger sanctuary, a few more offices/accessory rooms, and additional parking to total 320 spaces on site. Note: the proposed parking is about 3x the minimum required parking of 104 spaces based on the gross floor area of the proposed Church. Access for the Church site is via driveway connections to the new local streets that will be constructed with the Poiema Subdivision surrounding it; no directly lot access to Lake Hazel is proposed or allowed accept for the required emergency only access along the western property boundary. At the time of the second phase of development, the Applicant is showing the emergency access to become a parking drive aisle which both Planning and Fire Staff have approved. Because the proposed use is a nonresidential use, a minimum 5’ wide sidewalk is required adjacent to all buildings. The Applicant is showing compliance with this requirement but Staff has recommended an additional segment of sidewalk be added in the second phase of development to be located around the western side of the outdoor amphitheater. Staff made a mistake in how the condition is written within the staff report for this recommendation and has agreed with the Applicant that it can be modified to be more clear; the Applicant will have that requested language for the Commission. Again, the proposed use is a nonresidential use so there are no amenity and open space requirements. However, as discussed with the Poiema Subdivision project, the 15,000 square foot open space lot for the subdivision is intended to be shared between the Church and the residents. Its maintenance and use have already been conditioned through the subdivision application and therefore there is no need for the Commission to act on this aspect of the project. The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the proposed church and concept renderings for phase 1. All nonresidential structures require administrative design review approval prior to obtaining building permits. The submitted elevations show a single- story structure with a maximum height of 30 feet for any area that will be occupied. The elevations show architectural features extending to approximately 35 feet in height and overall design that appear to include stucco, high-end siding, and stone. In addition, the elevations show both shed roof and more traditional flat roof designs adding to the architectural elements of the building. There appears to be adequate modulation in wall plans, especially on the North elevation that faces Lake Hazel. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject Conditional Use Permit application for the proposed Church. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0095, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17, 2020, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0095, as presented during the hearing on December 17, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0095 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: Mile High Pines (H-2020-0099) Application(s): Annexation and Zoning; Preliminary Plat; Conditional Use Permit (Director has approved Private Street and Administrative Design Review applications) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.95 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at SWC of Pine and Ten Mile. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: - C-C and commercial to the east across Ten Mile Road; - C-G and self-storage to the south across railroad tracks; - County residential to the west; - Vacant land and R-15 zoning to the north across Pine Avenue extension History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community Summary of Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts; Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on approximately 16 acres of land in the proposed zoning districts; Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district, as presented in the application. The proposed land uses are multi-family residential (in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and vertically integrated) and commercial and are consistent with the land use types noted in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation definitions and preferred uses for Mixed-Use Community. Of the 135 residential units, 87 are the detached single- story cottages, 42 are the townhome units, and there are 6 units within the two vertically integrated structures. The proposed product type is by definition multi-family (more than 2 units on a single building lot) but the Applicant has designed the units to emulate single- family attached and detached structures that share pedestrian pathways and open space rather than public streets (this is the sister project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat development). The proposed project as shown is approximately 8 du/ac, meeting the 6- 15 du/ac range for the MU-C designation. All proposed lots appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. However, there are continued concerns over the Applicant meeting the required utility separation and easement requirements while not having any permanent structure encroachments or overhangs within the easement. It is Staff’s understanding that the Applicant has been continually working with Public Works to correct this, which is greatly appreciated. If revisions to the site design are required to comply with this, applicable plans should be revised and resubmitted to Planning staff for review. The Applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the residential portion of the site and overall, they comply with the ASM. However, The ASM notes that no two multi-family buildings should look the same. To ensure compliance with at least the intent of this requirement, the Applicant should create more differentiation between the units by providing different colors beyond the same earth tones. In addition, adding more of the accent materials (i.e. lap siding and stone) would help to make more of the detached units unique from one another. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to mitigate this. Despite the fact that a separate design review is required for the future commercial, Staff wants to ensure the future commercial buildings integrate with the proposed residential. Therefore, the Applicant should provide at least conceptual elevations for these buildings. Staff is providing a condition of approval to submit conceptual elevations of the commercial buildings prior to the City Council hearing. The subject development offers 6 acres of commercial zoning according to the proposed rezone exhibit. However, the proposed C-C zoning does not truly reflect the commercial area as it does not reflect the plat boundary of the proposed commercial lots. Staff cannot support split-zoning on the residential lot and so the Applicant should revise the rezone exhibit and/or plat boundary. With other revisions requested by Staff within this report, the Applicant will likely have to make adjustments to these documents as well; all of these changes should occur prior to the City Council hearing to ensure transparency on the true amount of commercial zoning being proposed. The commercial acreage of this property is proposed as two commercial lots; one in the very northeast corner of the site containing one building and the other lot that contains the remaining area and two buildings, as seen on the submitted preliminary plat. The submitted plat shows two of the three commercial buildings as containing drive-thrus which Staff does not support. Despite this opinion, Staff is not willing to specifically limit the number of drive-thru establishments with this application because each drive-thru will require a conditional use permit to implement that use. The proposed residential area of the site incorporates mews, private streets, common open space, and different housing designs within the same parcel. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing two-story townhomes along the southwestern boundary and on part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile with the rest of the site being a majority of single-story structures. Staff believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile offers an appropriate buffer between the busy arterial roadway and the single-story structures that make up the center of the development. However, Staff has some specific recommendations regarding the overall site design to better transition from the busy streets and spread out some of the units for better utility delivery – Staff notes that all of the following recommendations are made with the overarching recommendation that no more units be added to the proposed development even if room is available within the site: - Remove the singular unit near the northwest corner of the site (south of the 4 units along the east/west street). - Replace the townhome units shown along Ten Mile with one Vertically Integrated structure (the one currently proposed near the center of the project); Staff believes fronting this building onto Ten Mile will activate the commercial within this building and offer a better buffer along the arterial roadway. - Move the four units currently proposed directly the west of the central Vertically Integrated to the east; Spread the remaining units out so that utility service lines will have more room to be placed and alleviate some of the concerns presented by Public Works in regards to the proximity of buildings in this area of the site. In addition, this recommendation could add additional common open space for the site depending on how the Applicant redesigns this area. - Replace all of the detached units along Pine with townhome units—this would be where the two 6-plexes from the southeast corner of the site could be re-oriented (appears that three 6-plexes could fit here). The townhomes would front on the large open space area proposed along Pine and have the garages face internally to the site. o This removes the single-family style product from being adjacent to a major street and removes the need for parking spaces along the north side of W. Littleton Lane (the internal east-west private street). With this recommendation, the entire northern area of the site could be pushed further north to open up the site and allow for more room within the site to accommodate the required utility easements and possibly some traffic calming. This Applicant and the Applicant for the proposed project to the north and west of this project have entered into a legally binding “Dedication and Development Agreement” that outlines the potential options for how the Pine Avenue extension will be constructed. In addition, ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension and road improvements can occur. At a minimum, this Applicant will construct the intersection improvements as half of a 3-lane street section (one westbound receiving lane, eastbound left turn lane, and an eastbound thru/right turn lane) with vertical curb, gutter, and sidewalk abutting the site. In addition, the Applicant is, at a minimum, required to extend and construct Pine Avenue outside of the influence area of the Pine/Ten Mile intersection as half of a 36- foot wide collector street section plus 12 additional feet of pavement to total 30 feet, vertical curb, gutter, and 5-foot detached sidewalk. The Applicant’s agreement discusses that whoever obtains City approval second is required to dedicate the required amount of right- of-way to ensure Pine Avenue is constructed centered on the section line dividing the two properties. In addition, the Applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at the Pine/Ten Mile intersection. Staff appreciates the forethought of this agreement to ensure correct construction of the Pine Avenue extension. Therefore, Staff recommends a condition of approval in line with this agreement. Access is proposed via one private street access off of W. Pine Avenue and one driveway access to N. Ten Mile Road – the Ten Mile access proposed as a full-access at this time. ACHD is requiring the Applicant construct a southbound right-turn lane on Ten Mile Road located 580 feet south of the intersection for safer southbound access into the site. The Applicant is also proposing an emergency only access through one of the private drives (N. Side Creek Lane) along the western boundary. The two proposed access points have been approved by ACHD. In general, multi-family projects do not typically have private streets and instead have drive aisles. However, because of the nature of this development, private streets are being used for the purpose of having better addressing for the site. Drive aisles cannot be named and addressed which does not lend itself to a development of this kind. Therefore, the private streets will function as drive aisles but incorporate the ability to have street names and better addressing for first responders. No gates are proposed with this development to improve integration and connectivity in line with the mixed-use policies and goals. The private streets are proposed at least 25 feet wide with attached sidewalks of varying widths on both sides of the street throughout the site. Both open and covered parking is proposed along the private streets. Staff has concern with the street layout at the main entrance to the development off of Pine Avenue where an uncommon 3-way intersection is shown. Albeit the intersection is internal to the private streets, all three roadways that converge on this point allow traffic in both directions and Staff (including Police) has concerns over how traffic will flow and navigate this intersection, especially in inclement weather (i.e. when snow covers the lane striping). This intersection should be redesigned in such a way that traffic can safely and efficiently navigate between the residential and commercial areas of the site. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in the UDC for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The submitted plans show a total of 442 total spaces for the entire development. 319 are proposed for the residents, 12 are reserved for the 3,500 square foot clubhouse, 30 are shown for the vertically integrated units, and the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial sites. For the 319 for the residential units, a certain number are required to be covered spaces but the numbers shown on the submitted plan do not add up correctly. Staff has counted the proposed covered spaces and they appear to be at 218 covered spaces exceeding the minimum required amount of 123 covered spaces. Overall, the proposed parking appears to exceed the minimum UDC requirements. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required and proposed along the property’s boundary abutting the railroad easement along the southern boundary. The proposed pathway will be approximately 100-feet from the existing railroad tracks due to the easement width and will be a segment of approximately 480 feet in length and connect to the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile. This section of multi-use pathway will connect to a proposed micro-path traversing the entire western boundary of the subject site that eventually connects to the sidewalk along Pine Avenue. The proposed sidewalks in this development are essentially micro-pathways. These pathways connect throughout the entire development and traverse through every mew as well. They offer increased pedestrian connection and give future residents the opportunity to walk rather than drive within the project site to the commercial within this development and the nearby commercial on the east side of Ten Mile Road. The proposed landscaping for the required street buffers and common open space meets UDC requirements as proposed. There do not appear to be landscape strips on both sides of the proposed pathways surround the development on the south and west and Staff has recommended conditions of approval to correct this. In addition, the proposed C-C zoning district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to any residential district; the submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement. Because this is a mixed-use development and there is the presence of some landscaping, a sidewalk, and the street between the residential uses and the commercial, Staff does not have particular concern over this discrepancy. However, in order to comply with the UDC, the Applicant will have to request a waiver from City Council to reduce this buffer to the buffer shown on the submitted landscape plans. A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required. Based on the proposed plat of 16.46 acres, a minimum of 1.65 acres of qualified common open space should be provided. In addition, the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards for multi-family developments, UDC 11-4-3-27, also apply. Combined, the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 2.56 acres. According to the open space exhibit, the applicant is proposing a total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space. Of the 3.62 acres, 2.47 acres is proposed to meet the overall minimum 10% requirement (2.47 acres equates to approximately 15%). This qualified open space consists of the 10-foot multi-use pathway segment, the required street buffers, and two large common open space areas. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. The remaining 1.15 acres of common open space is proposed to meet the specific use standards for multi-family development. These areas of open space consist of the mews between the attached products, areas of open space that meet the minimum 20’ x 20’ multi-family open space dimensions, and the two shared plazas. This area also exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. Based on the area of the proposed plat (16.46 acres), a minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided. The applicant proposes a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary, satisfying this UDC requirement. The rest of the amenities proposed are meant to meet the specific use standards for MF development. A minimum of four amenities are required but the decision making body is authorized to consider additional amenities for developments containing over 100 units as is proposed. The following amenities are proposed: a clubhouse with offices, a fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and a pool; a tot-lot, two shared plazas, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing 7 qualifying site amenities. In addition to these amenities, the Applicant is proposing self-storage lockers (each locker is approximately 12 square feet) spread throughout each of the garage buildings so that residents may store small amounts of personal items onsite and near their units. Despite this not being a qualifying amenity, Staff finds it appropriate to mention. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject applications with the proposed revisions and subsequent conditions of approval and DA provisions. 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- 2020-0099, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17, 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- 0099, as presented during the hearing on December 17, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0099 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #6: Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) Application(s): Annexation, zoning and preliminary plat to allow 30 building lots and 3 common lots. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.97 acres of land, presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada County, and located at 4700 W. McMillan Rd, at the NE corner of N. Black Cat and W. McMillian. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Zoned R-8, Single Family Residential (Brody Square) South: Zoned RUT, Rural East: Zoned RUT, Rural West: Zoned R-15, Single Family Residential (Jump Creek) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/acre Summary of Request: Property presently contains an existing manufactured home that will be removed. This proposal includes mostly duplexes in addition to several detached single-family residences. Staff does believe this is a housing type that would lead to more diversity in housing, as the majority of housing in this area is single family detached. There are two points of access proposed. The first is an internal street which will connect to the Brody Square Subdivision to the north. The second is a stub street to the undeveloped property to the east (presently in unincorporated Ada County). Only one street will serve the internal development. Black Cat and W. McMillian are presently two lanes and do not contain sidewalk in this area. The applicant is required to dedicate ROW for future widening and construct 5’ sidewalk along both of these frontages. This is the same with as is provided by the subdivisions to the north and west. A future round-about is planned at the intersection. The applicant has provided a parking exhibit which indicates 30 additional on-street spaces. This is in addition to the two garage garages and two car driveways shown for all units. Detached sidewalks of 5’ are provided on both sides of all internal streets. This property is less than 5 acres in size. This means, per the UDC, it does not have to meet the common open space and amenity requirements. However, this is an annexation and the applicant proposes a density that is at the high end of the MDR range (proposed 6 du/acre). Staff informed the applicant that in order for staff to support a density that high, the development should contain quality open space and amenities. The landscape plan indicates 12% of open space, and an amenity of a 5,611 sq. ft. part at the southwest corner of the site, directly adjacent to the Black Cat / McMillian intersection. Staff is not convinced this project actually provides 12% common open space. The project counts the buffers twice (1/2 of the buffer AND the parkways along the buffers), does not account for driveways along the parkways on the internal sidewalks, and does not account for the landscaping area that will be lost due to construction of the round-about. Staff does not believe a park and bench directly on an arterial intersection would be considered “quality open space” for the residents of this development. Staff recommends additional lots (such as 28 and 29) be merged into the retention basin shown as Lot 30, Block 1. This would be less land than would be required by the UDC for a retention basin to be credited as open space (need at least 20,000 additional sq. ft.) but is enough to create a more quality amenity. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0101, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17, 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- 0101, as presented during the hearing on December 17, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number File Number H-2020-0101 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #7: Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) Application(s): Annexation, zoning and preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and 4 common lots. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 13.99 acres of land, presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada County, and located at 1560 W. Victory Rd and 2955 S. Locust Grove Rd, at the NW corner of S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Victory Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Zoned R-4, Single Family Residential South: Zoned RUT, Rural East: Zoned R-8 and R-4, Single Family Residential West: Zoned R-4, Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential, <3 du/acre Summary of Request: This proposal includes annexation, zoning and platting to allow 41 building lots and 4 common lots. Property presently contains two existing homes. The one to the south will be demolished, the one to the north east will remain. There will be two accesses to the property. Each access will connect to a stub street in the Cabella Creek Subdivision to the west - Loggers Pass Street and Sagemoor Street. These stub streets terminate at S. Bailey Way for access to E. Victory Rd or S. Locust Grove. The Cache Creek Subdivision employs a “loop” road which will be constructed at 33’ wide with detached 5’ sidewalks and 8’ landscape strips. S. Locust Grove Rd. currently has 2 lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. E. Victory Rd. presently has 2 lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Both are proposed to be widened in the next 3 years. A roundabout is planned for the E. Victory Rd. / S. Locust Grove Rd. intersection in 2022. Sufficient right-of-way presently exists for widening of both S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Victory Rd. However, the applicant will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way for the E. Victory Rd. / S. Locust Grove Rd. roundabout. Because both of these roads are due to be reconstructed in the next 5 years, ACHD has requested the applicant pay $38,425 into a road trust deposit. The road trust deposit funds will be used by ACHD to construct sidewalks abutting the site as part of the future intersection project. Staff has received letters from neighbors and the President of the Cabella Creek Homeowners Association. They request NOT to connect to these stub streets and allow direct access from S. Locust Grove, by lining up with E.Sagemoore Drive. Both the City Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan discourage new developments directly connect to arterials and collectors. ACHD has responded that allowing a new access onto S. Locust Grove Rd. would not meet their spacing requirements (1,320 ft). They have further responded that in order to allow modifications to their policy, it would have to be proven that the local roads could not handle the traffic – meaning more than 2,000 trips per day. This proposal is estimated to generate 387. Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all streets within this development. There is also a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk into Common Lot 3 Block 11 (containing a playground) and a pathway along the detention pond at the southwest to E. Victory Rd. This development includes two amenities and approximately 16% open space. There is a 10’ regional pathway that parallels Ten Mile Creek to E. Victory Rd in the Cabella Creek Subdivision to the west (no part of this pathway is on the subject property), and a 10’ regional pathway that parallels Eight Mile Parallel and ends at S. Locust Grove on the east side of S. Locust Grove. Although the proposed plat shows a 5’ sidewalk running along the S. Locust Grove Rd frontage and sidewalks along the internal streets in this development, staff believes there should be a mid-development connection that provides more direct pedestrian / bicycle access. Yesterday the applicant provided this updated plat which proposes this new pathway connection. This would meet one of staff’s conditions as long as the pathway was at least 5’ in width, with 5’ landscape strips on either side. Although the minimum required square footage of qualified common open space is satisfied (16% is proposed), the arterial buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd. does not meet the minimum 25’ required width east of the existing house on Lot 18, Block 2. The applicant has noted due the existing house and the widening of S. Locust Grove Rd. it is not feasible to provide the buffer. Staff is not convinced, as it appears there is existing paving at the east side of the house to widen this buffer. Prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant should either revise the plans to reflect a 25’ wide buffer, or apply and be granted a buffer reduction through the alternative compliance process in accord with UDC 11-5B-5. Finally, the landscape plan is missing a piece of a lot containing Ten Mile Creek whereas this portion of land is part of the subject property. As the Comprehensive Plan and UDC speak to preserving and enhancing natural amenities, as a condition staff recommend the landscape plan be updated to design this waterway in as a natural amenity. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0105, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17, 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- 0105, as presented during the hearing on December 17, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number File Number Number H-2020-0105 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item 3. 49 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Applicant Requests Continuance to January 7th, 2021 A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-0 zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. Continued to January 7, 2021 Item 3. F50 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 17, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-0 zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 4. 51 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from November 19, 2020 for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1, Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district; and waive the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11-3A-13) to allow in a residential district. APPROVED Item 4. F52 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 17, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from November 19, 2020 for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1, Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district; and waive the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11-3A-13) to allow in a residential 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: December 17, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 I PROJECT NAME: Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify a YES OR NO 1 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 1/' 12/17/2020 ' Legend DATE: Project Location � TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson Associate Planner ' ® PflPl® 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0095 Poiema Calvary Chapel LOCATION: The site is located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel ` Road, in the NE '/4 of the NW '/4 of e Section 4,Township 2N.,Range 1 E. ------- 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project was continued from the November 17'Planning and Zoning Commission meetingat t the request of Staff and the Applicant in order to update the Conditional Use Permit request to include a waiver of the outdoor speaker standards and allow outdoor speakers within a residential district. Conditional Use Permit request to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1,Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district and waive the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11-3A-13)to allow in a residential district,by The Land Group,Inc. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 14.87 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Religious Institution(Church) Lots(#and type; 1 total lot—lot previously reserved for Church bldg./common) building site in Poiema Subdivision(H-2020-0035) Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed to be constructed in two(2)phases. Open Space (acres,total Open space is not required with this use and the open [%]/buffer/qualified) space shown on the site plan was approved with the Poiema Subdivision in August 2020. Page 1 Item 4. F54 Description Details Page Physical Features (waterways, Ten Mile Creek runs along the western boundary but hazards, flood plain,hillside) is not on the subject site. Part of the site resides within the 100-year floodplain zone. Neighborhood meeting date; # August 4,2020—no attendees of attendees: History(previous approvals) Subject site is located on one of the lots of the Annexation and Preliminary Plat approval for Poiema Subdivision(H-2020-0035; DA Inst. #2020-138120). This approval preliminarily granted the Church use but required that a conditional use permit was approved as is required within the R-15 zoning district. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No; Staff level comply with letter. • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Proposed access is from E. Lake Hazel Road, an (Arterial/Collectors/State arterial. The proposed access is via a new public local Hwy/Local)(Existing and street. ACHD is allowing a modification to their Proposed) district policies to allow this access as there is no other lesser classified street available. Stub A new stub street is proposed with the preliminary Street/Interconnectivity/Cross plat to the adjacent property to the west from the Access proposed local street noted above. This access is approved by ACHD as noted in their staff report.The church site will have over 300 parking spaces within the building lot but there is no need for any cross- access as the adjacent roadways to the site are all public roadways. Existing Road Network E. Lake Hazel, an arterial, is existing with 2 travel lanes. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No; Applicant is required to improve frontage with Buffers landscaping and detached sidewalk with the preliminary plat. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not proposing to improve E. Lake Hazel as it is scheduled to be widened to 5 travel lanes by ACHD in 2024. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3 miles from Fire Station#4 • Fire Response Time Part of the proposed development falls within the 5 minute response time goal. • Resource Reliability 78%(below the target rating of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards; current resources would not be adequate to supply service to Page 2 Item 4. F55 Description Details Page this project due to nearby waterway if an emergency were to occur. • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths, and turnarounds. Police Service(comments for the overall subdivision; no specific comments for the Church site). • Distance to Police Station 5.5 miles • Response Time Goal of 3-5 minutes • Accessibility MPD has no concerns with access into this development;the MPD can service this development if approved. • Additional Comments There is no call data in this area because the proposed development is at the edge of City Limits. Between March 2019 and March 2020,MPD responded to 7 calls for service within one mile of this proposed development. The crime count on those calls was one(1). Between March 2019 and March 2020,MPD responded to 9 crashes within 1 mile of this proposed development. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) No comments submitted for this project. • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.92 Balance • Project Consistent with YES WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Additional Comments • Flows have been committed • Existing sewer in Lake Hazel;proposed sewer as art of Poiema Subdivision. Water • Distance to Water 0 feet Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None Page 3 Item 4. F56 Description Details Page • Project Consistent with YES Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns No utilities were shown for the Church portion of this property. All proposed infrastructure serving the church must be submitted,reviewed, and approved by Public Works. Page 4 1 1 1 �, -■ _ :III i{NIi= {���C-'.1n111� � •11 Inn ir��1111111��1.,� J.j� - IIII 1 �- • 1 - 4 • -- - nnln ■ -ulnm ■�r■I\� o■��■L m ml •`mm�n nmmn\►1n1\ - 7".1 OP, `��. ,1_IJIIIIII 11 W,VI IIII-;,nuumn i ., � d- 111 ��IlAlllll 111411111�� J'-= s i�llnnn� •r•114 I,�,a•r J � � 'nn ini . 4i nn - •. t�1r � � �,/�IIIIIIIIIP �•, llllllllll_ i �e V - �>: a L/i,•' IIIIIIIIII? � ,�,.� •x:; a IIIIII c •— ■ LAKE a oil IIII►\:lnlllllllll� - • - • glpnn 11nIn1 * - • - • inn nun -- _ �glpnm Cllnlnl •�• ��:: _�_-- IIII -• �:: __ -- IIII v --i- � •1 11::7C IIIIII H 41. •1 11::7C IIIIII •Ian nw n�=nm � _� nw Ire=nnnd!-._ uu _. ���.n n n nn _ 6 1• p`�.n n n nnln-- - �? �ullll•� L IIII I^-mn11■�illlal::::� •_ e 7 IIII I^-moll■►I111111::-•• nuun•- -anon_`nnnn nlinTil:_=\; - r ��'�•.. =mom_s nnnn nlinTil=_-_ -�■ �• ■ �IIIIIIII= Inllm=�JIIIIIIII/11111111 77=�= ■ ��wj�►• :--.IIIIII■=u111- '_IIIIIIII- •11111111/11111111 77��.- ■�� ■• -ulnm�.mm�n.nunm-:��: � � nnnu-nm= '-neon- mom unuw---�i. r■I\� 1■�� l m nu-`nnnnn nnmw\Glnl- 111\� 11■�i�.71�iinmiel 'yam ml-~nnnnn muuwP_.l ala.^ 1111111111 UI IIII 1111NIIIO ■■■■_nN1 1111111 Illll unnrW UI IIII Il lllllm Illlllllllrr 111 IIIIIIII _-- 111 G IIIIIIII 111111111 11�4.'1_-IIIwI:� J:=- Inns _�___-�1Piw:R1 111�.,e== I IJ•=- - Pam muuu e nn ili IIII� 1�Fff'!,r1"::.....::. � U' nnmlll�n,%� nnuw t• a IIIIIIIIII= li hu,r�'_�-1�::���.- / .. I, IIII...... Q. IIIIIIIIIIII� i :�i.: .. � .. • /hQ�"""""''�'r IIIIIIIIII:: Ir�� W�.•.. __ 011111111111'- - j•ar° I- W�iynunnumfli innliun' ii L—AKE=HA—ZEL—' LAKE HA—ZEL—' 1 ' 1Im® _■■- W-01111,1111,1111,11,111 . 1 1I1III '�au ' -1 Item 4. 58 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/30/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 10/30/2020 Site Posting 11/5/2020 Nextdoor posting 10/30/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan) Medium-High Density Residential—This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The Applicant reserved this building lot for this church during the annexation and platting process that was approved in August, 2020. Because a church is a conditional use within the proposed R-15 zoning district, Staff did not analyze its use in that application other than to state that it requires a conditional use permit. The reserved lot is approximately 7 acres in size and the proposed project is proposed to be built in two phases. The second phase will include a larger sanctuary, an outdoor amphitheater, and additional parking. The subject site lies at the edge of the City's area of impact on the south side of E. Lake Hazel road, approximately Y2 mile east of Eagle Road. There is existing City of Meridian zoning directly across Lake Hazel to the north (Bicentennial Farm Subdivision) but no other existing Meridian zoning is adjacent to the subject site. There is a golf course directly to the east of this property, within the City of Boise. Despite minimal existing zoning directly to the west and southwest of this site, the City is currently processing multiple projects in this area, as seen in the Planned Development Map above. The comprehensive plan discusses creating an identity and approving projects that integrate gathering places between uses, especially between those that encourage social activity and engagement. Churches tend to do this inherently through civic engagement and with the incorporation of the shared open space area and other site designs like integrated open space, the outdoor amphitheater, and adequate buffers between uses, Staff finds that the proposed use meets this comprehensive plan goal. This project, if approved, should add an additional service and use for adjacent developments that is compatible with the future single-family residential both directly adjacent and those in close proximity. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancitE.or /�comQplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads,and promoting local and collector street connectivity"(6.01.0213).All accesses for this development are to remain the Page 6 Item 4. 59 same for the proposed Church site that were approved with the Poiema Subdivision. This includes the main access points for the parking lot being to the proposed public roads and the emergency access to Lake Hazel along the western property boundary. The Applicant has proposed the main access into this development as far east on their parcel as possible which ACHD has agreed to modem their policy to allow for this additional access onto E. Lake Hazel. Once the land to the west redevelops, additional public roads will be available for church traffic to get back to the arterial road network. In the near-term, all traffic will filter onto Lake Hazel at the main entrance to the subdivision and ACHD has reviewed and approved the traffic generations for this use through the TIS review. "Minimize noise, lighting,and odor disturbances from commercial developments to residential dwellings by enforcing city code."(5.01.0117). There can always be concerns that arise from the proposition of a large parking lot or outdoor amphitheater when near a residential development. City code will be enforced by confirming the project's conformance with code for both parking lot lighting and any noise. The Applicant has stated that no permanent sound equipment will be used in the amphitheater and any outdoor speakers that would be used intermittently will be required to meet UDC 11-3A-13. "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00). The proposed Church development should be compatible with nearby uses as it is a community serving use and will be required to conform to city code requirements regarding lighting and noise as noted above. In addition, the church and single-family residential homes all within Poiema will share the large open space lot in the center of the development. The Church will be subject to the same CC&R's of the residential which should further integrate the two uses and minimize any conflicts that may arise. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on the subject site and no site improvements are known at this time. The Applicant will be constructing the public roads and a majority of the overall site improvements with the single-family portion of the Poiema Subdivision. The Applicant will be required to obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this building and at that time all required site improvements will be conformed with by all City Departments.ACHD is not requiring any additional road improvements because Lake Hazel is scheduled to be widened in 202312024 to five (S) lanes within their CIP. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is a church which is listed as a conditionally permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Part of the property(along the western boundary and Tenmile Creek) lies within the 100-year floodplain boundary. The Applicant is currently awaiting the results of a floodplain study to determine the types of constraints and/or possibilities of reducing this boundary area. See Public Works comments for further requirements of the site. The Applicant is proposing the project in two(2)phases. The first phase is proposed with a sanctuary and associated offices and rooms, an outdoor amphitheater, and an outdoor patio area that is shared with a pond-less water feature. The second phase is shown to include a larger sanctuary with an enlarged entry area, additional rooms at the eastern end of the building, and additional parking. Staff supports the phased development plan to allow the Church to develop at their pace over time. Page 7 Item 4. ■ The additional request that the Applicant is now incorporating into the CUP application involves the use of outdoor speakers which are prohibited within residential districts. However,the UDC does allow this standard to be waived through the CUP process UDC 11-3A-13,. The Applicant states that the speakers will not be permanent and will instead be portable speakers and are proposed to be used in the outdoor amphitheater on an occasional basis for outdoor church services and other extracurricular church uses(i.e.Vacation Bible School or similar). The outdoor speaker standards prohibit this use within 100' of a residential district but the proposed church itself is being requested within a residential district. Instead of completely waiving the standards, the Applicant is proposing to maintain the 100' buffer requirement to any residential use since the proposed church would reside within a subdivision. Staff finds that maintaining the 100' buffer to any residential use adheres to the intent of the standard and recommends approval of the Applicant's waiver request. In addition, Churches have one specific use standard(UDC 11-4-3-6)noting that all accessory uses to the church shall be permitted to the extent of the underlying zoning district. The Applicant shall comply with this standard. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The R-15 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet and allows a maximum building height of 40 feet. The church is proposed on approximately 7 acres of land is shown with a maximum height of 30 feet for those areas meant for occupation and other architectural features measure approximately 35 feet in height; these dimensions meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted site plan and elevations. F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via two(2) driveway connections to the new local street into this development from E. Lake Hazel Road. The Applicant is also proposing one (1)more driveway connection to the east-west stub street that connects to the western property line south of the church lot. These connections appear to meet UDC requirements.As noted above,the Applicant is also proposing an emergency only access out to Lake Hazel that runs along the western boundary. This access is intended to have multiple parking spaces along it upon construction of the second phase of development—Fire has noted their approval with this design. This emergency access is already conditioned to be built prior to any certificates of occupancy being obtained by the Applicant with the Annexation aporovals. G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for nonresidential uses at the ratio of one (1) space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Bicycle racks are also required to be provided at the ratio of one(1)per every 25 parking spaces.All phases of development will be required to comply with these standards throughout the project.No specific parking plan was submitted with the application. In the first phase of development, the gross floor area is approximately 25,000 square feet requiring a minimum of 50 parking spaces be provided,the site plan shows 155 spaces will be provided with phase 1. The second phase of development adds approximately 27,00 more square feet making a total gross floor area of 52,000 square feet requiring a minimum of 104 parking spaces;the site plans shows 320 parking spaces being provided with phase 2.All parking spaces are noted as being 9'x 20'which exceeds UDC requirements. All drive aisles are shown as 25 feet wide and the Applicant is showing 12 bicycle racks;the drive aisles meet UDC requirements and each bicycle rack should lock at two(2)bicycles Page 8 Item 4. F61 therefore providing 24 bicycle spaces and exceeding the UDC requirement of 13 total bicycle spaces for 320 parking spaces. Parking for a busy weekend church service is always of concern to neighbors and Staff. The Applicant is aware of this and has proposed parking that exceeds the code requirements by 300%.In addition, the local streets abutting the church lot have street sections that are 33 feet wide which accommodate parking on both sides of the street where no driveways exist. Specifically, almost all the frontage on the west and north side of the local streets will be available for on-street parking. This frontage can allow approximately 31 additional on-street parking spaces during both phases of development as the local roads will be constructed prior to any other development on the subject property. Therefore,Staff finds that the proposed parking is adequate for the proposed use. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development because the Master Pathways Plan(MPP) shows a multi-use pathway along the opposite side of the Ten Mile Creek on an adjacent parcel. There are no pathways shown on the MPP along this side of Lake Hazel and the required detached sidewalk will be constructed with the residential portion of the Poiema Subdivision as was required in its approval. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): The required detached sidewalk along E. Lake Hazel will be constructed with the residential portion of the subdivision as noted above.Five-foot sidewalks are required adjacent to the building and the Applicant is showing sidewalks that appear to be at least 6 feet wide adjacent to the building and connect to the attached sidewalk along the abutting local street. The proposed sidewalks meet UDC requirements. Although the Applicant is meeting UDC requirements, staff finds that some additional pedestrian connections should occur to help churchgoers get to and from the parking areas more efficiently and safely. Specifically, the area that surrounds the amphitheater on its west and south edge should incorporate a 5-foot sidewalk where only grass is shown in a similar path as depicted in 7 `\\ Patio \ a 10 \ I I I \ \ \ 12 \ \ I is 0, 4 10 79 iBl I \ I I Amphitheater I I \ 17 `\ 5 10 3 1 1 3 12 \ Alk Page 9 Item 4. ■ red below. This additional sidewalk would offer an additional path for those who are parking in this area and would help minimize foot traffic within the drive aisles. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): All parking areas are required to provide at least 5-feet of perimeter landscaping and meet the landscape requirements of UDC 11-3B-8. The Applicant's submitted landscape plans show two different proposals. The landscape plan showing the full-build out does not show the correct number of trees,the detailing of the other required vegetative ground cover,nor compliance with the required number of trees within parking islands. The other submitted landscape plan that shows only phase 1, shows more compliance with these requirements; the Applicant should submit revised landscape plans showing compliance at full-build out prior to CZC submittal. K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): There is no open space requirement for the proposed use of a Church. However,the Applicant has expressed a desire to share the large, 15,000 square foot open space lot(Lot 2,Block 2)with the residential portion of the Poiema Subdivision. This request was discussed and preliminarily approved with the annexation and platting of Poiema Subdivision. In addition, as seen on the submitted landscape plans,the Applicant is proposing outdoor areas for use by churchgoers including a patio area,a pond-less water feature,and an outdoor amphitheater. Staff is not aware if these additional areas are intended to be shared with the residents. The shared open space at the south end of the development is consistent with the requirements of the recorded development agreement. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is shown on the submitted landscape plans. If any fencing is to occur,it would be only for the subdivision boundary and installed with the Poiema Subdivision. All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the proposed church and concept renderings for the phase 1 development(see Section VII.D). All nonresidential structures require administrative design review approval prior to obtaining building permits and the Applicant has not applied for this concurrently with the conditional use permit. The submitted elevations show a single-story structure with a maximum height of 30 feet for any area that will be occupied. The elevations show architectural features extending to approximately 35 feet in height and overall design that appear to include stucco, high-end siding, and stone. In addition, the elevations show both shed roof and more traditional flat roof designs adding to the architectural elements of the building. There appears to be adequate modulation in wall plans, especially on the North elevation that faces Lake Hazel.As discussed, the Applicant is required to obtain administrative design review approval of these elevations and at this point Staff will make any required recommendations to the design of the building facades. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Section VIII.A per the findings in Section IX of this staff report. Page 10 Item 4. ■ B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. Page 11 Item 4. 64 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site-Plan—Full Build-out p pl.14 o3 ppv D IMUH aged N .v s Fapen aanseaul jadeyo""0 . Ea ioift!A �4om4�Pasodad a_: �., 'Cn G 8 F ¢W 2 � a 63rt6�' i ti F JU b C C000063000UUOO C O 0 b A / O 1 7� d / (0 Ln 40, _ / L i / a _ o L ro / O i 6 t ro ro V Page 12 Item 4. F 65 B. Site-Plan—Phase One (1)Build-out a Appaj Lpinqo p-oc-d U) as R�R nos(D G(i) mo L 11 U lilt �o ---------- - ro > Ln ro is cc IL ra ro U Page 13 Item 4. ■ C. Landscape Plans(dated: 06/15/2020) ----------------------------- ----- Vq iv CO A3 T .L-1 o C) (D Q(D Q,- J� i a QQ OG % H lok v! Mir 7 CALVARY CHAPEL LAKE HAZEL Calvary Chapel Treasure Valley Inc. —E LAKE—EL Page 14 Item 4. ■ IT C7 3 LAKE HAZEL ROAD IF I CB �NX WEAIE BUffFR—RFfFR M a EUWNBA SUBDIVISION Fffl—I NARY PIAI ONJVNI XOS FOR ORE IXFORMNION ° A O RDWXF l l PENNRX I I I — I ®I® A Q CO O I I• I 'I I I I I -U, D WO D STREET B _ r m _ V� Z3 � F, ,. CALVARY CHAPEL- LAKE HAZEL Calvary Chapel Treasure Valley Inc. { yy O b z^ ap 3727E.EnKH; LRDAD I I N9ond on.Idaho 9364E Page 15 Item 4. ■ n C U) o / co / Y �1- m7T77II ❑J / R ,,y: \ fD '/ v ---- off - - Q a,� i Op_ L `4 = - - ts 1 -- �; a . i I } I I :0 oo®00000000�000000 0 000 � � � � m % y cEr 78 � (n 4 m Proposed Church Facility for =_ N i e _ fiF3 Calvary Chapel Treasure Valley e r N Lk.Hari Road,Ada C Inty,idano C Page 16 Item 4. F69 D. Conceptual Building Elevations III .i i �.��• .�� .1111 iii Ili6' (A e' In em m e m n m m > > c S 71 ]. n �$ e m k _ IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII III II v f-h € r.= IL iIHH7 g a 9 7 § e � e _ v `�•4 # n s a? 9U Proposed Church Facility for �= Calvary Chapel Treasure Valley w Lake Raml Road,Pda County,Idaho Page 17 El Lr I� T.' F 1 � 4�CHA ERY TREASURE VALLEY .....-,... 1 4�CHAPERY �`� � v s Page m �W wW� i 41 s......., .....- e 4�CHA CHAPEL v TRFASI:RF VA4I FY ....�. ION I � - � 1 `ti CALVARY v 4�CHAPEL v TREASURE VAI I FY �,: El mid ........... .......... ...... ....... Avow 3 �ti CALVARY � Y 4�CHAPEL v TREASURE VAiLEY .a��,.�„ 3 _-- TRFASURE Page Item 4. 73 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Development Agreement provisions (DA Inst. #2020-138120)and conditions of approval associated with the Poiema Subdivision(H-2020- 0035). 2. The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6, Church or Place of Religious Worship. 3. Prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal,the site plan included in Section VII.A &B, dated 01/30/2020, shall be revised as follows: a. Construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the parking spaces and drive aisle to the south and west of the amphitheater as shown in the rendering within the staff report in Section V.I. b. With the phase 2 site plan,provide traffic calming wherever feasible, especially along the long drive aisle in the west of the site that also serves as the emergency access.Verify with Meridian Fire on any proposals. 4. Prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal,the landscape plans included in Section VII.C, dated 01/30/2020 and 02/18/2020 shall be revised as follows: a. Revise all landscape plans to show the a 5-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the parking spaces to the west of the proposed amphitheater, commensurate with condition 3.a above. b. Revise the landscape plans with each phase to show compliance with the parking lot landscape standards in UDC 11-313-8. c. Correct all landscape plans to show the required 70%vegetative ground cover in all landscaped areas as required in UDC 11-313-5N. 5. The Applicant shall construct the landscape buffer and additional dedicated right-of-way to E. Lake Hazel to include no more than 10 feet of gravel and the rest vegetated in accord with UDC 11-313-7C. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the R-15 dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-613 for nonresidential uses and the Applicant shall provide no less off-street parking than is proposed on the master site plan at the time of full-build out. 8. Administrative Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications are required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for any construction phases. 9. Future design of the proposed church building shall be substantially consistent with the submitted elevations in Exhibit VII.D and shall adhere to the standards in the Architectural Standards Manual for nonresidential structures. 10. The Ten Mile Creek that abuts the subject site along its western boundary shall be protected during construction. Page 21 Item 4. 74 11. The Applicant shall construct a temporary turnaround with a minimum turning radius of 45 feet at the end of the proposed western stub street in alignment with ACHD policies. The turnaround is required until such time that the stub street connects to future streets in the development to the west. 12. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to commence the church 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 11-513-6F. 13. The Applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. The Applicant shall comply with the Outdoor Lighting standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-11. 15. The Applicant shall eemply with the Ot4deer-Speaker-System standards etitlined in UDG 11 3A-13 maintain a 100 foot buffer to any residential use when using any amplified speakers outdoors in the amphitheater or other outdoor area as approved through the Conditional Use Permit application. 16. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. 1.2 An FLDP(Flood Plain Development Permit)is required. Currently the property is within an "A Zone". Study submitted o „lyeA of Take 14azel to be r-e-plaeed and TOM eempleted to ehan e maps Flood Study will need to be updated to reflect proposed rg ading >l lan- 1.3 Sanitary sewer mains are not allowed in common driveways. 1.4 Applicant to provide"to and through" sanitary sewer mainline connection to the property to the west. 1.5 The wa4er-main ex4easiea in E. Lake Haze!Read is shown in the Vffeng t4ility eeffider-, as- the water-main in E. Lake 14aze!Read needs to be a Q inch diameter-,not a-a 9 ifteh diamete as shev,%.We prefer-te have a mainline stub of serviee line (whiehever-is needed)to the f,twe ehtweh lot t el;,, ina4e eutting the ro as in the ftA .o.No utilities were shown for the church portion of this property;the utility plan only shows the utilities proposed on the main streets.All proposed infrastructure serving the church must be submitted reviewed, and approved by Public Works 1.6 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by MTI(Materials Testing&Inspection) dated March 7,2003,and updated July 24,2020, indicates some significant groundwater and soils concerns,and specific construction considerations and recommendations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these considerations and recommendations Page 22 Item 4. 75 to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils, and that shallow groundwater does not become a problem with home construction. 1.7 Due to the significant groundwater and soils concerns on site, structures are to be founded on conventional reinforced spread footings and walls,and slab-on-grade foundations. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 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. Page 23 Item 4. 76 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 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 Page 24 Item 4. 77 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. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=215805&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv D. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188199&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinklDocView.aspx?id=214579&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=215819&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr--1 IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-5B-6E) Required Findings—The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located; Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed because the proposed building, excess parking, and some additional green space is proposed on the subject site meeting all dimensional and development regulations in the R-15 zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title;As discussed in Section V.A, Stafffinds that the proposed use is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. 3. That the design, construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.; Staff finds the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Church will be compatible with adjacent uses as analyzed and discussed throughout Section V of the staff report; the proposed use should add to the character of the immediate area. Page 25 Item 4. ■ 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 it complies with all conditions of approval, Staff finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer; Staff finds the required and essential public facilities nearby can adequately serve the proposed use;Police, Fire, and the highway district have also offered their support of the proposed use. 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;Because the Applicant is responsible for connecting and extending any public services to serve their site, Staff finds the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs nor 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; If all conditions of approval and city codes are complied with, Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare; traffic is analyzed by ACHD and they have not raised concerns regarding the proposed use due to the adjacent section of Lake Hazel being widened in the next five (5)years. 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 not aware of any historic features on the subject site and the adjacent Ten Mile Creek is not on the subject site but will be protected during construction as is required by city code. Page 26 Applicant Presentation Calvary Chapel December 17, 2020Planning & Zoning Commission To help protect your privacy, PowerPoint has blocked automatic download of this picture. Vicinity Map7 Acres FLUM Site Density ResidentialHigh-Medium PoiemaPlatPreliminarySubdivision Phase 1Plan Phases Phase 2Phase 1 THANK YOU PreliminaryOpen SpacePlat Vicinity Map14.87 Acres Item 5. 79 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Continued to January 7, 2021 Item 5. F80 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 17, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R- 15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed 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 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: December 17, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO a 2 I i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/17/2020 Legend DATE: Project Location ®®� TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate PlannerI 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0099 ® �� Mile High Pines LOCATION: The site is located in the southwest corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave., in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section . 10,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts; • Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district,by Baron Black Cat, LLC. Note: The Applicant is also applying for private streets and administrative design review. These applications are reviewed and approved by the Director, Commission action is not required. Analysis of the building and private street design are provided below in section V. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 17.46(R-15— 11.42 acres;C-C—6.04 acres) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) County residential and farm land Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential and Commercial — Page 1 Item 5. F82 Description Details Page Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 4 total lots— 1 multi-family residential;2 commercial;and 1 common lot. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one phase Number of Residential Units(type 135 for rent units(detached single-family style cottages, of units) townhome style units,and vertically integrated development with all units on a single lot). Density(gross&net) Gross—8.2 du/ac.;Net— 10.68 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 3.62 acres of qualified open space overall(approximately [%]/buffer/qualified) 22%)—2.47 acres for 11-3G requirements(approximately 15%); 1.15 acres(49,928 square feet)proposed for 11-4-3- 27(Multi-Family)standards. 1.22 acres of private open space is proposed(53,028 square feet;approximately 393 square feet per unit)to mWahm meet specific use standards. Amenities 8 qualifying amenities— 10' multi-use pathway,pool, clubhouse,picnic areas,tot-lot,fitness facilities,enclosed bike storage,and a pedestrian/bicycle circulation system. Physical Features(waterways, N/A I hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 16,2020—2 attendees; attendees: History(previous approvals) N/A B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via one private street connection each to Hwy/Local)(Existing and W.Pine Avenue(future collector)and N.Ten Mile Road Proposed) (arterial).Pine will be extended by this Applicant and the adjacent Applicant on the north side of Pine from the intersection of Pine&Ten Mile west to the Tenmile Creek. Traffic Level of Service Ten Mile Road—Better than"E"(1.474/1,540 VPH) Pine Avenue(existing section only)—Better than"D" (182/425 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing private streets throughout the Access development with one stub street connection proposed to the west property line in the northwest corner of the site to offer a frontage road from the proposed development to the west to the commercial on this site.No other vehicle connections are proposed as the subject site other than an emergency only access near the southwest edge of the site. Existing Road Network No(Ten Mile Road abutting the site is only existing road) Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is no existing buffer to Ten Mile Road(the abutting Buffers arterial street)but there is existing attached sidewalk along the property's entire frontage on Ten Mile Road.The required landscape buffer will be installed with this project. Proposed Road Improvements The Applicant,in conjunction with the Applicant of the property to the north,is proposing to extend Pine Avenue west from the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile to the Ten Page 2 Item 5. F83] Description Details Page Mile Creek.This Applicant is only responsible for the construction of Pine that this property abuts(approximately 885 feet). Distance to nearest City Park(+ 0.9 miles to Fuller Park(21.9 acres in size)by car; size) approximately 0.5 miles to Fuller Park via existing and planned pathway and sidewalk connections. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.2 miles from Fire Station#2 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 86%. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(multi-family and railroad tracks) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds;Fire has signed off on Private Street layout. Addressing for project is very important for emergency responses;Applicant shall work with City Addressing Agent and the Fire Official to have lighted maps wherever necessary. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 11/1/2019- 10/31/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,244 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. The crime count on the calls for service was 112. See attached documents for details. Between 11/1/2019- 10/31/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 32 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ins,hs) No comments have been received from West Ada School District • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services NA • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.05 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 1,332 gpd of flow is committed •Provide to-and-through to 3515 W.Pine Ave and 3513 W Pine Ave. •Light poles cannot be located inside utility easement. •In multiple areas it looks like the sewer and storm drain lines are too close together.Please provide 4 ft separation between center of storm drain and sewer. This enables repair/replacement of manholes and sewer lines in the future. — Page 3 Item 5. F84 Description Details Page Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •See the attached water markup for more detail •The water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended east and tied into the existing 12"near Ten Mile.Also,the water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended west to the west property boundary.This will fulfill the to-and-through requirement. •The water main in W.Little Lane needs to be extended to the west property line. •Install water main in N. Side Creek Lane and stub at the property line to provide a future connection to the west parcel. •End the water main in N.Rangeview Lane(at the southeast corner of development)in a fire hydrant •There is an existing water main stub off of Ten Mile at the southeast corner of the development that either needs to be used or abandoned COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 3,710 Jobs w/in 1 mile 1,350 • Ratio 0.4(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio)indicates an employment need. Nearest Bus Stop 0.8 miles Nearest Public School 0.6 miles Nearest Public Park 0.8 miles Nearest Grocery Store 0.5 miles Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Section VIII.F Page 4 � m 1 1 1 ■.. .1" . 5 d... ERRY �j�'��o, ;■ �- . - ERRY I • - • • • Ir� • ■ ■sonin 16 I • - • • • '� . � r rr ■■■ ■■■■ 1 nu■■■■■■■■■■■ _ - a ■■■����♦ � � ■ r �■noon - nnrl u■■ _■■_- ■■ k- _s 1�'.'.":IP ��inn-li h ! ■■u■■■ I gel ' � sll ;` ■ nnnl�0■nls �lun` = ■■■■rl �r � \ n noun■ �rl■11 IIIIIIIII■� •.0 , 'PINE :� rAT. J ,I � PINE -mn I- 1■rlll 11111111111111111111111 ,� I - - .k" �,k�„ - - z W �.. W -- D - FRANKLIN — - • - !' Ip FRANKLIN' '~ " p '�ml■ �Illunlnm Ilnmmn'a,,oy ����� - m ■■■■■■. o I�r �_ ■■■■■■■.- :� �■■ m■ �m rim �nr7■ ■ ERR=Y I • - • • • Ir ■ ■ ■n■■ � � • - • • • 'Ir ►TIi ■son 1n��lninn n nm ■ Inu a�!■som n Olson so _:nuunnn■nu ■_ =:nuunnn■nu so w ■ n _� mnnm■non n �: _� mnnnn nnso ■ mnnum nun ■ - mnnum�mm nu■ iu�n9: mn■■nn nuul -• •• - nm�l: mn■■nn unnnl Ron sw11■I �■■nunuu■ ■Ildn■ wq�l �■■n■■■■■n■■■ ■loon! __ _ q�� 9 ■ _pv1 [■ ■E mono ■ mono gag MEN � ■'.'..:■III 1• - ._II�s� �pun■u ■ ■■■ .1111 IIIIIII �oinn Ic ■ IIII i pun■u n non '�lll hllll� . �,I ■■n n son nlll■Iol��Ipl_• 1 Z191111 .' ■ ==+ ■■n ■ n nnunC- ■�■ ■� n noun■- � ` n .p-'_' �rii■•: ■■nnnm 'ie_ A '.-■ � ' n nnunnl►�le__w_rT,� : _ �, �� ,-=�*'.-_ / ■■■ nlnnn : IIIIIII --- ■ninon�IIIIIIIII i � P-1 N E-- _ 11 a __ iuI / un \ III=_______=_■son � f r =unn p�� ■I_ rll=--- .ullllnu t ID=e_-::' son r ,�i•. �� ullllllll lil� '3� .J 'G�IAAII� -__ d111111111 U � ` � 'p 1111\ s*sV v, Inn � , L� U1111� 1-_m� � a, unl•_ leers nnnnnmlluuni ■.■■�� 1 /dnnl�\ ■ e =-1 . ..L.1.■ fFl■�� III IIIII'I 1■1■1■1■1■1■ FRAN KLIN 1111 lm. D 1111111111111�111111111111 �_—■■■■IIIIIII:==111 ■ :. � � 1 11 �- • :1 1 Item 5. 86 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/27/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 11/23/2020 Site Posting 12/7/2020 Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciby.or /g compplan) Mixed Use Community—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community- serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU- R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The subject site has existing City of Meridian zoning and development to the east and north of the property. Its directly borders to its north and east are or will be streets and the southern boundary abuts the railroad easement for the historic Oregon Short Line RR. Directly to the west of this project is another project that is currently under review by City staff. Across Ten Mile Road is existing commercial zoning and uses as well as a Church use;south of the railroad tracks is a 1 S-acre self-storage facility. The proposed land use of multi family residential(in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and vertically integrated)and commercial are consistent with the land use types noted in the Future Land Use Map (FL UM)designation definitions and preferred uses. The proposed product type is by definition multi family(more than 2 units on a single building lot) but the Applicant has designed the units to emulate single-family attached and detached structures that share pedestrian pathways and open space rather than public streets (this is the sister project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat development). The proposed unit types also provide more private open space than traditional multi family development,furthering its feel of single family residential. In addition, certain densities are required to be met for residential projects within the MU-C future land use designation. The proposed project as shown is approximately 8 du/ac, meeting the 6-15 du/ac requirement(see community metrics above). Therefore, Staff finds the density proposed with the annexation and plat is consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Mixed-Use Community (MU-C). Mixed-use designations also require at least three(3) types of land uses. When analyzing projects within the MU-C future land use designation, the approved and/or developed land uses nearby must be considered. Therefore, Staff has taken into account adjacent land uses that can be traveled between with relative ease. The closest development to this property is a commercial development containing a gas station, a bank, and other office uses. East of this commercial node are detached single-family homes and north of it are some attached single-family homes. All of these uses and developments are also part of the MU-C designation abutting and encompassing this site which add to the diversity of uses available within this designated mixed-use area. Page 6 Item 5. ■ The subject development offers 6 acres of commercial zoning according to the proposed rezone exhibit. However, the proposed C-C zoning does not truly reflect the commercial area as it does not reflect the plat boundary. Staff cannot support dual zoning on a property and so the Applicant should revise the rezone exhibit and/or plat boundary to have only the R-1 S zoning district on the area of the site containing residential and remove commercial zoning that goes beyond the proposed commercial lots. With revisions requested by Staff within this report, the Applicant will have to make adjustments to the rezone boundary as well; all of these changes should occur prior to the City Council hearing to ensure transparency on the true amount of commercial zoning being proposed. Regardless of the zoning issues discussed, the proposed commercial areas should accommodate multiple future uses, including the two Vertically Integrated Residential buildings that contain additional leasable commercial area. The commercial acreage of this property is proposed as two commercial lots; one in the very northeast corner of the site containing one building and one more lot that contains the remaining area and buildings, as seen on the submitted preliminary plat. The submitted plat shows two of the three commercial buildings as containing drive-thrus which Staff does not support. Staff supports the use of a singular drive-thru establishment located at the hard corner of the commercial. Despite this opinion, Staff is not willing to specifically limit the number of drive-thru establishments with this application because each drive-thru will require a conditional use permit to implement this use. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that through our existing process is the best route to determine whether any drive-thru is warranted on this site. Staff notes that the Applicant has taken experiences from the process of obtaining approval of their project that is of the same type of design here in Meridian by incorporating pedestrian connections between shared open spaces and outdoor plazas between the residential and commercial portions of the site. The incorporation of these elements provide a clear answer to a mixed-use goal: `Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi-public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further place-making opportunities considered."Staff finds that with the pedestrian connections and easy access to integrated plazas, the Applicant is meeting this goal. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. 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.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /�compplan): 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).Mile High Pines (the sister project to Modern Craftsman at Black Cat) is offering a unique type of development within the City of Meridian by proposing single-family attached and detached homes within a multi family setting. A vast majority of the housing that exists around this development are traditional detached single-family homes. The Applicant hopes to add an additional housing type in this area that will delineate a unique living opportunity in the City and add to the housing diversity available. Page 7 Item 5. 88 "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 site design incorporates mews,private streets, common open space, and different housing designs within the same parcel. The area directly adjacent to subject site is undeveloped land but is requesting approval for a mix of housing types to include traditional multi family and detached single-family at a lower density than this project. Despite being in a mixed-use designation, the Applicant has chosen to propose a development that is made up of mostly single- story structures instead of 3 or 4 story apartments. The Applicant did this in order to be more compatible with other nearby residential development and create a sense of place by not having multi-story buildings throughout the site. In regards to site design, the Applicant is proposing two-story townhomes along the southwestern boundary and on part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile with the rest of the site being a majority of single-story structures. The only other two-story structures proposed are those vertically integrated structures located closer to the proposed commercial zone. With the majority of the two-story structures and the commercial being along the periphery of the development, the single-story structures and largest open space areas will be buffered by these structures and landscape buffers. In addition, the townhomes along the western boundary will abut a cul-de-sac and only a few of the larger lots proposed with the adjacent subdivision to the west. These aspects of the site design and buffering are notwithstanding the pedestrian and bicycle pathways that line the entire edge of the proposed project, offering additional recreation opportunities and more buffering from adjacent subdivisions and the adjacent roadways. The Applicant is only proposing one access to Ten Mile Road that will be a restricted, right- in/right-out only access for safety reasons. The only other direct access proposed is to the proposed extension of Pine Avenue near the northeast corner of the site—this access has been approved by ACHD as a full access because it aligns with an access proposed by the application to the west and north of this project. Reducing access points to arterial streets is a major goal within the City's Comprehensive Plan and helps funnel traffic in appropriate manners. Staff believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile offers an appropriate buffer between the busy arterial roadway and the single-story structures that make up the center of the development. However, Staff does not agree that placing townhomes along Ten Mile is the best site design practice. Instead,placing the vertically integrated structures along Ten Mile, in place of the two townhome units, may offer a better transition. The Applicant could then re-orient the townhomes along Pine rather than the single-family style cottages as currently proposed, offering a better buffer and transition from Pine Avenue and future development to the north. The townhomes along Pine would front on the large green space proposed here and have the garages facing towards the inside of the site, eliminating the need for parking stalls on side of the northern most east-west street and helping to alleviate some of the utility issues presented by Public Works and discussed in more depth below. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing arterial network abutting the site to the east,per Public Works comments. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal. Ten Mile Road is currently built at its final width abutting the site (5 lane arterial) and is within one (1) mile of Interstate 84. West Ada School District has not offered comments on this project at the time of writing; the school districts standard ratio ofpotential school aged children would estimate 95 additional school aged children in this development. Chaparral Elementary is the closest school to the subject site and is within walking distance. Staff understands that school enrollment is a major Page 8 Item 5. 89 issue to be dealt with but some relief appears to be on the horizon with new schools opening up soon. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code (UDC). The Applicant has placed a large area of open space in the center of the development that all units have almost equal access to which improves the overall project. Adjacent to this central open space is the proposed clubhouse and pool and to the east of the residential part of the project are two plazas with outdoor seating that is shared between the residential and commercial areas of the site.In addition, the Applicant is proposing to construct a segment of required multi-use pathway along the south boundary and then tying that into their own pathway system as a continuous loop around the project—these pathways are proposed with multiple connections to sidewalks along streets and those interior to the site offering additional usable open space and areas for recreation. See further analysis in Section V.E and V.L. "Explore development and implementation of architectural and/or landscape standards for geographic areas of the City."(5.01.02F). The proposed project site is not within a specific area plan for the City but because it is a multi family product, it is subject to design review. The Applicant has submitted a concurrent administrative design review application for the residential structures that accompanies Staff's review of the conceptual elevations. The architecture proposed throughout the residential portion of the project offers modern design elements that include shed roof combinations and are combined with stucco and stone sidings,finished wood as a siding and accent material, and metal as an accent material. Staff not only finds the submitted elevations to be in compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual but also finds this type of architecture as unique and a welcome addition to the neighborhood. "Establish distinct,engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use centers through design standards."(2.09.03A).As discussed above, the proposed product type and architecture would make Mile High Pines a distinct area within this part of the City. The Applicant has worked with Staff to offer a site design that provides some integration between the commercial and residential product types. In addition, there is a similar look and feel in the development created largely by the inclusion ofpedestrian facilities throughout the site and large amounts ofprivate open space provided for multi family development. The Applicant, as noted above, is incorporating two shared plazas in the development that Staff anticipates will be widely used and helps engage both the future residents and commercial patrons. Therefore, when considering the surrounding area of development, Staff finds that the proposed development meets a majority of the mixed-use policies and objectives. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a majority of the mixed use policies. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The site currently houses two single-family homes and associated accessory buildings.All existing structures will be removed upon development of this site. The Applicant will be responsible for maintaining the existing arterial sidewalks along Ten Mile Road during construction. Page 9 Item 5. 90 D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is multi-family residential and commercial;the commercial area makes up roughly 1/3 of the site area,approximately 6 acres compared to 11.5 acres,respectively. Multi- family residential is a conditional use in R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Staff is unaware of any tenants being in place for the proposed commercial building suites. Because no tenants are currently known of, Staff cannot review those uses for compliance in the C-C zoning district. However,the submitted site plan depicts two drive-thru establishments next to one another—drive-thru establishments require a Conditional Use Permit when they are within 300 feet of a residential district,as is the case for this commercial area. Commercial buildings require Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Design Review so at that time Staff will evaluate uses for compliance with code. The multi-family development is proposed to be constructed in one phase and incorporate both detached and attached structures, as noted; of the 135 multi-family units,42 units are townhomes proposed along the western and southeast boundaries of the site and 6 units are part of the vertically integrated structures. Therefore,the remaining 87 units are the single-story cottages that vary in sizes form 1-3-bedroom units. As discussed previously,the multi-family buildings are subject to design review and the Applicant has applied for this concurrently with the conditional use permit application for the residential structures. The Applicant did not provide elevations for the future commercial buildings;upon submittal of the required CZC,the Applicant will be required to submit concurrent design review for the commercial buildings. The Applicant has provided conceptual elevations of the Clubhouse and it shares in similar architecture with the proposed residential units as required by the specific use standards. The proposed use is not a traditional type of single family or multi family development, it is a hybrid of the two. The Applicant could have chosen to plat each one of these buildings individually; the Applicant could also have proposed traditional 4-story garden style apartments. Both potentials have their positives and negatives and the Applicant is proposing a unique product type to the City of Meridian. The proposed units are a majority of single-story one, two, and three-bedroom detached units without garages. The Applicant is proposing more traditional apartment style parking to accompany the units but some units do have attached one-car garages. All of the townhome units also have attached two-car garages on their .first floor. Largely, the proposed buildings in this development look like detached single-family homes but have on-street parking and less private open space than a standard 4,000 or 8,000 square foot lot. However, the Applicant is proposing vastly more private open space than is required by UDC for multi family development. UDC requires at least 80 square feet per unit and the Applicant is proposing an average of almost 400 square feet per unit via small private yards for every single unit. The design of this can be best seen on the open space exhibit(see Exhibit VII.C) and the fencing plan shown on the last page of the landscape plans (see Exhibit VII.D). To be clear, the main proposed use is single-family detached structures combined with on-street parking that all reside on one single building lot, making it a multi family development by definition. There are also traditional style townhome units but are also on the same building lot, making the whole residential product type a multi family development. Staff has some recommendations regarding the overall site design to better transition from the busy streets and spread out some of the units for better utility delivery—Staff notes that all of the following recommendations are made with the overarching recommendation that no more units be added to the proposed development even if room is available within the site. First, Staff recommends losing the singular unit near the northwest corner of the site, south of the 4 units along the east/west street to open up this area and remove the potential for CPTED issues created by this odd unit placement. Secondly, as noted within the Comprehensive Plan analysis, Page 10 Item 5. F-91 Staff recommends the Applicant replace the townhome units shown along Ten Mile with the Vertically integrated structure proposed near the center of the project. Because of the commercial component of these structures, Staff believes fronting onto Ten Mile will activate the commercial within this building and offer a better buffer along the arterial roadway. The Applicant should replace the vertically integrated structure with the four units currently proposed directly the west of it in order to then spread out the remaining units in this area. By spreading these units out, utility service lines will have more room to be placed and alleviate some of the concerns presented by Public Works in regards to the proximity of buildings in this area of the site. In addition, this recommendation could add additional common open space for the site depending on how the Applicant redesigns this area. Along Pine Avenue, Staff recommends replacing all of the detached units with townhome units— this would be where the two 6 plexes from the southeast corner of the site could be re-oriented. The townhomes would front on the large open space area proposed along Pine and have the garages face internally to the site. This removes the single-family style product from being adjacent to a major street and removes the need for parking spaces along the north side of W. Littleton Lane (the internal east-west private street). With this recommendation, the entire northern area of the site could be pushed further north to open up the site and allow for more room within the site to accommodate the required utility easements and possibly some additional traffic calming. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed multi-family development use is subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and subject to specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3- 27 and below: 11-4-3-27—Multi-Family Development: A. Purpose: 1. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. 2. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. 3. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties.Proposed project shall comply with this requirement. 2. All on-site service areas,outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures that are only visible from the private streets; all proposed transformer/utility vaults shall also comply with this requirement. Page 11 Item 5. 92 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The private, usable open space provided for each unit varies with each unit type but each one provides more than the required amount.According to the Applicant's open space exhibit, the minimum private open space provided is 80 square feet(for the vertically integrated structures as balconies) and the maximum for any one unit would be approximately 830 square feet with an average size of approximately 400 square feet. Again, this proposed design offers private open space that is more akin to single-family developments but is still a multi family product and the type of housing that Baron Ten Mile is aiming to provide. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5.No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts",of this title. See analysis in staff report below. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a.A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c.A central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail)that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) Per the submitted plans, the Applicant appears to meet these requirements. Where it is not clear on the submitted plans, the Applicant shall comply with these requirements at the time of CZC submittal. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict these items. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. Page 12 Item 5. 93 Note: Open space standards found in UDC 11-3G AND those found in these specific use standards shall apply to this project.Please see the applicability section of both code sections. Staff analysis for both open space requirements is in Section V.L of this staff report instead of splitting the analysis into two parts. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20').Proposed open space submitted as meeting this requirement has been reviewed.All area labeled as qualified common open space on the open space exhibit complies with this requirement except for portions of the areas labeled as `Area 7"and `Area 2."The pieces of these areas that do not appear to meet the 20'minimum width requirement are negligible in the overall site and amount of open space proposed. 3. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. This project is proposed to be developed in one(1)phase. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff.retroactive to 2-4- 2009). The buffer along W. Pine Avenue, a collector street, and the buffer along N. Ten Mile Road, do not count toward the common open space requirements for the multi family specific use standards. However, those areas along the arterial and collector roadways do count towards the minimum 10%required open space for the residential development as a whole. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life,open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2)Fitness facilities. (3)Enclosed bike storage. (4)Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100')in size. (2) Community garden. (3)Ponds or water features. (4)Plaza. c. Recreation: (1)Pool. (2)Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. Page 13 Item 5. 94 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two (2) amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20)and seventy-five (75)units,three (3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five (75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Based on 135 proposed units, a minimum of four(4)amenities are required;however, the decision-making body is authorized to consider other amenities in addition to those provided per the standards listed above in 2.d. The following amenities are proposed from the quality of life, open space and recreation categories:a clubhouse with offices, a fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and a pool, a tot- lot, two shared plazas,pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and a segment of multi-use pathway. Therefore,the Applicant is proposing 8 qualifying site amenities.In addition to these amenities, the Applicant is proposing self-storage lockers(each locker is approximately 12 square feet)spread throughout each of the garage buildings so that residents may store small amounts of personal items onsite and near their units. This is also not a qualifying site amenity but Staff finds that these will likely be heavily used even though not all residents will be allowed to participate in it due to the difference in unit count and available lockers. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches (24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan provided appears to meet these specific use standard landscape requirements and shall be verified at the time of CZC submittal(see Exhibit VII.D). F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The commercial and multi-family residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In addition,all private streets appear to meet the minimum UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plans. In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans Page 14 Item 5. 95 appear to meet the UDC requirements of this section except for subsection 3.e regarding easements—this is of great concern to Staff. The proposed project must comply with the separation requirements for all utilities and storm drainage lines while not having any permanent structure encroachments or overhangs within the easement.Public Works has raised concerns regarding whether the Applicant can comply with their easement requirements. Staff is adding a condition of approval to obtain Public Works approval of their utility plan prior to City Council to ensure any revisions required to the overall site design can be analyzed by Planning Staff for compliance with the UDC. In response to Staffs initial discussions with the Applicant regarding this concern, the Applicant has provided a specific exhibit(see Exhibit VIII.L) to address this issue. Staff has done an initial analysis of this exhibit and it does not comply with all of the Public Works requirements.Planning staff also has concerns on whether an alternative compliance request may be needed in order to further revise the utilities for this development.As further revisions occur, the Applicant should also revise any other relevant plans and ensure they maintain compliance with all UDC requirements. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)&Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Access is proposed via one private street access off of W. Pine Avenue and one driveway access to N. Ten Mile Road. The Applicant is also proposing to stub a private street(shown as W. Littleton Lane)to the western property line in the northwest area of the site for added vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the two properties. The two proposed access points have been approved by ACHD but typically access to Ten Mile is limited by the City in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 which is why the Applicant is proposing a driveway access meant to better distribute traffic to the future commercial area.ACHD is not limiting the access to Ten Mile to a right- in/right-out only access in order to help alleviate the future traffic load at the Pine/Ten Mile intersection. Commission and Council should evaluate whether they support this access to Ten Mile as a full access located approximately 400 feet north of the railroad crossing.No other direct lot access is proposed or allowed to Ten Mile Road. The Applicant is also proposing an emergency only access through one of the private drives (N. Side Creek Lane)along the western boundary—this access will be accessed via knockdown bollards in line with Meridian Fire preferences. Due to the nature of the proposed use, Staff believes private streets are appropriate in this development. In general,multi family projects do not typically have private streets and instead have drive aisles. However,because of the nature of this development,private streets are being used for the purpose of having better addressing for the site. In a project like this adequate and simplified addressing is important in case of an emergency response.Drive aisles cannot be named and addressed which does not lend itself to a development of this kind. Therefore, the private streets will function as drive aisles but incorporate the ability to have street names and better addressing for first responders and should not be analyzed in the same sense as other private street applications, according to Staff. City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a mew or gated development and this Applicant has proposed mews between the townhome units. In addition, there are sidewalks and open areas between each detached unit that could also be considered mews. The Applicant did propose gates in the project at one point but at the request of Staff, they removed the gates to improve integration and connectivity to and help the project meet more of the mixed-use policies. Private streets are also required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. The proposed private streets are mostly 25 feet wide with attached sidewalks of varying widths on both sides of the street throughout the site. In order to help with some of the Page 15 Item 5. 96 easement issues already discussed the Applicant has widened the private street to 31 feet in width in one small section of the site near the northwest corner. Both open and covered parking is provided along the private streets. Further parking analysis is discussed in the next section, Section V.H. In addition,private streets are required to be on their own common lot or within an easement per UDC 11-3F-3B.3 standards. The submitted plat appears to show compliance with this requirement. Staff has concern with the street layout at the main entrance to the development off of Pine Avenue where an uncommon 3-way intersection is shown. Albeit the intersection is internal to the private streets, all three roadways that converge on this point allow traffic in both directions and Staff(including Police) have concerns over how traffic will flow and navigate this intersection, especially in inclement weather(i.e. when snow covers the lane striping). This intersection should be redesigned in such a way that traffic can safely and efficiently navigate between the residential and commercial areas of the site from all three directions that converge on this point. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: The proposed project proposes more than 100 units and therefore requires a Traffic Impact Study(TIS). The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff report(see exhibit VIII.J).Despite ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report,Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements,specifically those related to the extension of Pine Avenue. This Applicant and the Applicant for the proposed project to the north and west of this project have entered into a legally binding "Dedication and Development Agreement"that outlines the potential options for how the Pine Avenue extension will be constructed(see Exhibit VIII.I). In addition,ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension and road improvements can occur.At a minimum, this Applicant will construct the intersection improvements as half of a 3-lane street section (one westbound receiving lane, eastbound left turn lane, and an eastbound thru/right turn lane) with vertical curb,gutter, and sidewalk abutting the site.In addition, the Applicant is, at a minimum, required to extend and construct Pine Avenue outside of the influence area of the Pine/Ten Mile intersection as half of a 36 foot wide collector street section plus 12 additional feet of pavement to total 30 feet, vertical curb, gutter, and 5-foot detached sidewalk The Applicant's agreement discusses that whoever obtains City approval second is required to dedicate the required amount of right-of-way to ensure Pine Avenue is constructed centered on the section line dividing the two properties. Staff appreciates the forethought of this agreement to ensure correct construction of the Pine Avenue extension. Therefore,Staff recommends a condition of approval in line with this agreement. In addition, the Applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at the pine/Ten Mile intersection.ACHD is also requiring the Applicant construct a southbound right-turn lane on Ten Mile Road located 580 feet south of the intersection for safer southbound access into the singular access allowed to Ten Mile. H. 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 multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The submitted plan named "Conditional Use Plan"appears to show the proposed parking clearest. This plan shows a total of 442 total spaces for the entire development. 319 are proposed for the residents, 12 are reserved for the 3,500 square foot clubhouse, 30 are shown for the vertically integrated units, and the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial sites. For the 319 for the residential units, Page 16 Item 5. 97 a certain number are required to be covered spaces but the numbers shown on the submitted plan do not add up correctly. Staff has counted the proposed covered spaces and they appear to be at 218 covered spaces exceeding the minimum required amount of 123 covered spaces. The Applicant should verify their parking counts prior to the City Council hearing to ensure transparency but initial analysis shows the proposed parking counts exceed the minimum UDC requirements. The commercial area proposed along Ten Mile Road is shown with three separate buildings totaling approximately 12,441 square feet according to the submitted Conditional Use Plan; the Vertically Integrated structures contain 10,140 square feet of commercial space. For commercial uses, the parking requirement is one space for every 500 square feet and the proposed commercial area requires a minimum of 52 spaces.As noted, the Applicant has proposed 81 spaces for the commercial area, exceeding the minimum amount required by the UDC. Two of the commercial sites show a drive-thru and one appears to be for a restaurant use. Per the UDC, restaurant uses require a parking ratio of I space per 250 square feet. Staff cannot fully analyze the commercial parking because uses are not yet known. However,for the standard ratio, the Applicant is proposing parking in excess of the minimum requirements and each commercial pad site will require CZC and Design Review approval prior to obtaining building permit approval. Therefore, Staff will handle these calculations at the time of those submittals. The Applicant did not submit a separate parking plan for review. I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required and proposed along the property's boundary abutting the railroad easement along the southern boundary. The proposed pathway will be approximately 100-feet from the existing railroad tracks due to the easement width and will be a segment of approximately 480 feet in length and connect to the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile. This section of multi-use pathway will connect to a proposed micro-path traversing the entire western boundary of the subject site that eventually connects to the sidewalk along Pine Avenue. These connections would allow further safe pedestrian connection along the railroad corridor and will directly help connect this development to Fuller Park should the subdivision to the west also obtain approvals. The proposed sidewalks in this development are essentially micro-pathways. These pathways connect throughout the entire development and traverse through every mew as well. They offer increased pedestrian connection and give future residents the opportunity to walk rather than drive within the project site to the commercial within this development and the nearby commercial on the east side of Ten Mile Road. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal private streets as part of the overall pedestrian circulation,in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the commercial portion of the site. The proposed large open space area in the center of the development is easily accessible because of these sidewalks. The sidewalk along Ten Mile is already existing with 7-foot attached sidewalk per ACHD standards for arterials. With the extension and construction of W. Pine Avenue, the Applicant is required to construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk within the required landscape buffer. The submitted landscape plans show a 5-foot detached at least 4 feet from the edge of future right-of-way, meeting UDC Page 17 Item 5. 98 standards. Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation plan for this development. See Exhibit VII.F. In consideration of pedestrian safety as well as traffic calming for the site, Staff is recommending that all pedestrian crossings and any main sidewalk that traverses the perimeter of the streets and/or that goes east-west through the main central open space area be constructed as raised crossings out of brick pavers, stamped concrete, or equal. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N. Ten Mile Road, an arterial roadway, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide common lot is depicted on the plat starting at the back of the existing attached sidewalk along Ten Mile,meeting the UDC requirements. There is also a required 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to W. Pine Avenue, a residential collector roadway; the submitted plat also shows compliance with this requirement. The submitted landscape plans appear to show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards for the landscape buffers. 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 all pathways with the required and proposed number of trees are NOT included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans, sheet LA. The table contains this data for the multi-use pathway but not the micro-path along the west perimeter of the development and there does not appear to be trees located on both sides of either pathway segments. The addition of this data in the calculations table and the required trees located on both sides of the pathways will be required as a condition of approval.In addition,there does not appear to be the minimum 5 feet wide planter width on the south side of the multi-use pathway. The submitted landscape plans appear to show an area wide enough for the pathway and 5 feet of landscaping on both sides; the Applicant should revise the landscape plans to show compliance with these standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is NOT included in the Landscape Calculations table. The addition of this data in the calculations table will be required as a condition of approval. The proposed C-C zoning district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to any residential district; the submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement.Because this is a mixed-use development and there is the presence of some landscaping, a sidewalk, and the street between the residential uses and the commercial, Staff does not have particular concern over this discrepancy.However,in order to comply with the UDC,the Applicant will have to request a waiver from City Council to reduce this buffer to the buffer shown on the submitted landscape plans. L. 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 16.46 acres,a minimum of 1.65 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy this requirement. In addition,because this is a multi-family development within a residential zoning district,the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27, also apply. Combined,the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 2.56 acres.The Applicant's open space calculations do not accurately depict the amount of qualified open Page 18 Item 5. 99 1 space for the multi-family specific use standards.There are parts of"Area 2"and"Area 7" on the submitted open space exhibit that do not appear to maintain the 20' minimum requirement to continue counting towards qualified open space.However,according to Staffs analysis,these areas are negligible to the overall calculations. According to the open space exhibit(see Exhibit VII.C),the applicant is proposing a total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space. There are a number of small areas throughout the development that are still green space but are not qualifying open space because of the 20' by 20' minimum dimensional requirement per the multi-family development open space standards. Of the 3.62 acres proposed, 2.47 acres is proposed to meet the overall minimum 10%requirement(2.47 acres equates to approximately 15%). This qualified open space consists of the 10-foot multi-use pathway segment,the required street buffers, and two large common open space areas. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. The remaining 1.15 acres of common open space is proposed to meet the specific use standards for multi-family development. These areas of open space consist of the mews between the attached products,areas of open space that meet the minimum 20' x 20' multi-family open space dimensions, and the two shared plazas. The open space proposed to meet the specific use standards exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. As noted above, the common open space provided with this development exceeds the minimum amounts required by code. In addition, the Applicant is proposing private open space well in excess that is required by code. Staff appreciates the incorporation of the two shared plazas between the residential and commercial areas—the easy pedestrian access to these areas add to their usability overall placemaking. In addition, all of the pedestrian pathways throughout the site connect the main areas of open space to the residential units offering fairly equitable access to the proposed open space. Staff supports the pedestrian network and the connections to open space anchored by usable open space and amenities and the commercial area on the eastside of the site. All in all, Staff finds that the proposed common and private open space are sufficient for a project of this size and proposed use. M. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(16.46 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 proposes one(1) qualified amenity to satisfy the requirements in this section of the UDC, a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary. All other site amenities (analyzed in an above section) are meant to satisfy the specific use standard amenity requirements. The proposed multi-use pathway meets the minimum UDC standards. N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-61 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and meets UDC standards as proposed. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): As discussed in the comprehensive plan policies analysis, Staff believes most of the submitted elevations meet the required Architectural Standards. The applicant has submitted a concurrent design review application for the residential structures and staff finds the submitted architecture of the residential portion of the development complies with the ASM. Commercial elevations were not submitted with this application but future buildings should incorporate similar Page 19 Item 5. Fool architectural features to ensure a cohesive design as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and ASM. A separate DES will be required for the Commercial portion of the development. The ASM notes that no two multi family buildings should look the same. To ensure compliance with at least the intent of this requirement, the Applicant should create more differentiation between the units by providing different colors beyond the same earth tones. In addition, adding more of the accent materials (i.e. lap siding and stone)would help to make more of the detached units unique from one another. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to mitigate this. To help ensure the future commercial buildings integrate with the proposed residential, the Applicant should provide at least conceptual elevations for these buildings. Staff is providing a condition of approval to submit conceptual elevations of the commercial buildings prior to the City Council hearing. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested conditional use permit and preliminary plat applications per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. The Director approved the private street and administrative design review applications. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 20 Item 5. 101 1 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps Legal Description Modern Craftsman at Ten Mile Subdivision-Annexation An annexation parcel located in the NE of the SE of Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said NE%of the SE%, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SE'%of said Section 10 bears S 0*51'58"W a distance of 2646.23 feet; Thence along the easterly boundary of said SE '%S 0°51'58"W a distance of 899.42 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of the Oregon Short Line Railroad; Thence N 88°29'39"W along said northerly right-of-way a distance of 528-42 feet to a 518 inch diameter rebar; Thence N 42'27'06"W a distance of 659-08 feet to a 518 inch diameter rebar; Thence N 6°32'24" E a distance of 415.20 feet to a 518 inch diameter rebar on the northerly boundary of said NE'/of the 5E'/a; Thence S 89'11'05'E along said northerly boundary a distance of 939.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 17.46 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W-Hansen.PL NNL LA/VD 5�a f sG Land Solutions, PC 4ti October 2,2020 5 0NW.H\ Lainatutio Pine Ave and Ten Mile Rd Property odea�.V">r.d cons+u.e Job N0.19.19 Page 21 Item 5. Fl 02 ANNEXATION EXHIBIT MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE SUBDIVISION LOCATE© IN THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 10,T.3N., R.1W-. B-M- CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 589'11'05"E 1/4 W. PINE ST. 939.50' POINT OF—/ Q BEGINNING N � M z 2 TOTAL ANNEXATION AREA 17.46 ACRES +�— CV T 01 _ ry [fl D N� 2 f6 �cn v. 6 m S 9� N88'29'39'W 528.42' ORESON SHORT LINE RR l�ap4 LA Aro T ER W. FRANKLIN RD. 1 0 17 15 14 I a 11118 Nero{�ztzgr�z n olutlons � q P a afl' 160' 320' Qry w NP���C. Land Surveying and Consulting 231 E.STH ST.,STE.A IA iERIOIAN IO 63642 MOM 2SB-2040 2081268,a57 lu www.landsdutions bR .os rro. - Page 22 Item 5. 103 Legal Description Proposed C-C Zone Modern Craftsman at Ten Mile Subdivision A parcel located in the NE'/4 of the SE'/4 of Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said NE '/4 of the SE '/, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SE%of said Section 10 bears S 0°51'58"W a distance of 2646.23 feet; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NE'/4 of the SE'/4 S 0'51'58"W a distance of 576.86 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary N 88°29'39"W a distance of 129.67 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 31.60 feet along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve left,said curve having a central angle of 18'06'18"and a long chord bearing S 82*27'12"W a distance of 31.47 feet to a point; Thence S 75'58'06"W a distance of 48.45 feet to a point; Thence N 89'24'17'W a distance of 78.66 feet to a point; Thence N 42°1T50"W a distance of 149.40 feet to a paint; Thence N 42'18'32"W a distance of 65.42 feet to a point; Thence N 0°26'35" E a distance of 196.52 feet to a point; Thence N 0°48'55" E a distance of 30.50 feet to a paint; Thence N 89°11'05"W a distance of 97.11 feet to a point; Thence N 0°48'55" E a distance of 208.77 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of said NE'/4 of the SE%; Thence S 89°11'05°E along said northerly boundary a distance of 532.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. �p,L LA+Vp This parcel contains 6.04 acres more or less. 15 p�R 19 Clinton W. Hansen,PLS 0. 1 0 Land Solutions, PCCM N rr September 16, 2020rf° �� TE of W C-C Zane-Pine and 10 Mile Lzij�dSolutjons �,W SwMlriq and Cm Pdny Job No.19-19 Page 1 of 1 Page 23 Item 5. 104 Legal Description Proposed R-IS Zane Modern Craftsman at Ten Mile Subdivision A parcel located in the NE'/4 of the SE'/of Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said NE%of the SE%,from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SE%of said Section 10 bears S 0'51'58"W a distance of 2646.23 feet; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NE%of the SE'/4 S 0'51'58"W a distance of 576.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said easterly boundary S 0051'58"W a distance of 322.56 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of the Oregon Short Line Railroad; Thence leaving said boundary and along said northerly right-of-way N 88°29'39' W a distance of 528.42 feet to a point; Thence leaving said right-of-way N 42°27'06"W a distance of 659.05 feet to a point; Thence N 6032'24"E a distance of 415.20 feet to a paint on the northerly boundary of said NE%of the SE%; Thence S 89011'05' E along said northerly boundary a distance of 407.49 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary S 0°48'55°W a distance of 208.77 feet to a point; Thence S 89'11'05' E a distance of 97.11 feet to a paint; Thence S 0048'55"W a distance of 30.50 feet to a paint; Thence S 0°26'35"W a distance of 196.52 feet to a point; Thence S 42'18'32"E a distance of 65.42 feet to a point; Thence S 42°17'50"E a distance of 149.40 feet to a paint; Thence S 89°24'17"E a distance of 78.66 feet to a point; Thence N 75°58'06" E a distance of 48.45 feet to a point on a curve; Thence a distance of 31.60 feet along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 18°06'18" and a long chord bearing N 82°27'12"E a distance of 31.47 feet to a point of tangency: La �rGl.Sollutiioli� R-15 Zone-Pine and 10 Mile Lv__ ire s..Tyr..g ym c�wm.9 .lab No.19.19 Page 1 of 2 Page 24 Item 5. 105 Thence S 88'29'39" E a distance of 129.67 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 11.42 acres more or less. y1O�pL LRNps 15 T, q Gp Clinton W. Hansen, PL5 Land Solutions, PC a 8 A September 16,2020 o OF 1�� C" 2p0 UndS?olutrons R-15 Zone-Pine and 10 Mile Job No.19-19 Lam.-une:wv.Nno ane cmwbny Page 2 of 2 Page 25 Item 5. Fl 06 ZONING EXHIBIT MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 10,T.3N., R.1W., B.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO R-15 _ 58971'45"E 1/4 407.4T 532.00' - 10 11 POINT OF BEGINNING C-C ZONE n � � h � v a C � RUT 2 '2N89'11'05"W I a 97.11' N0'48'55"E z 2v 30.50' C-C ZONE z 6.04 ACRES ��- w C-C s� ?y R-15 ZONE s�z� 11.42 ACRES 9 �y g15 N88 29'39"W N 1 N89"24'17"W C i29.67' 3 m 78,66' I} POINT OF BEGINNING s R-15 ZONE m R-1 fV N C-C I I v�p L LA,ybs N88'29'39"W 52&42' 4. S rg C-G � �" __ _ OREGON SHORT LINE RR a. 11118 o -- �(r a E H 0' 80, 160, 320' ►v W. W. FRANKLIN RD. 10 11 15 14 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS CURVE DE A BEARING CHORo LA n ?lutlons nd veying and Consulting Cl 3t.60' 100.00' 18'06'18" 582'27-12-W 31.47' 231 E 5Tk ST..STE.A MEMDFAN,ID 83842 12D812W2W W81286-2557 fax �",IynQypE1ig19.0i2 .A1B I10.1p-19 Page 26 Item 5. 107 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/21/2020) - C>11 5311ZJ3dO�Jd IVOZJ'd9 QQVOI'DNIN-d IDNIN33NIDNg=,iniD 31IW N31 1V NV W51-dV21O NN3OOW ^� 'oul luuaau!gu3 d811P »LLa vra b �..H ig it; �A6H yo =moo = A pp�p �ae E—.\maIS ba 8g-oc?s �`,x1phl- a mho ;1 r i'F�FN� -c�$ L � 6� — '—avn riu iv sadruana�aw ;III_ _a — ---- o � 1 a j o o age i ;7 =w� j I o . o 59 Page 27 Item 5. 108 ��I�xlxxrylxwxuawuu3 Yule ,�na�E;'@o � '� •m a, .y N pIS I/d O 8nJ 5 53NId HJIH 311W Lv1 Jb �I1w1�2Ad RI %a Ei S c'I T _ 12 2.01 a a R' eE I� 9 1� III FE lip .. .% r w Wi r WHOM gg gg , III � Ya9 M Y Page 28 Item 5. Fl-og I C. Open Space Exhibit(date: 9/28/2020) CD71 5;ma I-L Zj:a-1 C)Zj-d N C)2j V,a 3-11N N31 J'V NVV4Sj..JVjjo N,,3(]Oh '3ul'3ulJg9u18u3kBll J Ea I F-i X:3 3 Z)V A S N:3 d C) z P,rE�l a. MIN n N,6, oz P4 Nwi" �.j ---------- -------- ------ ---------------------- ----------- ------ ----------- 117 JI Ir f L'F— -EL-1 n zi Jul IL �N, G Page 29 Item 5. Fl—lo I L-7.. ....... L--- 4- why 7 M E H C 7 -7 i�Jll m __j 113 r. 7' c LL� v Page 30 Item 5. 111 1 D. Landscape Plans(date: 9/29/2020) Hw 1 m'11 IK oil mi s z m w w u �y _3 a LU 1 I 'i rc i f `L - oc U Z w ° Cj Z a O ° Page 31 Item 5. ■ 3 3 m 0 O n z om _ �11 a ; - o .. m J i 3 m a 1 8 1�. I Szx �;i�P11111i i? nos Page 32 Item 5. ■ - ----=__—TH II -0 z 3 � tu x h` L F, N t �k�y� g�g m �Y El i 1 r xl - - { <li -- — _ k N 7E71 o MODERN CRAFTSMAN -n r AT TEN MILE � BARON DEVELOPMENT � u#� E =� • ,o u PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN °s Page 33 Item 5. Fl 14 'lr< X6 ` ; i' F 5� �e 1 FOP 4 MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILEILI BARON DEVELOPMENTS '•�•' =n m PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 34 Item 5. ■ 9 � f �Ah I - ? C� j ,Tj' IN y1 � _ �ihniii - z g , °r i CFI+1 I r ------------ � P oj . 0 f`mj u` N hP= 7 ' R ` qr MODERN CRAFTSMAN p i= a r 13 =0 3 AT TEN MILE a y'"ae°7i BARON DEVELOPMENT v#z E m =N a PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 35 Item 5. ■ q;, Mp Lp # �k <UH Z Mgr H d , a Lo A� gg�5 FIR o a MODERN CRAFTSMAN r mo 3 3 AT TEN MILE '����' rn� BARON DEVELOPMENT =N� PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN =� �• g a Page 36 Item 5. F117 E. Pedestrian Circulation Plan I � i - -,- r I { J II` I i 'z 3 9� R H J , z F PATHWAYS EX0—II®OT g�€ C Ailey FngIneering,lnc. �C—tl3 MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE Cm�Enamr�ainal�xnixolCA�G BARON PROPERTIES LLC Page 37 Item 5. 118 F. Conceptual Building Elevations MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE a� - COVERED RATIO SHADE STRUCTURE SOUTHEAST CORNER-MAILBOxES Clubhouse Elevations SODTHWESTCORNER-POOLOECKVEw As - CLUBHOUSE NORTHEAST CORNER-MAIN ENTRY'J EW MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE NORTH-MAIN ENTRY VEIN SOUTHOEST CORNER-POOL EEC VIEV -------------- POOL DECK AREA CLUEHOUSE FLOOR PLAN { Page 38 Item 5. Fl 1-9 1 MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE LEE SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONT NEW HIP ROOF-FRONT MEW ❑❑Y n=-xemo.i r SINGLE SLOPE ROOF BAGK VIEW ❑❑ 1 BED 1 BATH-DUPLEX FLOOR PLAN HIPROOF-BACKVIEW MODERN CRAFTSMAN ATTEN MILE E:1M SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONTVIEW HIP ROOF-FRONT NEW ■���n-..a-.�, TM � nr ❑■ SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-BACK VIEW — — I _ 2BE0 29ATH-A FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACKVIEW Page 39 Item 5. Fl 20 MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE Elm�.e SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONT VIEW HIP ROOF FRONT VIEW �® SINGLE SLOPE ROOF BACK VIEW EIN kLim 2BE0-2RATH-N FLOORPLAN HIPROOF-BACKVIEW MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT BLACK CAT mad FRONFVIEW GARAGE-STORAGE Bl11LCING FLOOR PLAN Page 40 Item 5. [121] MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE COLOR PALETTE MI �]Y�1 __. COLOR PALETTE i2 SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONT VIEW HIP ROOF-FRONT NEW COLOR PALETTE#3 SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-BACK VIEW ❑� 38FD-2 BATH FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACK VIEW Page 41 Item 5. Fl 22 MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE FIRM FIE FRONT ISO VIEW I i _ VERTICALLY-INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL-RESIDENTIAL O O O C I'1`.,LEVEL I-FLOORPLAN-PRELIMINARY-GROSS AREA LEVEL;=5,138 SF VOOERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE DOLOR PP1LliCk r_ REAR ISO VIEW FrL � al f µ - VERTICALLY-INTEGRATED .:� -= COMMERCIALS RESIDENTIAL LEVEL 2-FLOOR PLAN-PRELIMINARY GROSSAREALEVEL2=5,24251` Page 42 Item 5. F123] 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 approved plat, site plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The 10-foot multi-use pathway along the south boundary shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. c. The existing accesses onto N. Ten Mile Road shall be closed upon development of the subject site except for the access located approximately 580 feet south of the Pine/Ten Mile intersection—this southern access is the only approved access to N. Ten Mile Road. d. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct a dedicated southbound right-turn lane for the one approved access to Ten Mile, as outlined by ACHD and the Traffic Impact Study; dedicate additional right-of-way for this requirement as needed. e. All pedestrian crossings within the site shall be constructed as raised crossings; crossings and the main pedestrian paths shall be constructed with brick pavers, stamped concrete, or equal. £ With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct and/or dedicate the required right-of-way for the extension of Pine Avenue and the Pine/Ten Mile intersections in accord with ACHD requirements and in line with the signed"Dedication and Development Agreement,"as seen in exhibit VIII.L. g. The required landscape street buffers shall be constructed and vegetated along the entire perimeter(along N. Ten Mile and Pine Avenue)with the first phase of development. h. An entry feature is allowed and desired to create a sense of place for the development but no gates are allowed except for the emergency only access along the western boundary, labeled as N. Side Creek Lane on the submitted plans. Page 43 Item 5. ■ 2. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall provide revised Rezone exhibits and legal descriptions of the requested R-15 and C-C zoning districts to eliminate any split-zoning and to reflect Staff's recommended changes to the site layout. 3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated October 21,2020, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. If any changes must be made to the submitted plans to accommodate Public Works easement requirements,the Applicant shall submit all relevant and revised plans to the City of Meridian Planning Division for review. b. Verify the submitted parking data noted on the"Conditional Use Plan." c. Stamped and signed by the licensed land surveyor. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated September 29,2020, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the Final Plat application: a. The Landscape Calculations/Requirements table shall include the following: 1)the total linear feet of all pathways and the required number of trees per UDC 11-3B-12); the total square footage of common open space and required number of trees per UDC 11-3G-3E. b. Revise the landscape plans to add a 5-foot wide landscape buffer along both sides of the pathways located along the perimeter of the site(including the multi-use pathway),landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. c. Show the required 25-foot landscape buffer between the C-C zoning district and the R-15 zoning district as required by UDC 11-3B-9C unless otherwise reduced by City Council waiver. 5. The residential elevations included in Section VII.F, shall be revised as follows at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Add additional area of a secondary field material to all residential structures to help create more unique buildings; OR, b. Create at least two(2)more design palettes for the proposed detached units to include at the least different color palettes and field material combinations. 6. The Applicant shall revise all appropriate plans to comply with the following changes to the site layout at least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Remove the detached units from along Pine Avenue; b. Remove the singular unit located within the labeled"Area 3"of the open space exhibit,near the northwest corner of site; c. Rearrange the townhome units located in the southeast corner of the site to be located along Pine Avenue; d. Move the centrally located Vertically Integrated building to the southeast corner along N. Ten Mile Road; incorporate any additional parking that is needed to the south side of the building to add to the buffer along the railroad tracks; e. Rearrange the central detached units to be more spread out within this central area to accommodate adequate building separation for utility service lines; and £ Rearrange the street layout as necessary to accommodate the required utility easements,provide traffic calming, and provide adequate parking. Page 44 Item 5. F125] 7. At least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall obtain Public Works approval of their utility plan to ensure any revisions required to the overall site design can be analyzed by Planning Staff for compliance with the UDC. 8. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7,UDC Table 11-2B-3, and those listed in the specific use standards for multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 9. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 10. With the Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall correct the applicable plans to show all pedestrian crossings as raised crossings and show the main pedestrian sidewalks that traverse through the development to be constructed with pavers or colored and stamped concrete(or equal)to further delineate the pedestrian pathways. 11. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall revise the proposed 3-way internal intersection between the residential and commercial area in the northeast portion of the site and submit the relevant revised plans to Planning Staff. The Applicant should work with all relevant departments to ensure the intersection design can operate safely for both pedestrians and vehicles. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 13. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the future commercial buildings with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the entire site. 14. The Applicant shall provide conceptual elevations for the proposed commercial buildings at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing. 15. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for the entire subject site prior to applying for any building permit. 16. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 17. 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. 18. At least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall submit a parking plan for the proposed development to better show the proposed parking following any revisions made to accommodate Public Works easement requirements. 19. 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. 20. The applicant and/or assigns shall comply with the private street standards as set forth in UDC 11-3F-3 and 11-3F-4. 21. 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-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. 22. 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 the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. Page 45 Item 5. F126] 23. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway along the southern boundary of the site to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 24. Business hours of operation within the C-C zoning district shall be limited from 6 am to 11 pm as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. 25. Any drive-thru establishment use shall require Conditional Use Permit approval in accord with UDC 11-4-3-11. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Provide sanitary sewer to-and-through to 3515 W. Pine Ave and 3513 W Pine Ave. 1.2 Light poles cannot be located inside utility easement. 1.3 In multiple areas it looks like the sewer and storm drain lines are too close together. Please provide 4 ft separation between center of storm drain and sewer. This enables repair/replacement of manholes and sewer lines in the future. 1.4 The water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended east and tied into the existing 12"near Ten Mile. Also,the water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended west to the west property boundary. This will fulfill the to-and-through requirement. 1.5 The water main in W. Little Lane needs to be extended to the west property line. 1.6 Install water main in N. Side Creek Lane and stub at the property line to provide a future connection to the west parcel. 1.7 End the water main in N. Rangeview Lane(at the southeast corner of development)in a fire hydrant. 1.8 There is an existing water main stub to this property off of Ten Mile at the southeast corner of the development that either needs to be used or abandoned. 1.9 Sanitary sewer mainlines are not allowed within common drives, only sewer services (reminder that a maximum of three services are allowed into a manhole,with a minimum 30- degrees of angle separation). 1.10 All sanitary sewer and water easement areas must remain free of any permanent structures, trees,brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for the easement. 1.11 Sanitary sewer and water service lines cannot run under carports. 1.12 Minimum distance between service lines must be maintained, 6-feet between potable/non- potable service lines, 5-feet between each sewer stub off the mainline. 1.13 Any sewer service lines greater than 100-feet will need cleanouts that are accessible for cleaning; contact plumbing inspector for specific details. 1.14 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 future installation agreement is required for the streetlights on Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road. Contact the Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 2. General Conditions of Approval Page 46 Item 5. F127] 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. hi 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. Page 47 Item 5. 128 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 proj ect. 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, Page 48 Item 5. F129] cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215786&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aVx?id=216635&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=217427&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216793&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=215839&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity Page 49 Item 5. F130] H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=215845&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216377&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217317&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty K. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216462&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 L. DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—BARON&VIPER https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218118&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with R-15 and C-C zoning districts and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for the development of multi- family residential will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area. Staff finds the proposed addition of commercial within the development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial district and consistent with the future land use designation of Mixed-Use Community. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Page 50 Item 5. 131 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 the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the unique housing type proposed, the proposed addition of more commercial zoning, and the construction of a needed road extension, Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. 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 Staffs 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, 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. C. Conditional Use Permit Findings: Page 51 Item 5. F132] 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. Stafffinds that the submitted conditional use plat appears to meet all dimensional and development regulations in the R-15 zoning district in which it resides. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds the proposed use of multi family residential and commercial are harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Community and the requirements of this title. 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. Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses closest to the subject site, Staff finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same 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. Staff finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Staff finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services as all services are readily available, the nearby arterial street is widened to its full width, and the Applicant is required to construct a new public road extension to accommodate additional traffic flow. 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. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Staff finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. Page 52 Item 5. 133 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. Although traffic will likely increase in the vicinity with the proposed use, all major roadways adjacent to the site are already at their full width and the Applicant is required to extend Pine Avenue as a collector street adjacent to their site. Therefore, Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. 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 not aware of any such features; the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. D. Private Street Findings: In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds that the proposed private street design meets the requirements. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance,or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds that the proposed private streets would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity if all conditions of approval are met. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan.(Ord. 05-1170,8-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private streets do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan because the proposed design meets all requirements. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010) N/A Page 53 Applicant Presentation Modern Craftsman at Ten Mile 105156 Dec. 2020Completed –Eagle Island –Chase Bank Purchased July 2019–Red Tail Apartments Ground Jan. 2021Breaking –Modern Craftsman at Black Cat Baron is investing in Meridian for the long termdemanded housingBaron is focused on providing market Vicinity Map Mixed Use RetailMixed Use OfficeDensity ResidentialHigh Gateway at Ten Mile:Office, Gas station, Bank Site Plan 6.04 acresC-C11.42 acres15-R C-C15-R w/ Zoning Entry Clubhouse Clubhouse Vertical Commercial Integration: Vertical Integration: ResidentialDuplex1BR: ResidentialStyle A-2BA/2BR: ResidentialStyle B-2BA/2BR: Residential2BA/3BR: Residential:with GarageTownhomes plex -6 Residential:with GarageTownhomes plex -6 Residential:with GarageTownhomes plex -6 Residential:with GarageTownhomes plex -6 Residential:with GarageTownhomes plex -6 Residential:with GarageTownhomes plex -6 Unit Type Architectural Variety Parking & Storage Open Space Pathways Amenities Seating AreasPlazas, Public Picnic/BBQPark;SeatingPlayground;PoolFitness Center;Clubhouse; Services that serve the project have capacityschools WASDAll –Schools•Meridian Water Master PlanMeets –Water•Meridian Waste Water Master PlanMeets –Sewer•ACHD conditions of approval are acceptableAll –Traffic•than 4 min response timeless –Police•#2, less than 5 min target response timeStn1.2 –Fire• Requested Changes to Staff Conditions approved language-To match CityB.2.9Modify should be specific to zone, not entire siteCZCA.15Modify Commercial elevations are not needed at this timeA.14Delete Requested site changes are not needed or beneficialA.6Delete Sufficient Architectural variety existsA.5Delete Will provide revised plat to align lots and zone linesA.2Modify Thank You Item 6. Ll 34 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located 4700 W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Recommend Approval to City Council Scheduled for January 19th, 2021 Item 6. 135 (:�N-WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: December 17, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located 4700 W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed 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 i 3 i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: December 17, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 i PROJECT NAME: Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) I i PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO i 1 2 v I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/17/2020 Legend DATE: TO: Planning&Zoning Commission � t Luca-Tian '-- FROM: Alan Tiefenbach 208-489-0573 Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2020-0101 UM � y Daphne Square Subdivision LOCATION: 4700 W.McMillian Rd. _ NE corner of N. Black Cat Rd and W. McMillan Rd. __ + I. ROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district,and preliminary plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots,by Schultz Development,LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details �_ Page Acreage 4.97 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) Existing manufactured home T Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Attached and Detached Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 30 single family lots and 3 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) One Phase Number of Residential Units(type 30 of units) Density(gross&net) 6 du/acre gross Open Space(acres,total 26,749 sq. ft. (12.36%)qualified open space. [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities 5,611 sq. ft. common lot with shade structure and benches. Physical Features(waterways, An irrigation lateral runs east to west along McMillian Rd. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of August 25,2020,4 attendees attendees: Page 1 Item 6. F137] Description Details Page History(previous approvals) N/A B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Northern access from N.Eynsford Ave(local road in Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Brody Square)to N.Black Cat Rd via W.Daphne St,there is also an eastern stub proposed. Traffic Level of Service D Existing Road Network No existing internal roads. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Buffer and sidewalk exists on west side of N.Black Cat Buffers Road(part of the Jump Creek Subdivision.) W.McMillan Road—no sidewalks or buffers Proposed Road Improvements Applicant required to construct all internal roads to 33' width. 5'wide detached sidewalks will be constructed along N. Black Cat Rd and W.McMillan Rd. Distance to nearest City Park(+ +/- 1.25 miles,Keith Bird Legacy Park, 1.5 miles,Heroes size) Park Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.4 miles • Fire Response Time 5 minutes • Resource Reliability 86% • Risk Identification 1 • Accessibility Roadway access,radio coverage • Special/resource needs No aerial device necessary • Water Supply 1,000 gpm • Other Resources None needed Police Service • Distance to Police Station 7 miles • Police Response Time >6 minutes • Calls for Service 631 within one mile • %of calls for service split by 40.3%P1,53.2%P2, 1.4%P3 priority • Accessibility Satisfactory. • Specialty/resource needs None necessary. • Crimes 115 • Crashes 40 Page 2 Item 6. 138 Ada County Schools • Impacted Schools Pleasant View ES- .7 Miles Star MS—7.7 Miles Meridian HS—4.1 Miles • Capacity of Schools Pleasant View ES-650 Star MS— 1000 Meridian HS—2075 • #of Students Enrolled Pleasant View ES-356 Star MS—701 Meridian HS— 1975 • Estimated New Students Generated by Development Pleasant View ES- 10 Star MS-5 Meridian HS—7 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services N/A • Sewer Shed N.Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application • WRRF Declining Balance 13.98 • Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Yes Plan • Impacts/Concerns Additional 543 gpd committed to model Water • Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water ERU's See application • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes • Impacts/Concerns Dead-end water mainline Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend lei 10 Project Lacu ton Prnjeot Lim o-= Medium Dergify Re sid • I � use - �Inte�rc range 70 } ' Page 3 Item 6. Zoning Map Planned Development Map 139 Legend Legend leiPrnje--t LacufK:m R- Project Laco�on Caty Lirrtiit C- * — PiarnnL-d Parcet , R- C-C -.1 b- -- 2 4 RUT - R- R= C- y - R-8 Rom: R-8 R- RUT RUT -� - ---- R. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Matt Schultz, Schultz Development LLC—8421 S. Ten Mile Rd, Meridian ID 83642 B. Owner: Kristie and Jeffrey Harrison—Box 136,Adams, Oregon, 97810 C. Representative: Matt Schultz, Schultz Development LLC—8421 S. Ten Mile Rd,Meridian ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/27/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/23/2020 Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 Sign Posting 12/04/20 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This proposal includes annexing 4.97 acres of land,zoning to R-15, and platting 30 building lots and 3 common lots. The majority of the housing is proposed to be single family attached with several additional single family detached homes. Page 4 Item 6. F140] 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:llwww.meridiancitE.or /�compplan) This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 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 annexation area is near existing public services and not on the periphery of corporate city limits; existing City of Meridian zoning and development is directly adjacent to the west, north and nearby to the east. The property is directly adjacent and south of the Brody Square Subdivision, of which the final plat was approved by City Council on December 15, 2020. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FLUM designation, however the proposed density of 6 du/acre is on the higher end of the recommended density range. Accordingly, staff has conveyed to the applicant that if this higher density is proposed, the project should incorporate quality open space and amenities. This is discussed in the open space section later in this staff report. 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 IX.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. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): (Staff analysis is in italics after the cited policy) • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) This proposal includes single family attached and several single-family detached homes.As this project is within an area surrounded by primarily single family detached homes, it will contribute to the variety of housing type. • Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. (2.01.01G) As mentioned above, this proposal would allow for a more diverse type of housing. • With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01A). The proposed plat depicts 5'sidewalks on both sides of all local roads. A 5'detached sidewalk runs along Black Cat Rd. and connects to a sidewalk of the same width at the Brody Square Subdivision to the north, and there is a 5'detached sidewalk along W. McMillian which is the same width as the pathway along W. McMillan Ave provided by the Oakwinds Page 5 Item 6. 141 and Oaks Subdivisions to the west. The sidewalks will result in both external and internal multi-modal connectivity. • "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 Black Cat Road and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. (3.03.03G) The applicant will dedicate right-of-way for future widening off. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillian Rd, will construct all internal roadways, and will construct detached sidewalks of S'in width. Curb and gutter is not being constructed along N. Black Cat Rd or W. McMillian Rd at this time due to the future plans for ACHD to widen both these roads. Water and sewer will be provided by 8-inch mains constructed in 2021 in the stub street from the Brody Square subdivision to the north. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) Detached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all internal streets. Sidewalks will be completed to the terminus of the stub street to the east and the border of the property to the north (to Brody Square) which would connect to any future development.A S'detached sidewalk is proposed along the length of the development paralleling Black Cat Road and a S'detached sidewalk is proposed along W. McMillian Rd. "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity"(6.01.0213). Two points of access are proposed, both from local streets. There will be a northern access via N. Brody Ave. which will connect to W. Daphne St in the Brody Square Subdivision and to N. Black Cat Rd. or W. McMillian Rd. An eastern stub is proposed to provide access if the properties to the east are development(presently in unincorporated Ada County). D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing mobile home on the property which will be removed. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes single-family attached and detached homes,which are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district.All lots meet the minimum 2,000 sq. ft.requirements, and future structures should comply with the minimum setbacks of the district. UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 feet, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. Page 6 Item 6. F142] W. Riva Capri Ct. (the internal road)is approximately 575 feet in length. This exceeds the maximum of 500' for dead end streets. However,UDC 11-6C-3-B-4 allows the City Council to approve dead-end streets up to 750' in length where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. A pedestrian connection is provided from the end of the cul-de-sac to the sidewalk along W.McMillian Rd. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, Two accesses are proposed for this property. The first is a 33' wide internal street which will connect to the Brody Square Subdivision to the north. The second is a stub street to the undeveloped property to the east(presently in unincorporated Ada County). Only one street will serve the internal development—W. Riva Capri Ct-which ends in a cul-de-sac. N. Black Cat Road, an arterial road, is presently improved with two travel lanes and transitions to three travel lanes at the site's north property line. There is no curb, gutter or sidewalk on the east side along the subject property although it is improved with detached sidewalk on the west. The applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way,widen the pavement, and construct a 5-foot detached sidewalk that will connect to one of the same width at the Brody Square Subdivision to the north. W. McMillian Rd. an arterial road,is improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,cutter or sidewalk. A roundabout is planned for the McMillan/Black Cat intersection. The applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way,widen the pavement and construct a 5-foot detached sidewalk. This is the same pathway width as is provided by the Oakwinds and Oaks North Subdivisions N. McDermott Rd to the subject property. ACHD reviewed this proposal and in a staff report dated November 13, 2020 stated the project is anticipated to generate approximately 210 additional trips per day and supports the project as proposed. Meridian Fire has responded the project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds. Common Driveways(UDC 11-6C-3):No common driveways are proposed with this development. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family attached based on the number of bedrooms per unit(i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad)in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. All elevations show at least two car garages, and the landscape plan shows parking pads of least 20' x 20'in front of the single family attached. The applicant has provided a parking exhibit. The parking plan provides a 33' local street section which allows for additional on-street parking of up to 30 on-street spaces. This on-street parking does not count toward meeting minimum requirements.ACHD and Meridian Fire have both reviewed the plan and have not expressed concerns. I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): The development proposes one 5' micro-pathway connecting the cul-de-sac to the common open space in Lot 17,Block 2. However,because it is proposed within the common open space it would still count as useable open space. The micro-pathway does appear to meet the tree requirement of at least 100 tree per hundred linear feet as required by UDC 11-3B-12. Page 7 Item 6. F143] J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development on both sides of all roads and meet the minimum 5' width of UDC 11-3A-17. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Parkways are shown on the landscape plan adjacent to the detached pathways along the N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillian Rd. frontages as well as along internal sidewalks. The parkways exceed the minimum requirement of 8' in width and are landscaped with turf. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The landscape plan reflects 26,749 sq. ft. of open space(12.36%).This includes 25' wide arterial buffers, 8-foot parkways on the internal streets, a 5,611 square foot common lot, and 6,844 sq. ft. stormwater facility.As required by UDC 11-3B-5-3,when more than 50 trees are required,there shall be at least 5 species of trees. 8 species of trees are proposed. The landscape plan indicates 5 trees totaling 68 inches will be removed which require mitigation. 34 trees at 2"caliper will be planted equaling 68 inches. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): The applicant provided an open space exhibit as well as open space calculations on the landscape plan. The landscape plan reflects 12.36% of qualified open space. This includes several linear open spaces of at least twenty feet(20')and longer than fifty feet(50')with accesses at both ends and landscaped at as required per UDC 11-3G-3-E. A 5,611 sq. ft. landscaped common lot is also proposed. Staff is not confident this project actually proposes 12.36%of qualified open space. The Open Space Exhibit indicates the entire parkways along the internal sidewalks being credited,but driveways cannot be included in this total. Also,only%of the required arterial buffers can be counted,and the applicant is counting both '/z of the buffers and the parkways within these required buffers as qualified open space. Finally, a round-about is proposed at the N. Black Cat Rd/W. McMillian Rd intersection, and the landscape plan suggests the open space is being counted prior to the round-about construction. It is possible some of the landscaping as shown will be removed with the road project. UDC 11-3G-1 requires at least 10%of qualified common open space and site amenities when a development is more than 5 acres in size. This property is less than 5 acres and therefore would not be required to meet UDC 11-3G-1. However, at a July 20,2020 Pre-Application meeting, staff informed the applicant that in order for staff to support the density as proposed,the development should include high-quality and useable amenities as part of project. The development as proposed includes a 5,611 common open space which contains a sitting area and benches located directly on an arterial intersection, and a 6,844 sq. ft. stormwater facility. It is staff's opinion this development does not include quality useable open space or amenities. Staff recommends that prior to City Council meeting,the plat and landscape plan be revised to merge Lots 28 and 29 of Block 1 into Lot 30,Block 1 and provide a quality amenity and useable open space. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC I1-3G) As mentioned above,the proposal includes a 5,611 sq. ft. common lot with a shade structure and benches located directly on an arterial intersection. Although the UDC does not require common open space or amenities for developments of less than 5 acres,the applicant is requesting the City annex this property(there are presently no City entitlements) at a density at the high end of the Page 8 Item 6. ■ density range recommendations. Staff has informed the applicant that if a higher density is proposed, quality open space and amenities should be provided. Staff does not believe this development includes high quality or useable open space or amenities that justifies higher density. O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-m- The applicant has mentioned an irrigation lateral runs along the southern property line, adjacent to SW.McMillian Ave. The applicant shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals,canals and/or drainage courses,as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along the periphery of the property and along the rear lot line of all single-family units. At least one side of all common open spaces does not have any fencing. If fencing is proposed, all fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots not entirely visible from a public street shall be open style of up to six feet(6) in height or closed vision fencing not exceeding four feet(4') in height as required by UDC 11-3A-7. Q. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Water and sewer will be provided by 8- inch mains constructed in 2021 in the stub street from the Brody Square subdivision to the north. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevation renderings were submitted for the future detached and attached homes within the development.All housing types are proposed at two story,with clapboard or lap siding, dormers and gabled roofs. Overall,the elevations proposed are satisfactory but do not include elevations of the sides or rears of structures. As many of the houses will be very visible from N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lot 18 of Block 1 and Lots 2-16 of Block 2 that face N. Black Cat Road and W. McMillan Rd. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. Also,Per UDC 11-5B-8, administrative design review will be required for all new attached residential structures containing two(2)or more dwelling units. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation,zoning to R-15 and preliminary plat for this property with the conditions noted in Section VII.per the Findings in Section IX. Page 9 Item 6. F145] EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/22/2020) w•L! v•aw••r 0-11 777 I f . _- 1 iB 10 71 P] �� 25 2 3E 21 30 LL 11 6_ 67 R 4 I � I I I x c 4 t t t t t I. t t r st 5:` d r- ai 1 I h4..k61 9C .Ir�r I G 3o N i xff op MEN* 75U rh {mLLm R ra _ _ _ lEFF6�P YalEk lE Am 115E T3 rlora�l[y1t .�dyA- ASERME617— r TO&ORT Rr 911zb �L i r. +^IHI Page 10 4 b a p p i o � v ---------------- , r �■ Mimi - { r �_- ��, n f, s i s �. k ► k � +., .leS' Item 6. F147] I I I I D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 10/2/2020) _j dy 1 1 I 1 1 I I ZJ_(PAW'Wk1f ps Q RIVA CAPRI STREET a X :I.41i5 90 Fr. m I � r � LiDTF sfii 1 so.Fr. LiAd—Li-I ___L11-J_ =A: 1[SR% ARTERIAL 13UF=ER]: SQ.T. I ti19 W. MC IL ROAD E. Parking Exhibit 25' 35' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 69' Lo 115' *� 8' PARK STRIPS AND PARKING Q _ m , o m ` PARKING ® < T 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 1 30' 1 30 30' 30' 35' IL BERM a- N M cM I ELAN ❑APHNE SQUARE 30 ON—STREET PARKING SPACES Item 6. ■ F. Building Elevations(date: Sept 28,2020) e ..r 3,J ✓a e 77 5 I lY �4 ' I Page 13 Item 6. F149] G. Annexation Exhibit EXHIBIT ANNEXATI0N AND R-15 ZONING DESCRIPTION FOR DAPHNE SQUARE SUBDIVISION A portion of the SVV 114 of the SW 1e4 of Sectleri 27, T_4N., R.1VV_, B.M..Ada County, ld;aho more particularly described as fioIIowa: BEGINNJNG at the SW corner of said Section 27 ftorn whieh the VV1J4 corer of said Section 27 bears North OD°31'08' Fast, 2637.33 feet thence along the VVOst boundary line of said Secti-on 27 North D0`31'08" East 329.50 feel a angle point in the exterior bouMary line of Brack Cat Estates SubdNision Na 1 as file in Book 29 of Plats at Pages 7795 and 1T9O, records of Ada Corr +, I-Jaho: thence along the exterior boundary line of said Black Cat Estates Subdivision No. I the following coursed and diskances- thence leaving said V at boundary line South:89'17 52" East, 660.60 feet. thence South 00'31'08"West. 326.44 feet to a point on the South boundary line of said Section 271 therioa along said South boundary line North 89"35'52"West, 660.80 feet to the REAL_ POINT(IF BEGINNING. Containing 4,97 acres, mDre or less. y FENS r A 7.7.29 5,C Page 14 #m E Flm 1/4 S.28 �\ BLACK CAT ESTATES B NO- 1 Q (D b Ld 2 r $ m Lo Q \ @ W 21659 |\ f If uj 24.97 o.c. k r-u wI | S2827 7 w�N . .__-- -- Sa3 e34 66030' _ » N AT SCALE: C�m' � 7729 2 0 25 m !m 20Q (P U yEG Page 15 Item 6. 551 VII. 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. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lot 18 of Block 1 and Lots 2-16 of Block 2 that face N. Black Cat Road and W. McMillan Rd shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step- backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. b. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. Prior to the City Council meeting,the plat and landscape plan shall be revised to merge Lots 28 and 29 of Block 1 into Lot 30,Block 1 and provide a quality amenity and useable open space. 3. Prior to the City Council meeting,the plat and landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the landscaping lot shown as Lot 17,block 2 after all ACHD road improvements. 4. Administrative design review will be required for all new attached residential structures containing two (2)or more dwelling units. 5. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 6. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 7. The development 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. 8. The plat shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches,laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 9. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways,common driveways, easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 10. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Page 16 Item 6. F152 11. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. B. PUBLIC WORKS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. The water main ending at the cul-de-sac should connect to the existing mainline in Black Cat Road to avoid dead-end main and to provide a dual connection. 2. The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by ATLAS Materials Testing & Inspection, dated 08/17/2020 indicates some very specific construction considerations, such as ensuring that the bottom of crawl spaces must be elevated at least 2-feet above seasonal groundwater elevation,and the installation of foundation drains. Foundation drains are not allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewer, or the sanitary sewer/water service line trench. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. 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. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration Page 17 Item 6. F153 of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy,a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 14. 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. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. 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 Page 18 Item 6. F154 sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at(208)888- 5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1).The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (SCHOOLS ANALYSIS) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216458&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. ACHD https:llweblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216805&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216307&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu E. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215774&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu F. ADA COUNTY https:llweblink.meridianeily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215849&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https:llweblink.meridiancity.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216378&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity H. SETTLERS IRRIGATION Page 19 Item 6. Fl-551 https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216404&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCi ty Page 20 Item 6. ■ VIII. FINDINGS A.Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds annexation of the subject site with an R-15 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section VII. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the lot sizes proposed combined with the housing types proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that a range of housing opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section VII. B.Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-611-6) hi 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 conditions of approval in Section VII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and 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 21 Item 6. F157 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIR 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 Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 22 Applicant Presentation C O N O Q C E yr 1 4r • O1 @ • - - EXSTING HOME _ 0 7 •• , E � ) J • • y o • ) m • �r , o ♦ • . : -tip s � 6 a @ a @ . P @ Ir O /y. ! N r • s • ♦ _ I 0 LU - - Q '• P r, RETENTION Q s BAS I Ni m r 1 1 r , RIVA CAPRI STREET 71 • _ MM r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ri • � \ � S ,y- I �� i - L GAZEBO ET ET— El Ll 01, 0 a. yy pp 3 , W. M CM I LLAN ROAD dft a _ EXSTING HOME D A P H N E SQUARE SUBDIVISION •Civil Engineering a_-_ •Landscape Architecture 8 It Erosion&Sediment Control It Graphic Communication 4700 W. M C M I L L A N ROAD •Irrigation Design INI •Land Planning IN MERIDIAN, I D A H O 83646 -- - Fax 20B 376-nddesign.com � ,� � Fax:206-376-6528 Phone:208-376-5153 6661 North Glenwood Street SGALE: 1 II=30'-0 Garden City,Idaho 83714 From: Matt Schultz To: Alan Tiefenbach;Alan Tiefenbach;Joe Atalla Subject: RE:Stats for Hearing-Daphne Square Date: Tuesday,December 15,2020 8:18:12 AM External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. please add that color rendering of Daphne 1 st....that combination exhibit 2nd, and stats 3rd. thanks! Matt Schultz (208) 880-1695 On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:13 AM, Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridian city.org> wrote: Yes, are those the only slides you want, and in what order? Alan Tiefenbach I Current Associate Planner City of Meridian I Community Development Dept. 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0573 1 Fax: 208-489-0571 4fE ID � Built for Business, Designed for Living From: Matt Schultz <schultzdevelopment@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 8:11 AM To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>; Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>; Joe Atalla <joe@berkeleybuildingco.com> Subject: RE: Stats for Hearing - Daphne Square External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. please add these to the file. all I need is these to talk from if you could assist that would be great, thanks. Matt Schultz (208) 880-1695 On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 7:46 AM, Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach&meridiancity.orq> wrote: Matt, are you going to do a presentation? I think it would be best that you add these slides to YOUR particular presentation. Alan Tiefenbach I Current Associate Planner City of Meridian I Community Development Dept. 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0573 1 Fax: 208-489-0571 WE I�DIAN Built for Business, Designed for Living From: Matt Schultz <schultzdevelopment&yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:31 AM To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach&meridiancity.orq>; Joe Atalla <joe�berkeleybuildingco.com> Subject: Stats for Hearing - Daphne Square External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. Hi Alan, please add this to the file for the presentation to accompany the overall Brody Square/Daphne Square combined exhibit. thank you Matt Schultz Schultz Development LLC (208) 880-1695 City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-4433 www.meridiancity.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. ■� ■■� Elm ■I■ IN INS I■■ EMINEIIINIS NINE I■■IFA ■ 7 ■ ■ ■ - ■ ■ ■ �U - ■Q ■ PARK ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ N ■I ■I■ I mill I■■I IN I ■I■ 010 iml I■■I■■lf ■ ■ ■ McULLAN n 3 _ 4 I EXSTING HOME saw ■► 4 r- s • �. , E 1-7 do f 4' �jr �• 1 • 1 } - E F-1 F-1 Uj 'r m I 3 i I I I I 27 !21 W } IreRETENTION { Y, i BASIN7-7 — — ' � I + ❑ II I RIVA CAPRI STREET ��► 41P0 Fill U _ .• Q P _ L •� J r ��'•� ca i ..�. 0 I I i I { } • � I 4i j fill < I I I I I f GAZEBO Ell .: 'Ron ~+ fir _ _+•+s~� W. MCMILLAN ROAD Y ■ / / 16 UAW J y EXSTING HOMEAll IF rr ►r" DAPHNE SQUARE SUBDIVISION iiii. ■Civil Engineering ■Landscape Architecture ■Erosion&Sediment Control •Graph c Communication H 4700 W. MCMILLAN ROAD ■Irrigation Design ■Land Planning vp MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83646 Pax-20 -376 6520 ign.com � I"ax:208-375-6528 Phone-20B-378-5153 } 6681 North Glenwood Street 5G4LE. 1"=3n'-0" Garden City,Idaho 83714 COMBINED BRODY SQUARE DAPHNESQUARE TOTAL ACRES 15.01 AC 4.97 AC 19.98 AC LOTS 64 (68%) 30 (32%) 94 DENSITY 4.3 DU/AC 6.0 DU/AC 4.7 DU/AC PERIMETER 1.09 AC 1.25 AC 2.34 AC RIGHT-OF-WAY NET ACRES 13.92 AC 3.72 AC 17.64 AC %R.O.W. 7.3% 25.2% 11.7% QUALIFIED 1.91 AC 0.61 AC 2.52 AC OPEN SPACE % OPEN 12.7% 12.4% 12.6% (GROSS) % OPEN 13.7% 16.4% 14.3% (NET) Item 7. L158 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning district. Item 7. 159 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: December 17, 2020 Topic: public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E.Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed 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 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN INSHEET DATE: December 17, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 i 1 i PROJECT NAME: Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) For Against Neutral Want to Testify PRINTED FULL NAME g v YES OR NO 1 � 2 i 3 j 4 i 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 12/17/2020 n DATE: Le f - d 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission lei proaeot �aton ' FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: AZ,PP-H-2020-0105 a Cache Creek Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 1560 W.Victory Rd and 2955 S. Locust Grove Rd,in the SE %4 of Section 19,Township 3 N.,Range l E. i I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 15.18 acres of land from RUT zone in Ada County to the R-4 zone and a preliminary plat consisting of 41 buildable lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres in the proposed R-4 zone. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ acreage is 15.18;Pre-plat is 13.99 acres Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Single Family/Rural Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 41 Single Family Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 41 of units) Density 2.93 du/acre Open Space(acres,total 97,139 sq. ft(16%)qualified common open space [%]/buffer/qualified) ' Amenities 3/4 acre park,playground,benches,and pathway. Physical Features(waterways, Small portion of 10-mile creek bisects extreme SW corner hazards,flood plain,hillside) of property,500-year floodplain on NW tip of property. Neighborhood meeting date;#of August 27,2020 3 attendees signed in. attendees: History(previous approvals) Kachina Estates Subdivision(County Subdivision) Page 1 Item 7. 161 Description Details Page Public Testimony Omar and Rita Green submitted letters of opposition to the project.Primary concern is that access is occurring through Cabella Creek Subdivision and not from S.Locust Grove or E.Victory Rd.The Greens also requested a building moratorium. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) • Traffic Impact Study(yes/no) No Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed from two western roads(E.Loggers Pass Hwy/Local)(Existing and St. and E. Sagemoor St)to S.Bailey Avenue in the existing Proposed) Cabella Creek Subdivision. S. Bailey Rd provides access to existing local roads,which connect to S. Locust Grove Rd. and E.Victory Rd. Traffic Level of Service LOS"F" Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross N/A Access Existing Road Network None Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will construct internal roads to 33'template and dedicate necessary ROW.Applicant will pay$38,425 into a road trust for sidewalk construction associated with scheduled ACHD improvement to S.Locust Grove Rd and E.Victory Rd. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1 '/2 miles to Fire Station#4 Park and Gordon Harris Park size) Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.8 miles • Fire Response Time <5 minutes • Resource Reliability 77% • Risk Identification I • Accessibility Meets all requirements • Special/resource needs Will not require aerial device • Water Supply 1,000 gph Police Service • Distance to Police Station 2 Miles • Calls for Service 730 • %of calls for service split 61.1%P2,35.3%Pl, .75%P3 by priority • Specialty/resource needs None needed • Crimes ill • Crashes 61 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed S.Black Cat Trunkshed Page 2 Item 7. F162] Description Details Page • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.98 • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Comments • Flow has been committed Water • Distance to Water 0 Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Comments This development will need to be modeled at each phase to make sure each phase meets the minimum fire flow requirements. Ada County Schools • Impacted Schools Hillsdale ES—2.9 Miles Victory MS—2.0 Miles Mountain View HS— 1.4 Miles • Capacity of Schools Hillsdale ES-700 Victory MS— 1000 Mountain View HS—2175 • #of Students Enrolled Hillsdale ES-780 Victory MS—970 Mountain View HS—2237 • Estimated New Students Hillsdale ES- 13 Generated by Development Victory MS—7 Mountain View HS—9 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend 0 ( Project Location � Projeot Location "' IU 1 IVI Re ICI Page 3 Item 7. 163 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R=2 R 0 Legend _ 0 .0 Project Location ='L Project Location ' City Limits rT,.,W - - L — Planned Parcels R-8 L$ --- R � 1 R-8 RU fi -8 R T U -8 L � ' -8 RUT UT L RUT R-8 R-8 T - III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Matt Schultz—Schultz Development, 8421 S. Ten Mile Rd.,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owners: Mark and Karen Carrington—2955 S,Locust Grove Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642 Open Door Rentals LLC— 1977 E. Overland Rd,Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/27/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/23/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 12/4/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 Page 4 Item 7. F164] 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.meridianciU.orglcompplan) This property is designated Low Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of less than three dwelling units per acre. The zoning to R-4 and proposed density of 2.9 du/acre is consistent with the density parameters of the Future Land Use Map. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed low density single-family detached homes will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the City; however, there is no variety in housing types proposed within the development. R-4 and R-8 zoning and detached single-family homes are abundant in this immediate area. • "Require pedestrian access in all new developments to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity". (2.02.0113) Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all streets within this development. There is also a pedestrian connections from the sidewalk into Common Lot 3 Block 11 (containing a playground) and a pathway along the detention pond at the southwest to E. Victory Rd. There is a 10'regional pathway that parallels Ten Mile Creek to E. Victory Rd in the Cabella Creek Subdivision to the west(no part of this pathway is on the subject property), and a 10' regional pathway that parallels Eight Mile Parallel and ends at S. Locust Grove on the east side of S.Locust Grove.Although the proposed plat shows a S'sidewalk running along the S. Locust Grove Rd frontage and sidewalks along the internal streets in this development, staff believes there should be a mid-development connection that provides more direct pedestrian/ bicycle access. This should be directly across S. Locust Grove Rd from the Eight Mile Pathway to the east, and the Ten Mile Creek Pathway and E. Victory Rd to the south and west.As a condition of approval, staff recommends an east-west pathway connection be provided directly across from the Eight Mile Lateral Pathway to Common Lot 11, Block 3. The applicant should work with Meridian Parks and Recreation to determine whether signage should be erected within Common Lot 11, Block 3 to direct users along this pathway connection to the Ten Mile Pathway and Eight Mile Pathway. • "Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools,parks, and other community gathering places. (2.02.01 G)" See staffs analysis regarding sidewalks and pathways above. Page 5 Item 7. 165 • "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. • Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.02B) There will be two accesses to the property. Both accesses propose connectivity from local roads within the Cabella Creek Subdivision rather than either arterial bordering the property. In addition, the proposal includes closing 5 existing curb cuts along S. Locust Grove Rd. • Protect and enhance existing waterways, groundwater,wetlands,wildlife habitat, air, soils, and other natural resources. (4.05.01) A small portion of Ten Mile Creek crosses the southwest portion of the property. The applicant has indicated this will be contained within a common lot(Lot 4, Block 2) as a retention facility. However, the landscape plan omits a portion of this lot although it is on the subject property.As Ten Mile Creek is a significant natural feature and contains a regional pathway, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the landscape plan be revised to reflect the entirety of this lot, and to integrate this important waterway into the development as a natural amenity. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There two existing single-family residence on the site. The residence at the corner of E. Victory Rd and S. Locust Grove is intended for demolition. The house at the northeast is proposed to be retained and must connect to City utilities upon annexation of the property. D. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes property sizes,required street frontages of at least 60', and road widths. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face.No common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The average lot size is 8,959 sq. ft. and the smallest lot size is 8,003 sq. ft. Minimum lot sizes are proposed at 8,000 square feet,which complies with the requirements of the R-8 zone district. Minimum living area for detached homes in the R-4 Zone District is 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed home size, as indicated in the narrative,is at least 1,800 sq. ft. Page 6 Item 7. F166] F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): There will be two accesses to the property. Each access will connect to a stub street in the Cabella Creek Subdivision to the west-Loggers Pass Street and Sagemoor Street. These stub streets terminate at S. Bailey Way which connects to either S.Ascaino Way for access to E. Victory Rd or E. Lake Creek St. for access to S. Locust Grove. The Cache Creek Subdivision employs a "loop"road which will be constructed at 33' wide with detached 5' sidewalks and 8' landscape strips. The applicant proposes to dedicate additional right-of-way to ACHD for construction of this internal road. There are 5 existing driveways onto Locust Grove Road from the site. This development includes closing the 5 existing driveways by using landscaping and 5-foot wide detached sidewalks to match improvements on either side. However,there are two driveways existing on either side of 2955 S. Locust Grove Dr. (Lot 18,Block 2). Staff questions why two driveways are necessary for this existing house. S. Locust Grove Rd. currently has 2 lanes and no curb,gutter or sidewalk. E. Victory Rd. presently has 2 lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk.Both roads operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "F',which is considered unsatisfactory. S. Locust Grove Rd. is scheduled to be widened to 5 lanes between E. Overland Rd. to E.Victory Rd. in 2020. E.Victory Rd. is scheduled to be widened to 3 lanes between S. Meridian Rd. and S. Eagle Rd in 2025. A roundabout is planned for the E.Victory Rd. /S. Locust Grove Rd. intersection in 2022. Sufficient right-of-way presently exists for widening of both S. Locust Grove Rd. and E.Victory Rd. However,the applicant will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way for the E.Victory Rd./S. Locust Grove Rd. roundabout. Because both of these roads are due to be reconstructed in the next 5 years,ACHD has requested the applicant pay$38,425 into a road trust deposit. The road trust deposit funds will be used by ACHD to construct sidewalks abutting the site as part of the future intersection project. ACHD has reviewed this application and supports the proposal with conditions. 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 single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.Future development should comply with these standards. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3B-12): The project includes 5' detached sidewalks on both side of all streets and a pedestrian connections from the sidewalk into Common Lot 3 Block 11 and on the east side of the retention pond to E.Victory Rd.All sidewalks and pathways contain landscape strips on both sides of at least 8' with at least one(1)tree per one hundred(100)feet of pathway. As mentioned in the pedestrian access section above, staff believes there should be a mid- development connection that provides more direct pedestrian/bicycle access directly across S. Locust Grove Rd from the Eight Mile Lateral and sidewalk to the east,and the Ten Mile Creek Pathway and E.Victory Rd to the south and west. Staff recommends this pathway generally intersect in the vicinity of Blocks 12-15 Block 2 and Lots 7-4 Block 3 to Lot 11,Block 3 (the common open space). I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Page 7 Item 7. F167] Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. ACHD has requested the applicant pay into a road trust for sidewalk construction along S. Locust Grove Rd and E.Victory Rd. after future road reconstruction. J. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : As ACHD will be reconstructing and widening S. Locust Grove Rd. and E.Victory Rd,the applicant is paying into a road trust for future sidewalk installation. All internal sidewalks and the pathways into the common lot include a landscaped area of at least 8' located between the edge of the street or park and a sidewalk. These parkway strips meet the minimum landscaping requirement for pathways at one tree per 100 linear feet per UDC 11-3B-7C. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The area of the proposed development is 603,349 sq. ft. The development proposes 97,139 sq. ft. (16%)of qualified common open space. There are 8' wide parkways along all sidewalks landscaped at 1 tree per 35 linear feet. Half of each 25' arterial buffer is included. There is a 30,171 sq. ft. common open space. There is also a 23,992 sq. ft. retention pond which meets the minimum requirement of at least twenty thousand(20,000) square feet and visible from a public street(s)on at least two (2) sides. Although the minimum required square footage of qualified common open space is satisfied,the arterial buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd. does not meet the minimum 25' required width east of the existing house on Lot 18,Block 2. The applicant has noted due the existing house and the widening of S. Locust Grove Rd. it is not feasible to provide the buffer. Staff is not convinced, as it appears there is existing paving at the east side of the house to widen this buffer. Prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant should either revise the plans to reflect a 25' wide buffer,or apply and be granted a buffer reduction through the alternative compliance process in accord with UDC 11-513-5. The Landscape Plan indicates 3 trees meeting the mitigation requirements are being removed at a total of 65 caliper inches. The applicant proposed to replace these with 33 trees of 2 caliper inches in accord with UDC standards. L. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): As mentioned above,the development proposes 97,139 sq. ft. (16%) of qualified common open space(please see attached open space exhibit). Parkways are credited along all sidewalks that meet the minimum 8' width requirements and are landscaped at one tree per 100 linear feet. Both arterial buffer is given 'h credit. The 30,171 sq. ft. central common open space is landscaped with at least one(1) deciduous shade tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet as is the 23,992 sq. ft. retention pond(required trees are along the periphery of this lot). Except for the width deficiency for one portion of the S. Locust Grove Rd arterial buffer in the vicinity of Lot 18,Block 2 (as discussed above),the proposal meets the minimum requirements of UDC 11-3G. M. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on an area of 13.99 acres,2 site amenities are required. This development includes a 3/4 acre centrally located park with a playground and benches. This meets the requirements for an open space of at least 20,000 sq. ft. from the quality of life amenity category, and a children's play structure from the recreational amenities category. It is staff s opinion that this is sizable Page 8 Item 7. 168 amenity in an excellent location. However, as mentioned in the pathways section, staff is recommending a pathway which provides an east/west connection across the property. This pathway should generally intersect in the vicinity of Blocks 12-15 Block 2 and Lots 7-4 Block 3 to Lot 11,Block 3 (the common open space). N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The FEMA maps indicate a 100-year floodplain at the extreme southwestern corner of the site along Ten Mile Creek. An ACHD retention basin is proposed in this area(Lot 4,Block 2).No other development is proposed within the floodplain. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)has mentioned Ten Mile Creek is contained within a 100' irrigation easement,with 50' on either side of the creek. The Plat should be revised to reflect this easement. As already mentioned,the landscape plan omits the portion of the property which contains the waterway, and UDC 11-3A-9(as well 11-3A-6) states existing natural features that add value to development and enhance the attractiveness of the community shall be preserved or mitigated in the design of the development. Staff recommends that prior to City Council,the applicant should revised the landscape plan to include all of Lot 4,Block 2 and to design this waterway in as a natural amenity. O. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The landscape plan reflects 6' tall vinyl fencing along the perimeter of the property and the driveway accessing the existing residence on Lot 18,Block 2. 4' tall vinyl fencing is shown around Common Lot 11,Block 3 (the park). 6' high wrought iron fencing is shown bordering the retention pond in Lot 4,Bloc, 2. The fencing meets the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Public services are available to accommodate the proposed Development.All lots within the subdivision will be provided domestic water and sanitary sewer service by the City from 8"water and sewer mains located in the Cabella Creek Subdivision stub streets to the west. P. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project(see Section VILE). The single-family homes are depicted as two-story structures with two-car garages, and a variety offinish materials with stone and lap-siding combinations. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes but do not include elevations of the sides or rears of structures. As many of the houses will be very visible from E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 5 through 16 of Block 2 that face E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop- outs), bays, banding,porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. Page 9 Item 7. ■ DECISION Q. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation,zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A per the Findings in Section IX. Page 10 Item 7. F170] VI. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/9/2020) 1F id Jb CYJ±vEH r4e3CYf J&i4Yd rcN!?7Y9SS74�! � � I - [N] to +may I� g fg 3 — _ — aLiEUL kalas I' uaou 1= r 1= It? TM�r+ls I PII97M EA ■ 1 I ff cc --q— 4 �a=g-. Ind. rf t 1 f LOF[ , _ _-� @ }ycs it I awl a' k � I � • II 9F w L"7 •A.r� yF} /:i. 4' {—"-'� �• arm Lill 7 _ pqr 0, u I P.° M3&A SdCC OR ST x [$j I F IIIVi a`urrss 4 IX F "i IF + �I � �+F e[K's •,� I � c wa.w Y F L kws<s ti� �� aus � rani L" a 5 Lxar : 1 I I � id + : 1= I +] gJill 41, c .-ter v+a s II r tlr 1 II �g k i5R • RM PLM lE ME �w h t� � ■� X1 51es �� La.e - �Si � s auarc Mil Itrnr ���kr� •..aF I. "y�•,�}`:�l..os E 5 '/-0 CURNF� .yam M. I '� rf'l� sECTlok '9 y SE Q7PNER Fh7 BRA55 G4' a" SECTION 13 LuuNura CAP F Page 11 Item 7. 171 B. Landscape Plan Overview Sheet(date: 9/30/2020) PROJECT INFORMATION CRY OF MERIDLAN FENCING PLANT SCHEDULE Wm.1 I mm� I COMMON�e I= AREA I V i'iAixll illii li AT -- CITY OF MERIDIAN LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS -KEY MAP 4-1 Vh bFI II W; uj UVINYL FENCE PANEL I T 1-1,111m, 10, % CVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN L FENCE PANEL Page 12 Item 7. 172 C. Color Landscape Plan(date: 10/14/2020) r � EKI571h{RE&'7ENT10r MYF . - I Lar 7:I rare IIII 31 UTIS WTV EJC ISTM RePMNrE I.L44GEn3 PA55 3T, - �r,� LGr ii LITria LOT 3 rRr1 5D17 SM.pLiq y 1 LOr'd71 i l9li - 2 Im 1 •LT7 i 11 IAr if } E]fIS'I�FG AE310Ehlrlfrl Staff recommends ---- a pathway in this 6 Uri area that connects from S. Locust -- — Grove Rd. to 14N4IMOOR3 I common lot. .� - L7.17Ui ..�.��. 7 i4T3 LOT 12 r � �rlr o I ` z x ^�-- �GESQi4ACT1[}715f � gar I6 I I t* II II I� 4 � RF TC14TIQ1j Cyr BASIN L r �• 4 r FENCE _- IaN[k4C/P�BNFFE RWVIH Y'RCRM,4NN�r'RRIY/z r VUTGRY HI7 A.{.FLp. 'I I R4UNGOiECNT_ ' EXISTING RESIDE14TIAL k MiS hINL(RSII7LkrIAL j Page 13 Item 7. F173] D. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 9/25/20) CITY OF MERIDIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIF ENIENT LALI FI ED O P EN SPACE _PACE FViLH�EFIBIfi ICrel EEQLaRM q ray , ■ 10 THE AREA OF TFE SM IP14 I LANDSCAPE LEGEND &WLJFED OPEN SPAC-E —x� I AREA-1771 EQ.FT. �+ r�Err 3,9e7 so.Fr. '7 } �I i,,; a MEN■30,171 8Q.FT. L6 9 ~ ■1 h ■ AREA--1.931 SQL FF_ AREA 23,s9¢3Q.F7. hREA■s,=_5o so.FT.-:sn%eUFFEF2i r Page 14 Item 7. F174] E. Elevations: (date 10/14/20) Cg i I Ow mmu II Illlii Page 15 Item 7. r175] F. Annexation Exhibit(date: 8/20/20) DATE, August 30, 2020 ANNEXATION—CACHE CREEK A parcel Of WO being located in the SE 114 of Se-etion 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and being and comprising of a portion of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and all of Lots 1, 2, and 7. BIoGk i of the plat of Kachlna Estates Flied In Book$5. Page 3018-3017 on November 15, 1974 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder and being more particularly described as follows: BE INNING at the southeast corner of said Section 19, monumented by a found 3"Aluminum Cap stamped"J-U-B Engineers PLS 11334" (Garner Record No 114007715). from which the South 114 comer of said Section 19. monumented by a found 3' Brass Cap stamped "J-U-B Engineers PLS 11334" (Comer Record No. 114007714), bears South 89'42'08" West, a -distance of 2MO.01 feet; Thence South 89'42'08"West, eoincidentwith South line of said Section 1$, a distance of 625.97 feet; Thence leaving said South line of Section 19, coincidentwith thewesterily Ilse of sold Lot 2, .Block 1, North p0°23'33"West, a distance of 690.31 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 2, Block 1; Thence coincident with the southerly line of said Lot 7, Black 1, South 89°37'01" West, a distance of 106,50 feet to the soudhwast comer of said Lot 7, 81ock 1; Thence coincident with the westerly lire of said Lot 7, Black 1, North 00°21'18"West, a distance of 305.85 feet to the northwest corner of Bald Lot 7, Block 1; Thence coincident wilh the northerhy line of said Lot 7, Block 1. South 69`23'52" East, a distance of 751.95 feet to a paint cont,erm noun with the East line of said Section 19, Thence coincident with said East line of Section 19, South 00°44'46" West, a distance of 984.36 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 15.18 acres or 661425.33 square feet, mare er less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearing far this parcel is South 89°42'08" West between the southeast comer and the South 'Yd corner of said Section 19, Robert Gromatzk P.L.S. License No. 17216 o CL Page 16 Item 7. Fl 76 A P OR11 ON OF RAILROAD SPIKE SE14 SECTION 1 INSIk �! 111�91�e2 T, 3 N.; R. 1 E., B.M. I M97Sa27E 751 W s. LOGGERE PASS ST. � ION � m � s, Sn'37'01'w 106.5�' Ln W i NEkA710 l AREA 15.1a ACRES 651425.33 SQ. FT. E. 3AGEMO R ST. b. * op,1r L{A $ tars LOT i 47 � 0 1E tr &� it � 9.3, • 6 CL PONT OF @-GINNING S89'4L'WW 264U.01r V&"JW ROAD 3' BRA-5S CAP STAMPED "J-U-8 BASIS OF BEARINGS Y ALUWMUM CAP 5TMKD ENGINEERS PL5 1133C 'J-U-B WHEFR5 PLS 1133e 51/4 DIET# 5ECITI011 19. INSTR- # 5E amm SECIIm 1Q. mm. 0 114007714 11 OUT!5 ectci N14�FB Ckm NU aBr.T nry LEGAL DESCRIPTION � -- CACHE �� r E rl r of mb FAG CHAAA.F-WER "New avrrmo w Ni-.m'a+z4i1i•,a FWTVATA 70YSi2�+1! vay.NYl.co■ Page 17 Item 7. F177] VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 5 through 16 of Block 2 that face E. Victory Rd. and S.Locust Grove Rd. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. c. The existing residence at 2955 S. Locust Grove Rd. (Lot 18,Block 2)will be required to abandon the well and septic system and connect to City water and sewer with development of the property. 2. Prior to City Council,the applicant shall revise the plans to include a pathway connection directly across from the Eight Mile Lateral Pathway(east side of S. Locust Grove Rd.)to the pathway shown at Common Lot 11,Block 3. Pathway should generally intersect in the vicinity of Blocks 12-15 Block 2 and Lots 7-4 Block 3 to Lot 11. 3. Prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall either revise the plans to reflect a 25' wide buffer,including along Lot 18,Block 2, or apply and be granted a buffer reduction through the alternative compliance process in accord with UDC 11-5B-5. 4. Prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall revise the plans to include all of Lot 4, Block 2 and integrate Ten Mile Creek into the site as a natural amenity. 5. The Ten Mile Creek Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement shall be reflected on the Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan. 6. The applicant shall coordinate with Meridian Parks and Recreation to determine whether signage shall be installed to direct users to the pathway connection paralleling Retention Basin Lot 4,Block 2 to the Ten Mile Pathway to the southwest, and the connection to the Eight Mile Pathway across S. Locust Grove Rd. 7. All 5 (five) existing driveways onto Locust Grove Road shall be closed with landscaping and 5-foot wide detached sidewalks to match improvements on either side as proposed. Page 18 Item 7. 178 8. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VII,dated 10/29/20,is approved with the conditions listed in 2,3,4 and 5 and with the addition that Note 6 be revised to include Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 instead of Lots 1 and 3 (regarding common lots). 9. The Landscape Plan included in Section VII, dated 9/30//2020,is approved with the conditions listed in 2, 3,4 and 5 with the addition that the Landscape Requirements box on Page L-1 be changed to indicate a 25' buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd. 10. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and I I-3A-6B, as applicable. 11. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 12. The applicant shall comply with the sidewalk and parkway standards as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-17. 13. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-313-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-313-13. 14. The plat shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. Ten Mile Creek shall remain protected during construction on the site. 15. Pathway and adjoining fencings and landscaping shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A7, 11-3A-8 and I 1-313-12C. 16. The applicant shall preserve any existing trees on the subject property that are four-inch caliper or greater; or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC I 1-313-IOC. 17. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to driveways, easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 18. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 19. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 20. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A future install agreement and deposit is required for the Type 1 streetlights on Locust Grove and part of Amity Road due to upcoming ACHD roadway construction.Contract the Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 2. This development will need to be modeled at each phase to make sure each phase meets the minimum fire flow requirements. 3. The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC, Page 19 Item 7. F179] dated 12/11/2020 indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. 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. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. 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. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Page 20 Item 7. F180] 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 14. 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. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for Page 21 Item 7. ■ abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1).The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACTS https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216460&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. ACHD https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216615&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216639&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC F. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT (MFD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215854&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu G. ADA COUNTY https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215861&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https:llweblink.meridiancity.oEgj ebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216380&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT httWs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217644&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC VIII. 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: Page 22 Item 7. ■ 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds annexation of the subject site with an R-4 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section VII. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that a range of housing opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city Staff ,finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section VII. B.Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subjectproperty and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Page 23 t f EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 7 1 LOT 26 LOT 25 LOT 24 LOT 2: E. LOGGERS PASS ST. i LOT 3 LOT 1 LOT 2 Item 7. F183] 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) A portion of Ten Mile Creek is on the subject property.As mentioned above, the applicant should revise the plans to integrate this creek into the development as a natural amenity. Page 24 Item 8. Ll 84 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. Item 8. F 27 (:�N-WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 17, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts 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 INSHEET DATE: December 17, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 8 PROJECT NAME: Southridge South (H-2020-0083) 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 Item 8. 185 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING December 17, 2020 Legend DATE: Project Lao tm TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 4 b SUBJECT: H-2020-0083 - Southridge South—RZ,PP ' LOCATION: South side of W. Overland Rd., east of S. - Ten Mile Rd., in the north11/2 of Section 23,T.3N.,R.1 W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district; and Preliminary plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 83.77 Existing/Proposed Zoning R-2,R-4&R-8 existing/R-2&R-8 proposed Future Land Use Designation Mostly(78+/-acres)Medium Density Residential(MDR) (3-8 units/acre)with a small(5.5+/-acres)portion Low Density Residential(LDR)(3 or fewer units/acre) at southeast corner Existing Land Use(s) One(1)single-family home(Rice property)and vacant/undeveloped land. Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 254 buildable lots/29 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 4 phases Number of Residential Units(type 254 SFR detached dwellings of units) Density(gross&net) 2.98 units/acre(gross); 5.4 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 22.3 acres(or 26%)overall common open space— 15.55 [%]/buffer/qualified) acres(or 18.5%)of which is qualified open space Pagel Item 8. F186] Description Details Page Amenities Clubhouse,swimming pool and tot lot with children's play equipment Physical Features(waterways, The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast boundary hazards,flood plain,hillside) of the site and is a large open waterway;the Williams Northwest gas pipeline also bisects the west portion of this site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 4/14/20; 8 attendees attendees: 2 History(previous approvals) AZ-06-031 (DA#107074205—overall Southridge);PP-06- 031;PBA-08-014(ROS#8550—Parcels#1 and#7);RZ- 11-002;PBA-14-012(ROS#9982);MDA-08-004(Inst. #1 1 1 102269—replaced DA#107074205);MDA-12-009 (DA#113077158—replaced DA#111102269). CUP-10- 015;MCU-12-003;MCU-14-001 (Southridge Gravel Mining) B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Access One public street access and one emergency only access is proposed via (Arterial/Collectors/State Overland Rd.,an arterial street. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"E"(Overland Rd.)which is an acceptable Level of Service (LOS).This site is estimated to generate 2,398 vehicle trips per day.A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required with this application as it was included in the original&revised TIS for Southridge Subdivision. Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties to the west, south and Street/Interconnectivity/Cross east;no stub streets exist to this site. Access Existing Road Network Overland Rd.exists along the north boundary,no internal streets exist Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers exist along Overland Rd.,an arterial street Buffers Proposed Road Capl[al Irnpcowernenta Plan;GIP)l Integrated Five Year Wodk Flan;IFYWP): • Ten Mile Road is scheduled in Iho IFYWP to he xidened 10 5-Lumm horn Orarland!Toad Io Improvements voury Road n 2022- 3 The[nlemaillon of-OueA[W Flow and Linder Rmd is listed In the CIP Eo he widened to Fr lanes on the north",9-krras orF[he aaulh.7-lanus cas..and 7-lanes on the wost leg-and Aignat¢ed bretwean 203fi and 20 W. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 0.9 of a mile • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 87%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. Page 2 Item 8. F187] Description Details P • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to Police 4 miles Station • Police Response The average emergency response time in the City is just under 4 minutes(meets Time target goal of 3-5 minutes) Jarwkw paw k L,ocatran of new devetaprncnt SDULhUi W Overland Rd&East al S TefiMak Ad rmr Fra.nr- 5 UDUN19 M3117DR0 LV"I.pfUr-ALv�LM1 11phyrrnd 9Y1ie port ingllistnclJAIM- N751� Caklm SeMt&JMr : Rmpanw nmm: IN ateh taAp"al Iru unftY ArrraLe Rnponsc Timm h4 P7iorim 'Ckp A MerldWrl' arirvityJPa°aG0wY,rsLt,sm. ij d'aI1 Pr.arJp2 WMffigMb.gni 0**J0 PfQfsfy 1 Wft4590-PVM0w 011#4�i-weq 11 a] fr+�Raepnnrr nmre by Prtor�'M7'S1~ Prmelry 2 9 10 pr7�Orrly 7 $:52 LjllifurSenrfrs [CP'S�:CaH4enhrtFlth*In11�'h11357' CFS C.r Tam! 513 x of Calk for SerAe sPlrt b4 o•1ark-o 6 M7#7' fi a f.P3 Cf5 0.0% M JP2 03 78184E ii of PI M 29.09E Crimp% enime rowr rat°+ S7 Cr,sshri •CFiSfF Caurrs Taul West Ada School Enra mrmt ca ei nano= District Mary nk:Phmon Elcrwntary 477 VS 3.9 • Distance(elem, Victory MiMie school am 104p 29 ms,hs) Meridian Hll11,51ma 2M7 # 7S 30 • Capacity of Schools "Due to the abundant smouni of gfawth Intl*area.West ALd■in actively bulMIrLE new Rl*ok,end 60unduiex am • #of Students a1"s ehengln& These future Jlude %5 could po-tentia4i atprnd Owyhpp F[Wh SChDDL Enrolled • #of Students Predicted from 178 school aged children predicted from this development. this development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Page 3 Item 8. F188] Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Prayeot Lcou-non AX1s11 � PYo'�a�Lflcaior Employm � a a Hi h D ## hAU�eM � � F W Rensify �esidntial _ rIL -- Page 4 Item 8. 189 Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend (fLegend0 Project Luca San I Project Lflcafi-n i M: RUT ;_ City Limit R1 a — Purred Pa-ces d a + TW C R; _ R 1.5 - R 8 TW R C.CC R-8 R= RUT R1 A. Applicant: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group—462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100, Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: Tim Eck,Endurance Holdings— 1977 E. Overland Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group—462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100,Eagle, ID 83616 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 11/27/2020 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 11/23/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 12/7/2020 Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates 5.5+/-acres of this property as Low Density Residential(LDR)and 78+/-acres as Medium Density Residential (MDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and Page 5 Item 8. F-19ol resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces,and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed development consists of a total of 254 single-family detached homes on 83.77 acres of land at an overall gross density of 3.03 units/acre,which is at the low end but consistent with that desired in the MDR FLUM designation. The gross density of the LDR designated area is 2.55+/-units per acre consistent with the LDR designation; and the gross density of the MDR designated area is 3.08 units/acre consistent with the MDR designation. Larger lot sizes (i.e. 0.32 to 0.78-acre) and zoning(i.e. R-2)are/is proposed as a transition along the southern and western boundaries to existing 1-to 5-acre rural residential properties. There is also a grade difference east of the Williams gas pipeline along the southern boundary between the site and abutting lots in Aspen Cove and Val Vista subdivisions that increases toward the east to a maximum of 27'+/-at Lot 12,Block 10 and then decreases on the four lots to the east of that to around 15'-18' below the neighboring properties. This grade difference will assist in buffering existing rural properties from urban development,preserve view sheds and provide a natural transition. The Development Agreement also restricts building height along the southern boundary,which will assist in preserving view sheds as well(see DA for more information). The existing roadway(i.e. Overland Rd.)abutting this site and the proposed street network within the subdivision is consistent with the Master Street Map and the South Meridian Transportation Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one (1) housing type, single-family detached, is proposed. A variety of lot sizes are proposed with larger lots along the southern and western boundaries providing a transition between existing rural residential estate properties in Ada County and proposed smaller urban lots. Although a variety of lot sizes will provide options for different styles of homes, Staff recommends another housing type(i.e. single-family attached or townhomes)is provided in the R-8 zoned area to accommodate the various financial capabilities of future residents. • "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. • "Where feasible,encourage large transmission and pipeline utility corridors to function as transitional buffers,parkland,pathways, and gathering spaces within and adjacent to their right of way." (3.07.01E) A multi-use pathway and large common open space/gathering area is proposed within and along the Northwest gas pipeline corridor/right of way. • "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) Only one housing type(i.e. single-family detached) is proposed in this development and in earlier phases of Southridge to the east; multi family apartments exist and are in the Page 6 Item 8. 991 1 development process directly northeast of this site. To provide more diversity in housing types in this area,Staff recommends another housing type(Le. single-family attached or townhomes) is provided in the R-8 zoned portion of this development. • "Support Valley Regional Transit's(VRT)efforts to construct multi-modal transit centers in areas of high commercial activity and employment as well as areas with transit-supportive residential densities." (6.01.01B) Transit services are available to serve this site via Routes 40 and 42. A Valley Ride park and ride lot is located within '/mile of the site to the west at the intersection of Ten Mile and Overland Roads. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed residential development should be compatible with the abutting rural residential uses to the south as they are both residential in nature. The proposed site design with larger lots transitioning to estate-size properties, combined with the grade%levation difference that exists along the eastern portion of the southern boundary will assist in providing a natural buffer that should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. • "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 required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "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 services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The Police Dept. is currently providing service to this property as it's within the City. The Fire Dept. can provide emergency services and fire protection within established response time goals as the nearest fire station is only a mile away to the east. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the frontage of the site adjacent to W. Overland Rd., along the west side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and along the east side of the gas pipeline consistent with the Pathways Master Plan. These pathways will assist in providing a safe route to the future school(i.e. Blue Valley Elementary) on the east side of the larger Southridge development along Linder Rd. and to the common areas proposed in this development. Usable open space is proposed consisting of pathway corridors and(2) large 4-and 5.3-acre common open space areas. Quality amenities are proposed consisting of a clubhouse with a swimming pool and tot lot with children's play equipment. Residents of this development will also be able to use common areas and amenities in the larger Southridge development to the east. Page 7 Item 8. F192 • "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and values."(2.02.01B) A total of 22.3 acres (or 2601o) of common open space is proposed within the development with 15.55 acres (or 18%) meeting the standards for qualified open space, which exceeds UDC standards. Two (2) large common areas of 3.8-and 5-acres in size accessible from multi-use pathways and several other smaller common areas are proposed within the site. Quality amenities consisting of a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot and multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Staff is of the opinion the proposed open space and amenities will meet the community needs in this area. Residents of this development will also be able to use the common areas and amenities in the larger Southridge development to the east. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) This site was annexed into the City in 2006 but has yet to be developed. Development of this vacant/underutilized property is preferred over fringe area development. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)." (3.01.01A) The TIS estimates this development will generate 2,398 vehicle trips per day. The PMpeak hour level of service for Overland Rd. is "better than E", which is an acceptable level of service per the ACHD report. WASD submitted comments stating that approximately 178 school aged children are estimated to be generated by this development; enrollment at Mary McPherson Elementary School, Victory Middle School and Meridian High School is currently under capacity(see Section VIII.I). According to the Community Development's school impact analysis, enrollment at all of these schools will be slightly over capacity at build-out of building permits already issued in this area at 10501o, 108%and 109%respectively (see Section VIII.J). The closest City Park to this site is an 18-acre park in Bear Creek Subdivision to the east, midway between Overland and Victory on the east side of Stoddard Rd.A future City Park is designated on the FL UM within a mile of this site to the south in the vicinity of the northeast corner of S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Victory Rd. Two (2) large 4-and 5.3 acre common areas are proposed in this development for use by residents. • "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 are proposed as required with this development. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan if an additional housing type is added as noted in the above analysis. Page 8 Item 8. F193 V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC) A. Rezone: History: This property was originally annexed in 2006(AZ-06-031) with the larger Southridge Subdivision annexation. A Development Agreement(Inst. #107074205)was required with annexation which was later amended and replaced with a new agreement(Inst. #111102269— Southridge MDA-08-004). That agreement was then amended and replaced with a new agreement which currently governs development of the property(Inst. #113077158—MDA-12- 009). The proposed rezone is for 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district,which includes adjacent Overland Rd.right-of-way to the section line. A legal description and exhibit map of the rezone area is included in Section VIII.A. A total of 254 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross density of 3.03 units per acre consistent with the associated LDR and MDR FLUM designations for the site. Existing Development Agreement(Inst.#113077158): The existing Development Agreement(DA)requires a minimum of 1,000 and a maximum of 1,286 residential dwelling units to be constructed in the overall 290.87 acre Southridge development, unless otherwise specifically approved by the City Council through subsequent applications. This calculation includes 598 apartment units in the R-15 zoning district directly to the east of the subject property(Southridge Apartments fka DBTV Southridge Farm Property); a maximum of 250 units in the TN-C zoning district at the southwest corner of W. Overland Rd. and S. Spanish Sun Way(Beacon at Southridge); and 438 (or balance to total 1,286 units)in the R-2,R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. Since the DA was approved,the R-15 and TN-C zoned portions of the site have been removed from the DA and developed separately under subsequent DA's [Southridge Apartments—Inst. #111099621 (RZ-11-002), amended as Inst. #2015-112096 (MDA-15-010); and Overland and Linder Apartments—Inst. #2017-096818 (H-2017-0093). The conditional use permit(H-201 7- 0077)for the first and second phases of Southridge Apartments approved a total of 476 units; an amendment to the DA is currently in process to include an updated conceptual development plan for the third and final phase, which is proposed to contain a total of 164 units. The DA for Linder and Overland Apartments approved a total of 336 units, currently in the development process. Previous phases(1-5) of Southridge contain a total of 221 single-family detached units,which added to the number of units proposed in the subject plat(i.e. 254)total 474 units. This number exceeds the number of units originally anticipated in the R-2,R-4 and R-8 districts by 36 units; however,reducing the number of lots would decrease the density in this area to below that desired in the MDR designated area. Therefore, Staff recommends Council approve the number of lots proposed with the preliminary plat(i.e. "a subsequent application') in accord with the DA. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651 IA. Because Staff deems the proposed development to be in substantial conformance with the existing DA, Staff does not recommend a new DA is required with this application,nor any modifications to the agreement. Page 9 Item 8. ■ B. Preliminary Plat: History: This property was originally included as mega lots in the preliminary plat(PP-06-031) for the larger Southridge Subdivision to be re-subdivided in the future but a final plat was never recorded for the subject property. Record of Survey No. 9982 created the current configuration of the property(Parcels I and 7). The proposed preliminary plat consists of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369 square feet (s.f.)with an average lot size of 8,053 s.f.;the gross overall density is 3.03 units/acre with a net density of 5.4 units/acre. All of the 254 buildable lots are proposed to develop with single-family residential detached dwellings.As noted above in Section IV, Staff recommends another housing type(i.e. attached or townhomes)is provided in the R-8 zoned portion of this development to accommodate the various financial capabilities of future residents and provide diversity in housing choices in this area in accord with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the City Council hearing,the plat should be revised accordingly(i.e.depict zero lot lines on lots where attached product is proposed) and conceptual elevations of the proposed housing type(s)should be submitted. Phasing: The plat is proposed to develop in four(4)phases as shown on the plat in Section VII.B below. The first phase will include the entry road and emergency access via Overland Rd. and the land adjacent to Overland Rd. The second phase is directly to the southeast and includes a large 3.8- acre common open space park area where a clubhouse, swimming pool and tot lot are proposed in accord with the DA,which requires these amenities to be constructed prior to occupancy of the 300t'single-family residential dwelling. A bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal is also proposed to be constructed with the second phase as recommended by Staff which will provide another access from the east once a subsequent phase of Southridge to the east is developed. The third phase will encompass the area at the southeast corner of the development and the fourth phase includes the area at the southwest corner and west side of the development and includes another large 5-acre common open space area.Note:Planning and Fire Dept. Staff worked with the Applicant to amend the phasing plan from that originally submitted to ensure adequate access, timing of open space/amenities and interconnectivity with the second phase rather than the fourth phase as originally proposed. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing single-family home on Parcel#S 1223131250(Rice property)that is proposed to remain on a lot in the subdivision(i.e. Lot 64,Block 1). This home is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available.Any existing structures that don't conform to the dimensional standards of the R-8 district in UDC Table 11-2A-6 should be removed prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat in which they are located. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted uses in both the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2: Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2A): Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R- 2 district in UDC Table I1-2A-4 and the R-8 district in(UDC Table 11-2A-6), as applicable. Page 10 Item 8. Fl-951 Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. There are three(3)common driveways proposed, depicted as"A","B"and"C"on the plat on Lots 18 and 26,Block 19 and Lot 41,Block 1. Such driveways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.A common driveway exhibit is included in Section VII.0 but is not approved-some revisions are needed to the exhibits in regard to the building envelope/setbacks for homes at the ends of the common driveways (minimum 20' wide driveway access needs to be provided to all lots outside of the required parking pad area); updated exhibits that demonstrate compliance with the setback,building envelope and lot orientation standards in UDC 11-6C-3D.7 should be submitted prior to or with the final plat application.Because the placement of homes on Lots 17, 19,25 and 27,Block 10 will likely be beyond the required"hose lay" standards of the Fire Dept., homes on these lots shall be sprinklered,unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveways should be filed with the Ada County Recorder,which should include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D; a copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division with the final plat for City Engineer signature.As an alternative,the easement can be graphically depicted on the plat with a note including the aforementioned information. Access(UDC 11-3A-31 One public street access (W. Timberwood Dr.)is proposed via Overland Rd.,an arterial street; an emergency only access via Overland Rd. is also proposed on Lot 1,Block 1 between Lots 18 and 19. Stub streets are proposed for future extension to the west to Parcel#51223233905,to the south to Val Vista subdivision, and to the east as depicted on the plat in accord with the Development Agreement. A bridge is proposed to be constructed over the Ridenbaugh Canal with Phase 2 for connectivity to the east. The stub street to the south is proposed to the Nichols property(Parcel#R8954840110). The Applicant has indicated that the Nichols' have no plans to redevelop their property in the near future. Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the adjacent property to the west of the Nichols' property(Parcel#R8954830350,Elton's)to determine if a stub street along the east boundary of their property might be a better option for future development if they plan to redevelop their property sooner than their neighbors. If so,the plat should be revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. A 50-foot wide ingress-egress easement(Inst. #107123370) from Overland Rd. is noted on the plat that has been terminated(Inst. #2019-089220). There is an existing blanket access easement across the Southridge property to the Rice Parcel(Inst. #2019-089221); once public street access is dedicated/provided to their property,the easement goes away automatically. Bulb-outs are proposed on Rio De Plata Dr. for traffic calming. ACHD is requiring many of the streets within the subdivision to be redesigned to reduce the length of the roadways or to include the use of passive design elements (not to include stop signs, speed humps/bumps and valley gutter). The plat should be revised in accord with ACHD's requirements. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Page 11 Item 8. ■ The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot. Staff is of the opinion sufficient parking can be provided for this development. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): Ten-foot wide multi-use pathways are proposed on this site within the street buffer along W. Overland Rd.,along the east boundary adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal and along the Northwest gas pipeline in accord with the Pathways Master Plan and the Development Agreement. A 14- foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted for these easements prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat(s)in which they are located. If the pathway along Overland will be located entirely in the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Where multi-use pathways are required,the pathway may take the place of the sidewalk. Detached sidewalks/pathways are proposed throughout the development. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Parkways (9.5' wide)are proposed along all internal public streets and should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W. Overland Rd., an entryway corridor, as proposed. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require buffers to be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative groundcover. Just lawn and trees are proposed; Staff recommends a mix of shrubs and other vegetative groundcover is provided. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. At a minimum, one tree per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping is required along pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C.Five-foot wide landscape strips are required on both sides of pathways planted with a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover.A minimum of one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway is required.No landscaping is proposed along the pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal.If trees are not allowed within NMID's easement,an additional minimum 5-foot wide area shall be provided outside of the easement in a common lot(s)for the required trees; bushes and vegetative groundcover should be provided in accord with UDC standards on either side of the pathway as required.A minimum of 5-feet of landscaping needs to be provided between Lot 41,Block 1 and the adjacent pathway. Landscaping is proposed within parkways as shown on the landscape plan. Because 9.5-foot wide parkways are proposed,trees within parkways are restricted to Class 11 trees as proposed. There are no existing trees on the site except for those on the Rice property; therefore,mitigation is not required. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G�: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for developments over 5 acres in size;because this property is 83.77 acres, a minimum of 8.38 acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 22.3 acres(or 26%) of common open space is provided within the overall development, 15.55 acres (or 18.5%)of which is qualified per the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B,which exceeds UDC standards(see open space exhibit in Section VII.E). Qualified open space consists of half Page 12 Item 8. F197 the street buffer along Overland Rd., linear open space, and open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area. Parkways along local streets also count toward the qualified open space requirement if they comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.5;parkways were not included in the open space calculations. This development will also be able to use the common open space areas in the larger Southridge development to the east as they will be governed by the same HOA. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1. A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for developments over 5 acres in size with one(1) additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of development area. Based on a total of 83.77 acres of development area, a minimum of four(4)qualified site amenities are required. A clubhouse, swimming pool,tot lot with children's play equipment and three (3)different segments of multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with UDC standards and the Development Agreement. This development will also be able to use the site amenities in the larger Southridge development to the east as they will be governed by the same HOA. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Stormwater Drainage Report for the subdivision. Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline: The Williams Northwest gas pipeline crosses the southwest corner of this site within a 75-foot wide easement in common lots. Landscaping(grass) and a portion of the multi-use pathway is proposed within the easement(trees are prohibited). All construction and maintenance activities within the easement/right-of-way shall comply with the Williams Developers' Handbook and any other associated requirements. The Applicant shall include Williams in the initial planning stages to avoid project delays and so that safe development practices in the vicinity of the pipeline can be attained. Waterways(UDC It It The Ridenbaugh Canal is a large open waterway that runs along the northeast boundary of this site. The Irrigation District(NMID)has a 140-foot wide total easement for the canal with 60 feet being on this property(Inst. #800640). The easement does not encroach on any of the proposed buildable lots. The UDC allows waterways such as this to remain open when used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UC I I-IA-1; otherwise,they are required to be piped or otherwise covered per UDC 11-3A-6B. The decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant is not proposing to improve the waterway as a water amenity or linear open space and requests Council approval of a waiver to leave the waterway open; fencing (6-foot tall open style metal to match existing fencing)is proposed to preserve public safety along the multi-use pathway.Because the Ridenbaugh Canal is a large facility and is mostly open throughout the City and because fencing is proposed between the pathway and the canal to preserve public safety, Staff recommends approval of the request. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C for fencing along waterways and the general fencing standards in 11-3A-7. Six-foot tall open style metal fencing(i.e. chain link)to match existing fencing is proposed between the multi-use pathway and the Ridenbaugh Canal to preserve public safety. Six-foot tall Page 13 Item 8. Fl-981 solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas that are visible from the street in accord with UDC standards. The existing 6-foot tall solid masonry fencing along the southern boundary of the subdivision was required to be constructed as a provision of the DA and is proposed to remain. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manuan: The Applicant submitted sample elevations of the homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.F. A mix of 1-and 2-story homes are proposed in a variety of finish materials and colors; lot dimensions are depicted indicating the style of homes proposed on different lot sizes within the development. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The Development Agreement limits the height of homes in this development along the southern boundary shared with Val Vista and Aspen Cove subdivisions to a maximum height of 22 feet [measured from either the mid-point of the front of the lot at the top back of curb,or the mid- point of the rear of the lot(whichever is more restrictive)],to the average height of the highest roof surface. In the event the maximum height of the home as so measured is lower than the top of the 6-foot tall masonry fence,then the maximum height may be increased so that the maximum height is equal to the elevation of the top of the fence at midpoint of the rear of the lot. The lots along this boundary are also required to provide a minimum 50-foot rear setback and are limited to no more than 14 lots as proposed per the approved conceptual development plan. The Development Agreement requires the Applicant to submit and obtain Design Review approval prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for each phase of development; or submit and obtain City Council approval(or a development agreement modification)of plans that propose specific and detailed architectural guidelines for this development and that address(at a minimum)variety in structures within a block,building mass,building materials,rooflines,colors and architectural styles(provision#6.3.13). Staff recommends the rear and/or side of 2-story homes that face W.Overland Rd.incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for this facility. The design of the clubhouse shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 14 Item 8. Fl-991 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Descriptions&Exhibit Map L EGAL DESCRIFnON { THE Page Iof2 9 LAND anhw—dGROUP September 1.Or 2020 Project No.:116165 5OUTHRIDG E SO UTH SUBDIVISION R-Z,AREA 1 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land bcated in the Northwest gtuarter of section 23.Township 3 North,Range 1 west,Boise merid ian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particula rly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner OfSection 23 of said Township 3 North,Range 1 west; Thence south OW56'19"westr 2629.46 feet on the west line of said Section 23 to the'Nest one quarter Corner of said section 23; Thence5outh 89'04'17'Eastr a distance of 934.55feet on the east-west midsection line of said Section 23 to the Southwest corner of Parcel"6"as shown on Record of Survey No.10035 of Ada County Records; Thence North 22'09'32'west,a distance Of 5213.19 feet on the westerly boundary I ine Of said Pane I B; Thence leaving the waste Hy Line of said Pa rce I B,5o trth 89°16'08"East,a distance of 151.97 feet; Thence North&B'17'27"East,a distance of 30.49 feet; Thence south 21'20'10'Eastr a distance of 1.60 feet to a point o nthe westerly boundary line of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No_10035,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel B ofsaid Record of survey No.1D035 for the following courses and distances: Thence south 89'16'08"East,a dicta nce of 0.68feet to a paint of curve; Thence 25.41 feet on the arc of a curve to the left*said curve having a radius of 20.43feet,a central angle of 71'15'53",a chord bea ring of North 54'13'05'East,and a chord length of 23 E0 feet to a point of reverse Eurve; Thence 184.71 feet an the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having radius of 233.34feet,a central angle of 45'21'22",a chord bearing of North 41't 5'S0'Eastr and a chard length of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47`39'35"West,a d istance of 213.39 feat a portion of sa id line being on the exterior boundary line of said Parcel"B"of Record of survey No_10035,to a point on a curve on the Eenter ine of west overland Road; Thence 179.99feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 10MUC feet~a central angle of 10'18'45",a chord bearing of North 56'49'41'East,and a chard length of 179.7d feet on said west oveda nd Road Eenteriine; Thence leaving said centerline and westerly boundary line of Parcel Br south 27'49,21"East;a distance of 127.95 feet to a point of curve; Thence 7.12 feet On the a rc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 200M feet,a central angle of 02'02'19",a drard bea ring of South 29'50'30'East,and a chord length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; 462 East Shore Dive,SuIL 100.Ease,Idak 85616 206.MJ a641 thNandgroupinc.[am Page 15 Item 8. F200] Septern her N.2D24 Page 2 Thence 70.22'eet an the arc&a ra roe to the Ieksaid mrvefrawfmSa radius of2O0.DO fee s,a centres ar-Gle a-20`07'017.a chord bearing&Sbuth 99'55'IW fast and a chord kr_sth of HAS fee-z, Thence 5ou`h 4r3'55'Q'Easy a dis}ance cvF 63924 Feet to a pant of rrin= Thence 204.83 Feet an the o-rc cpF a curve to tie le-,sai6 cur%%e having a radius of 3OD_O0 fart a centred argyle of 39'GT 54',a chard hearting of rxrth 6g°31'07' East and a rFord lerq;th of 290.69:5`et; Thence 5orh W 03'34'Erika&7mnce cvF 294.0 feet to a point of curve, Thence 119L 31 Feet are the ars of a curve to the rigM.said curve having a radird of 150.01 feel,a centrzr ar:sle 4�'-45'34 23'.a chord hewinG of Sauffi W 09'IX West and a chard lenGth of 116.19 feet; Thence North 89°03'34'Wesk a dL,:tNknce of 811.37 feet to a pc4rtc ofcum; Thenr r 175L 15 feet are the ars of a eurvr to the right,mid cur ee having a radius of 150.03 feet,a rerrtral.ar%Gle of 6W 5T 02'.a chard hewing of North 55'M'33"W kst,and a chord length cvF IE5.H Feet; Thence Nosh 21'Z%D'10'WEstr a distmce or 246.25 feet tD the POINT OF EEGrNNING. The atrave dcscnbed parcel corrm,ns 6_M acres more or Le PREPARED 9V: The:Lend Graup,kv— �.LA AXr4 43 James R.YIU:shhum g.ktA Sire Pterruss F Larassae A-c%wrture CieI EnEinceirr} prL5 dQ E.Share Mire,akt!LOC•.Er5k,IGenra a35RE F F 20E.339'Chi1•wffm.thE;w praupinr:mrn Page 16 Item 8. F 01 LEGAL DESCRIPTION : # THE Page 1OF 2 LAND GROUP September 10,2020 Project No.:116165 SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH SUBDIVISION R-2,AREA 2 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of Section 23 of said Township 3 North,Range 1 West; Thence South 00*56'19"West,2529.48 feet on the West line of said Section 23 to the West One Quarter Corner of said Section 23; Thence South 89*04'17"East a distance of 834.55 feet on the east-Incest mid-section line of said Section 23 to the Southwest oorner of Parcel"B"as shown on Record of Survey No. 10035 of Ada County Records; Thence North 22*09'32"West,a distance of 520.19 feet on the westerly boundary line of said Parcel B; Thence leaving the westerly Line of said Parcel B,South 99' 16'08" East a distance of 151.97 feet; Thence North 88*17'27" East a distance of 30.48 feet; Thence South 21*20'10" East:a distance of 1.40 feet to a point on the westerly boundary lime of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No_10035; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No. 10035 for the following courses andi distances: Thence South 89' 16'08"East,a distance of 0.68 feet to a point of curve, Thence 25.41 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 20.43 feet,a central angle of 71'15'53",a ch o rd bea ri ng of North 54'13'05"East,and a chord length of 23-80 feet to a point of reverse curve,, Thence 194.71 feet on the arc of a curve to the right'said curve having a radius of233.34 feet,a central angle of 45'21'22",a ch o rd bea ri ng of No rth 41'15'50" East,and a chord l ength of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47*39'35"West,a distance of 215.39 feet a portion of said line being on the exterior boundary line of said Parcel"B"of Record of Survey No. 10035,to a point on a curve on the centerline of West Overland Read, Thence 179.99 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 1A00.00 feet,a central angle of 10°18'45",a chord bearing of No rth 66°49'41'East,a nd a c ho rd length of 179.74 feet o n said West Overland Road centerline; Thence leaving said centerline and westerly boundary line of Parcel B,South 27*49'21"East,a distance of 127.95 feet to a point of curve, Thence 7.12 feet on the arc of a curvets the left,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 02'02'19",a chard bea ring of South 28'50'30"East,and a cho rd length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; Thence 70.22 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 20'07'01",a chord bearing of South 3T 55'10"East,and a chord length of 69-86 feet; Thence South 49°58'40" East,a distance of639.24 feet to a point of curve; 462 East Share orlwt,su1te 104.Eagle, Idaho 83616 208 939.4041 thelandgroupinc cam Page 17 Item 8. F 02 September 11r 2020 Page 2 Thence 204_fi3 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle of 39'04'54",a chord bearing of5outh 65*31'07"East,and a chord length of 200.69 feet; Thence South 890 03'34"East,a distance of 399.44feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing South 89*03'34'East,a distance of 305.17 feet to a point of curve, Thence 69.16 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve havi ng a radius of 55.00 feet,a central angle of 72*02'44 a chord bearing of North 54*55'04 r East,and a chord length of 64_69 feet; Thence North 180 53'42" East,a distance of 27.05 feet; Thence South 00°14'06" East,a distance of 52.66 feet to a paint of curve; Thence 87.52 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve havi ng a radiu s Of 55.00 feet, a central angle of91*10'32",a chord bearing of South 45'21'10"West,and a chord length cf 78.58 feet; Thence North 890 03'34"West,a distance of 244.56 feet to a point of curve, Thence 111.97 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 149.19 feet,a central angle of 42*54'57"r a chord bearing of North 67*40'52"West,and a chord length of 109.36 feet; Thence North 460 10'53"West,a distance of 7.55 feet to the PCHNT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 0.35 acres more or less_ PREPARED BY: r1 The Land Group, Inc. LAN ;!fI 780 9 10-2020 of- James R.Washb-im VIL Site Planning■Landscape A rchitecwre■Uy d Engineering■Surveying 462 E Share drive,Suite MG■Eagler Jdahn d33616■P 208.939.4041■www.thdandgmupinc.€om Page 18 Item 8. F 03 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE L A N D Page 1 OF 2 �= GROUP September 10,2020 Project No.:116165 SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH SUBDIVISION R-8 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23,Township 3 North,Range 1~blest,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particulariy described as follows: Commenring at the Northwest Corner of Section 23 of said Township 3 North,Range I Vilest; Thence South 00*56'19'West,2629.48 feet on the West line of said Section 23 to the West One Quarter Corner of said Section 23; Thence South 89*04'17" East,a distance of 834.55 feet on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 23 to the Southwest corner of Parcel"B"as shown on Record'of Survey No. 10035 of Ada County Records- Th en cc North 22*09'32"West,a distance of 520.19 feet on the westerly boundary line of said Parcel B; Thence leaving the westerly Line of said Parcel B,South 890 16'08" East a distance of 151.97 feet; Thence North 88*17'27"East,a distance of 30.48 feet; Thence South 21*20'10" East,a distan ce c f 1.40 feet to a point on the westerly boundary line of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No_10035; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel 6 of said Record of Survey No. 10035 for the following courses and distances: Thence South 89' 16'08" East,a distanre of0.68 feet to a point of curve, Thence 25.41 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 20.43 feet,a central angle of 710 15'53",a chord bearing of North 54°13'05'East,and a chord length of 23,90 feetto a point of reverse curve, Thence 184.71 feet on the arc c f a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 233.34 feet,a central angle of 450 21'22",a chord beadng of No rth 41°15'50'East,a nd a c ho rd length of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47*39'35"West,a distance of 215.39 feet a portion of said line being on the exterior boundary line of said Parcel"B"of Record of Survey No- 10035,to a point on a curve on the centerline of West Overland Road, Thence 179.99 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 1000.00 feet,a central angle of 100 18'45",a chord bearing of North 66°49'41'East,and a chord length of 179.74 feet on said West Overland Road centerline; Thence leaving said centerline and westerly boundary line of Parcel B,South 27*49'21''East,a distance of 127.95 feet to a point of cu rve; Thence 7.12 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a central angle of 02'02'19",a chord bearing of South 28'50'30"East,and a chord length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; Th en ce 70.22 feet o n the arc of a cu rve to the left,sai d curve having a radi us of 200.00 feet,a ce ntral angle of 200 07'01",a ch o rd bea ring of South 39'55'10"East,and a fiord length of 69-86 feet; Th en ce South 490 58'40" East:a distan ce c f 360.48 feet to a poi nt of curve,sa id point being the POINT OF BEGINNING, 462 East Shore Orlwe,Suite 104.Eagle, Idaho 83616 2118 939.4041 thelandgroupinc cam rage i y Item 8. F 04 September 11,2020 Page 2 Thence 276.80 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 275.00 feet,a central angle cf 57'40' 15",a chord bearing of North 79'53'16" East,and achord length of 2-65.26 feet; Thence North 51°03'09" East,a distance of 575.25 feet to a point on a curve; Thence 201.33 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 850.00 feet,a central angle of 13'34' 16",a chord bearing of North 44'11'50"West,and a chord length of 200.86 feet; Thence North 39"Di'02" East,a distance of 75.06 feet; Thence North 14"38'"' East,a distance of 106.48 feet; Thence North 860 33' 13" East,a distance of 101.99 feet; Thence South 25"35'04" East,a distance of 45.73 feet; Thence South 39'58'55" East,a distance of 85.38 feet; Thence South 67'35'34" East,a distance of 112.36 feet; Thence North 20"11'27" East,a distance of 103.27 feet; Thence South 72°17 28" East,a distance of 172.81 feet to a point of curve; Thence 77-62 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 80.00 feet,a central angle of 55'35'25",a chord bearing of North 79'54'50" East,and achord length of 74.61 feet; Thence South 15"07'20" East,a distance of 122.50 feet; Thence North 86'31'43" East,a distance of 190.50 feet, Thence South03"28' 17" East,a distance of3.59 feet to a point of curve; Thence 31.15 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curare having a radius of 70.00 feet,a central angle of 25'30'01",a chord bearing of South 16° 13'19" East,and a chord length of 30.90 feet to a point of compou nd cu rve; Thence 136.24 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 70.00 feet,a centra l angle c f 111'30'41",a ch a rd bea ring of So uth 84"43'39"East,and a c hard length of 115.73 feet; Thence North 39'31'01" East,a distance of 141.01 feet to a paint cf curve; Thence 232.80 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 130.00 feet,a central angle of 102°36'12%a chord bearing of South 89"10'53"East,and a chord length of 202.92 feet; Thence South 37"52'47" East,a distance of 369.31 feet to a paint of curve; Thence 389.27 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle cf 74'20'42",a chard bearing of South 00°42'26" East,and a chord length of 362.53 feet; Thence South 36'27 55"West,a distance of 34-82 feetto a paint of curve; Thence 62.73 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a central angle of 23'57'38",a chord bearing of South 24°29'06"West,and a chord length of 62.27 feet; Thence North 89"02'41"West,a distance of 60-88 feet to a point of curve; Thence 98.42 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle cf 18'47'49",a chard bearing of North 79'387 46"West,and a chard length of 97.98 feet to a point of reverse curve; Site Planning■La ndscape Archite-m e■Civil Engineering■Surwying 462 E.Share Drive,Suite 140.Eagle,Idaho 83616■P 208.939.4041■www.the4arvdgri3upinc.com Item 8. F 05 September 11,2020 Page 3 Thence 98.42 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle of W 47'49",a chord bearing of North 790 38'46"West,and a chord length of 97.98 feet; Thence North 890 02'41"West,a distance of 252.39 feet to a point of curve,- Thence 305.36 feet an the arc of a curve to the fight,sai d curve having a rad i us of 850.00 feetr a central anglecf20'35'00",a chord bearing of North 78"45'11"West,and a chard length of 303.72 feet, Thence South 18`53'42"West a distance of 177.29 feet to a point of curve; Thence 69.76 feet on the arc of curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 55.00 feetr a central angle of 72'02'44",a chord bearing of South 540 55'04"West and a chard length of 64.69 feet; Thence North 890 03'34"West,a distance of 704.61 feet to a point of curve; Thence 204.63 feet an the arc of a curve to the right. said carve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle of 33'04'54',a chord bead ng-of North 69'31'07"West,and a chard length of 200.69 feet, Thence North 49'58'40"W es� a distance of 278.715 feet to the POINT OF BEGI NMNG_ The above described parcel€orrWns 29-89 acres more or less_ PREPARED BY: The tend Group, Inc. All 7860 9-10-2020 L�. rr OF ti James R.Washburn 1 )k Site Planning■Landscape Arch te=re■CFrd Engineering■Surveying 462 E.Sh ore Drive,Suite 100•Eagl er Jdaha 83616 4 P 205.939.4041■www.thelandgroupirx.€oen Item 8. F 06 s - W2cO S FRB --- --- !� � 1 J _ ; ar-ic icy y: ■ +L IJ t BPlINV..}RAR Wid-e-o� 4HJI`; .�.r....... $beet 1 of 1 Page 22 Item 8. F 07 B. Preliminary Plat& Phasing Plan (date: 12/7/2020) -r---7 f MR U Atf Mn PPI Page 23 Item 8. F 08 M6 46 W ; 4bLm d . aws � # - - _- MH AS 41L 46 f41Plip 41h a . f d -- RR9,� Page 24 Item 8. F 09 s alp doL 499 r sry sk im � F ti ` it - 1p -- RS as a + d4pwirl MM-AYxJ --- r j r. . R2S Page 25 Item 8. F 10 semi - .r •�'` i � �{` . ..., �-' l �n$3 snncxceancoearvurAn[�l _r•••N' \ ��' w,x -�� Ewsnnsxceunsem.rmonrnrP iAd 9.95di+a.R > — .— wtoro5eo�-OxSc Fwbanr Pmlimiaary Plat-Prvpcse Zoning Sunnrary . 0 � Z P7 5 t6 I o a M a�c >• I yam Preliminary Plat.Proposed Phawng Summary PP3 Page 26 Item 8. F211] C. Common Driveway Exhibits-NOT APPROVED 96 }s!d AMI'u!iaad } y 1le aa!ip - 4!4z3 Acmansap uowwoo _ _ y W ua!s!a!pgn5 41nug a6p!iyluag 01 - ------ -,-,� w� -w � I i lit I I o *a. aid f L- ---„----UPL' L-------- L_- { o-�r' — —--——————— � r--Lx ----- i - I I I I I J J - Fl SL I r4 -- 4 m e i i I I _j _ I I Page 27 GmE 22 Lu � cm ml AJcul ee d k w emmeMm . gq! kmiui u,mm0Q : Lu Liggqm�Sqn�S PROCS ! I i � m 49 ON ^ a; §` ---- -\. IL . + N® | / 4zƒ L �\\\\ , ------------ ^ © § || « ' . � � � �-,-- - ----� I �-� - ----- --- �� � I LS®- - ---�-------- � , � � § ■ \/ ��/ � e--------------------� E : - - / � Page 28 »m& 2a M . _ cn _ a £ BAmm§ d ! | x ammma - #mNx km l& EICIUM3 ; | LLA �qqm��Sqn■S mP|�q�■S ; . !| � do \ §$ � � � . . � , � � I ■ � � / � � � \ lag o - � ` AL ;! q :\ /. \ - e ƒ/ ( � OB _ � z ' ' ■ d ■ ! � 2 ��— , y '� • 3 � Page 2 Item 8. F 14 D. Landscape Plan (date: 5/17/2020) C6 Im ic Hui REM low 4ss:x-c�ac^^^ -^sue.. '�.�.ay_ I•��r-!•i.. �� �tr.+k:wn r g11 '--------- r r ___ ______ ' irr I iri• _ I _ 14 I — 4 a o� i. l I __ E4lF Page 30 Item 8. F 15 im- � � — r+1p i1 •a � �a i.� •• ... # ' s,«Vaeo-�+ca.>#i as 5 � T ri, .. y -f aP I 1 .ikri Lmd-go ra�+1_iLim .- _. ----- ............ L4 1� -4 L1Ai^ ■ �. —� Page 31 Item 8. F 16 E. Open Space Exhibit f Areai Neat Nees Noah NeaS Neat Areal m$ 4ZA: m911 lax 14,174 14= ld.� �— Naa1 Araa9 AIM ie Areaii A19ai2 Areaia Nilau ;37`+ 5413d 17.637 34,fi72' 31,307 25pYB 174,70.4 — ^` ——�—�_�_�—� �r � .•��. .., .•.. 4.� fill a IL IL FF • .. �� f to PA2 -- - _ r / LMID GR0UP Page 32 Item 8- r217] F. Conceptual Building Elevations +Qp R Lao Wt*h rG"Lot WWMh IW N Ik +saft'LoI Kndth 49"Lot width 41 Page 33 Item 8. F 18 +5 h L E Width *51ci,-1t ot Width his Fir * k _ t ! . �* ■w� �nrt J �-� +34.ft Lot 14!67h 419 41 LOL width dp oil I IL lb Page 34 Item 8. F 19 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A minimum of 10 days prior to the City Council hearing,the preliminary plat(and landscape plan) shall be revised to include another housing type(s) (i.e. single-family attached or townhomes)in the R-8 portion of the development; and conceptual elevations of the additional housing type(s) shall be submitted.Zero lines shall be depicted on the plat or an exhibit submitted showing where attached product types are proposed 1. Development of the subject property shall comply with the terms of the existing Development Agreement(MDA-12-009, Inst. #113077158),unless otherwise amended. 2. Development of the subject preliminary plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.B. 3. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via W. Overland Rd. other than the accesses approved with this subdivision. 4. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict shrubs along with the required trees within the street buffer along W. Overland Rd. as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.3a.A minimum 35 foot wide street buffer is required. along W. Overland Rd., an entryway corridor. b. Landscaping shall be depicted along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; include a mix of trees(minimum of 1 per 100 linear feet of pathway), shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative groundcover. If landscaping(trees)is not allowed within NMID's easement for the Ridenbaugh Canal, an additional minimum 5-foot wide area shall be provided outside of the easement in a common lot(s) for the required trees. c. Include a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping between Lot 41,Block 1 and the adjacent pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. d. Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the standards for street buffer(11-3B-7C),pathway(11-3B-12C) and common open space(11-3G-3E.2) landscaping; include required vs. provided number of trees. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district and UDC Table I1-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. An exhibit for the common driveways shall be submitted with the final plat application(s)that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.7. All common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. 8. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. This may be accomplished through a separate recorded easement submitted to the Planning Division with the final plat for City Engineer signature; or,the easement may be graphically depicted on the plat with a note including the aforementioned details. Page 35 Item 8. F220] 9. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 10. Ten-foot(10')wide multi-use pathways shall be constructed on the site as depicted on the landscape plan. Fourteen-foot(14')wide public pedestrian easements shall be submitted in accord with Park's Department requirements per the Pathways Master Plan for all multi-use pathways within the site that are outside the public right-of-way. Coordinate the details of the easements with Kim Warren,Park's Department. 11. All existing structures that don't conform to the dimensional standards of the district shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer on the phase in which they are located. 12. All construction and maintenance activities within the 75-foot wide Northwest gas pipeline easement/right-of-way shall comply with the Williams Developers' Handbook and any other associated requirements. The Applicant shall include Williams in the initial planning stages to avoid project delays and so that safe development practices in the vicinity of the pipeline can be attained. 13. The Ridenbaugh Canal shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B,unless otherwise waived by City Council.Note: The Applicant requests a waiver to this standard to allow the canal to remain open and not be piped. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for this facility. The design of the clubhouse shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 15. In accord with the Development Agreement(Inst. #113077158—MDA-12-009),the height of homes along the southern boundary of the subdivision shared with Val Vista and Aspen Cove subdivisions shall be limited to a maximum height of 22 feet [measured from either the mid- point of the front of the lot at the top back of curb, or the mid-point of the rear of the lot (whichever is more restrictive)],to the average height of the highest roof surface. In the event the maximum height of the home as so measured is lower than the top of the 6-foot tall masonry fence,then the maximum height may be increased so that the maximum height is equal to the elevation of the top of the fence at midpoint of the rear of the lot. The lots along this boundary are also required to provide a minimum 50-foot rear setback.See provisions #6.3.8 and#6.3.10. 16. In accord with the Development Agreement(Inst. #113077158—MDA-12-009),the Applicant shall submit and obtain Design Review approval prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for each phase of development; or submit and obtain City Council approval(or a development agreement modification)of plans that propose specific and detailed architectural guidelines for this development and that address(at a minimum)variety in structures within a block,building mass,building materials,rooflines,colors and architectural styles (provision#6.3.13). 17. The existing home on Parcel#S 1223131250(Rice property)that is proposed to remain on a lot in the subdivision(i.e. Lot 64,Block 1) shall be required to hook-up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. At such time,the septic tank shall be abandoned and the well solely used for irrigation purposes. Page 36 Item 8. F221] 18. The address of the existing home on Parcel#S 1223131250(Rice property)that is proposed to remain on a lot in the subdivision(i.e. Lot 64,Block 1)shall be changed with development to the street from which access is taken(S. Rio De Oro Pl.); coordinate with Terri Ricks, Land Development on the new address. 19. The homes on Lots 17, 19,25 and 27,Block 10 shall be provided with residential fire sprinklers,unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall, as they appear to be beyond the required"hose lay" standards of the Fire Dept.If the location of the home does not require a "hose lay"exceeding 150 feet from the nearest point of fire truck access (i.e. the end of the shared driveway) to reach the most remote portion of the structure, the Fire Marshall may waive this requirement. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The farthest north connection in Overland currently is connecting right at an existing PRV. This connection needs to move south of the T that connects to the PRV. If the water main connection is moved south by one lot it should provide enough distance to connect outside of the PRV. 1.2 There needs to be a water valve between the two connections on Overland for redundancy purposes. 1.3 The City does not want public sewer lines in common driveways as shown for Driveway C. Either reroute sewer line or place road over top of sewer line. 1.4 Locate Infiltration Trenches to eliminate sewer service line crossings.No sewer mainlines in common drives, only sewer services(reminder that a maximum of three services are allowed into a manhole,with a minimum 30-degrees of angle separation). 1.5 The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by STRATA, dated 12/26/2007,which was prior to the termination gravel mining operation. Once the operation ceased,the site was reclaimed in preparation for the proposed subdivision in accordance with Dept. of Lands and project geotechnical engineer requirements. The existing soils consist of well-graded sands and gravels which are extremely well-suited for the proposed development as a subdivision according to Jason Densmer,PE,project engineer. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on Page 37 Item 8. ■ the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.4 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313- 14A. 2.5 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian.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. 2.7 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years.This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.8 In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non- health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 2.9 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. 2.10 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. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.13 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.14 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. 2.15 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.16 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. 2.17 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record — Page 38 Item 8. F223] 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. 2.18 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.19 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20- feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.21 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at(208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2.22 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 2.24 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT hggs://weblink.m eridia n c i 0y.ory/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218082&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Page 39 Item 8. ■ D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=217080&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217426&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217744&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217149&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218116&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=218003&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty K. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT No comments were received. L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218126&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty Page 40 Item 8. F225] IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) 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 the proposed zoning map amendment to R-2 and R-8 and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of single family detached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This Findings is not applicable as the application is for a rezone, not annexation. B. 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; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation with Staff's recommendation to include another housing type (i.e. single-family attached and/or townhomes). (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; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Page 41 — Item 8. F226] 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 VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 42 Applicant Presentation Southridge South December 17, 2020Rezone and Preliminary Plat Meridian Planning & Zoning Vicinity Map governs development. Agreement exists which and a Development The properties are annexed, 85.27 acreshighlighted in blue–3 parcels Rezone Future Land Use MapAgreement and City’s existing Development are consistent with the The proposed zones R2 = 22.25 acresR8 = 63.02 acres Development Concept PlanMaster Agreement Preliminary 22.3 acres of open space254 Single Family lots Plat Preliminary 22.3 acres of open space Plat THANK YOUQUESTIONS Stub Streets NicholsElton Common Drives