Loading...
2021-01-07 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 07, 2021 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 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Election of 2021 Commission Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson 2021 Chairperson: Rhonda McCarvel 2021 Vice-Chairperson: Andy Seal 4. Public Hearing Continued from December 15, 2020 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Application Requires Continuance 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. 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 21, 2021 5. Public Hearing Continued from December 17, 2020 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. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for February 9, 2021 6. Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for February 9, 2021 ADJOURNMENT 7:41 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 7, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 7, 2021 , 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, 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. So, at this time I would like to call to order the regularly rescheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the date of January 7th, 2021, and let's start with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Fitzgerald: Thanks, ma'am. Happy New Year to all of you and to those joining us on Zoom and in person. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. A couple of things I wanted to point out. The first item on the agenda I was hoping with the permission of the Commission -- or agreement of the Commission to move the election of officers or the chair or vice-chair to the end. I'm not sure where that will play out, but if there is someone who has not been a commission -- or a chair or vice-chair before, I want you guys to have the benefit of the -- the prep meetings that the chair has. So, if that's okay with you guys, we will move that to the end, because, if not, you have to take over -- whoever gets elected gets to take over the meeting. So, if we want to move that to the end that's great. If not we can deal with it right now. And, then, the second item -- we will be opening up Item No. 4, the Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108 -- 08. Excuse me. That was not properly posted in a timely manner, so we need to postpone that one or continue it to a hearing date and I think we are targeting January 21 st for that one. As I retire you guys are really really busy in February, so -- and it starts like March, too. know they are stacking up five or six at a time. So, I think we are looking to -- to put that on the January 21 st meeting date. There is five or six on there right now, but it's -- those -- there is a couple that are individual homeowners just looking to hook up to sewer and water and be annexed in the city and, then, one Bill's pretty sure it will be continued to later. So, I think the January 21 st date looks like the best possible candidate, because Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 6 Page 2 of 38 February is -- is loaded and so do all those things sound copacetic? You guys good with an adjustment to that and, if so, could I get a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we adopt the agenda as presented with one note that we move Item 3 to the end of the agenda for the vote of the chairperson and vice-chairperson. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as adjusted. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the December 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H- 2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda, the approval of the minutes for December 17th, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Poiema Calvary Chapel, H-2020-0095. Anything need to be pulled out for further discussion? If not, can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: So, first let me explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and start with the staff report. The staff will report the findings Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 7 Page 3 of 38 regarding how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with their staff-- with our staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward via Zoom or in person and make their presentation on -- regarding the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments or commissioner comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. There is a signup opportunity in the back if you are in person. There is an iPad back there for each application we are going to be hearing tonight. Please make sure you sign up. If you are online, please, raise your hand via Zoom and we will make sure you get transferred over so we can hear from you on that application. If there is any individual that's here to speak on a larger group, as an HOA, we will give you a little bit more time to speak on behalf of the HOA, but we ask the people that are -- that are speaking on their behalf not to get up and reiterate the same comments. One thing I want to make sure we are clear on as -- as we are hearing from -- we are going to use Zoom and in person as we continue to do the business -- the business of the city, we appreciate everybody's patience as we deal with technology. One thing we would ask, though, is if you get your three minutes as an individual, please, take the time wisely, because you won't have a second chance to get up and provide testimony again. You get your three minutes and, then, the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and close. They will get ten minutes to do that. But, please, use your three minutes wisely as we won't be able to hear from you again a second time. So, with that after all testimony has been heard, like I said, we will have the applicant come back and answer any questions they have of the commissioners or any questions that came up during public testimony and, then, we will close the public hearing and commissioners will have a chance to deliberate and make -- hopefully make recommendations to City Council on the applications. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing Continued from December 15, 2020 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. 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 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 8 Page 4 of 38 (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: With that let's move to our first hearing item, which is the public hearing continued from December 15th for Vicenza North Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108. And, Joe, do you want to take this real quick? Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Everybody hear me okay? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Dodson: Awesome. Yeah. As Mr. Chair alluded to before we got into this, they -- they didn't post the site in time. It's just a freak -- fluke thing by the applicant's representative. He's usually really good about it. We just missed it by a day. So, we are going to have to continue it and I agree with the chair's opinion that I think the 21 st is probably the better date. Once we get into February it starts to get a little bit more beastly with the size of the projects, as well as the contentiousness potential. I don't know if that's a word, but -- I think that the 21 st probably works the best and already started the staff report, so we should be good. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Is there any questions of staff? If not, can I get a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we continue Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, to January 21 st. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue the hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108, to the date of January 21 st, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 5. Public Hearing Continued from December 17, 2020 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 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 191 Page 5 of 38 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: Next we will -- next on the agenda is the continued public hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099, and I will turn it back over to Joe as this was continued to pretty narrowly -- we gave some specific things we wanted to see on this continued public hearing and I think, hopefully, we wrap that up. Joe, do you want to take it from there? Dodson: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted this was continued from the December 17th hearing to mostly work with some of my conditions of approval in the staff report and revise any plans that were related to the conditions and, specifically, those related to the utility easements and -- but within the private streets for the public sewer and water lines. Specifically in regards to that we did receive a memo from Public Works that they endorsed the plan and the revisions that have been made. Again, they cannot formally approve anything with this application, because they have not been part of our process. We do not get formal construction drawings at this point. So, those will be applied for probably with final plat. That's when they come in. So, we are a ways away from that. But in the interim Public Works has provided two memos, actually, that they are in support of this and if anything needs to change from here on out they should be minor changes. So, planning staff very much appreciates that from Public Works. Second to that, the applicant has submitted some revised plans which resulted in some recommended changes to the conditions of approval. I'm basically just going to go -- skim through my memo that I sent out to you guys, so I hope you guys had time to read that. I don't want to rehash all of the other stuff, just because we had some very specifics that we continued this for. Notably none of the open space and parking counts have really changed much from -- with those revisions, so that's good. Also I don't want to get into those again. It's going to stay the same. Secondly, those numbers will be added to the staff report following this -- you know, whatever recommendation you guys make to City Council. The noticeable revisions are as follows: The zoning and the preliminary plat now match, so -- come on, let me click. Let me click. There we go. So, they revised the zoning and the plat to show that the --this red line is going to be the C-C zoning and it matches where the commercial is going to occur. So, we had mixed zoning that crossed some of the property lines, which cannot occur. They added an additional commercial lot here -- technically two, I guess. One here and, then, one in the middle. So, now everything is okay with that. I already have a condition within the revised --well, within the staff report to provide revised Iegals. Today prior to the meeting the applicant did provide those, so I will add a recommended condition -- or recommended change from the Commission that you guys strike that condition, because it's no longer necessary. In general the C-C zone is about six acres. This is the zone here. And on the R-15 it's about the 11th. So, it now matches with what was originally proposed, which we appreciate very much. As within the other Modern Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 Flo] Page 6 of 38 Craftsman, the clubhouse is residing within the C-C zone and that can occur. It doesn't -- multi-family can be in commercial and residential. So, there is an area -- this area right here is the clubhouse and it will be in the C-C zone. The applicant also revised this three- way intersection as you can see, which we very much appreciate. It's no longer that -- that awkward roundabout thing. Now, it's kind of a T intersection, which should be more beneficial I think to the traffic flow. There is -- I'm not aware of whether or not there are going to be stop signs on that. That's not something that we usually dictate when it comes to those things. I think they will work that out. If there is stop signs I presume that the north-south will not have them, so that the traffic from the commercial and into the site can be pretty free flow. Other than that I don't have any other comments, but we do appreciate and approve of the revised layout there. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Hearing none, is the applicant with us? I think they are online. Nelson: Good evening, commissioners. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street. On behalf of the applicant. And we appreciate all of staff's work to review our new submittals and Public Works as well and we will just -- we are just here to stand for questions, because we feel like you have probably received every single thing that was asked of us and so if you have any questions about those items we would be happy to answer them. Fitzgerald: Deborah, thank you guys very much. We appreciate your understanding of our need to have more information. So, thank you guys for the -- working with us and I appreciate the changes. Any change -- any questions for Deborah at this time? Holland: I would just echo I appreciate you working with staff on getting some of those changes so it was a cleaner staff report and easier for us to make that move to Council. Fitzgerald: Okay. Deborah, we will let you close in just a minute. I just want to make sure we don't have any public testimony and, then, we will come back to you for closing remarks. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: Yeah. I just had one question for Deborah. I know -- I was kind of maybe hoping to see one -- I think before on that three-way intersection was it -- wasn't it a two way roundabout? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, before what we had was a small triangle island in the middle. There isn't space there for a roundabout, so we addressed it with a T that we think provides the same safety with the curvature there that we were hoping to achieve, but also provides an attractive entry. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 Fil Page 7 of 38 Cassinelli: Okay. Because I was thinking like before you had an island, but it was a -- it was -- or that -- I guess it was a triangle, but it was a -- the traffic around it was two way and not one way. That's what I was hoping for. But it looks like you have added some landscaping in there, because roundabouts oftentimes present -- you know, offer up a nice visual effect when you get that island in the middle, but it looks like you have got that. I -- my only question there seeing -- seeing the landscape design is -- is the visibility particularly to the south coming from the -- coming from the private road there, if you were stopped there is there -- you know right -- right up there. Is there going to be decent visibility to the south if you were going to head on out? Does that make sense? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we will make sure that that visibility complies with all standards, with your site triangles, and I'm sure that will be reviewed carefully in the CZC time frame and it's certainly in our interest as well. Cassinelli: Okay. That would be my only concern on that. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any other questions for Deborah at this time? Madam Clerk, do we have any public testimony or anyone in chambers that would like to testify in this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not have anybody signed in on this application. Fitzgerald: If there is anyone online, please, raise your hands or, Commissioner Seal, is there anybody in chambers with you? Seal: There is not. Fitzgerald: Okay. Deborah, do you have any final comments for us, seeing that there is no additional thoughts or folks who want to testify? So, do you have any additional thoughts for us? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, thank you. We would just say that we are in full agreement with the revised and added conditions from staff and ask you to approve it as recommended by staff. Fitzgerald: Sounds good. And, please, tell David thank you for all his work. I know it was -- it was a yeoman's work at times. So, tell him thank you. Nelson: We will pass that along. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any final questions for Deborah or for staff before we close the public hearing? If not, can I get a motion? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F12 Page 8 of 38 Seal: I move that we close the public testimony on file H-2020-0099. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? I think Commissioner Cassinelli had my -- my only question was the sight triangles, too, and I think that it looks much better than it did. So, I think it -- everything we asked them to do it looks like it got taken care of, but any additional thoughts? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I think it looks good and I agree with the applicant that sometimes the landscapers get a little happy with where they placed trees and so it's more of a graphical look than an actual -- where some of the trees may sit. So, I think that they will make sure that the sight triangles are there and not having any issues and with that I'm -- I'm in support of this application. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Just looking at it again I really like this product. I think it's a great addition to our communities here in Meridian, especially with the -- the -- the -- what do you call them? The business on the bottom and residential on the top. Fitzgerald: Live-work. Seal: Yeah. Live-work. I really really like that. I hope -- I hope that that has a lot of success in our community. That--that's something that is very very appealing to me and, again, I hope it has good success. Thank you very much for all the work that's been put into this. That's a -- kind of a tough spot to put things in and I'm very happy to hear that this is going to add credence and moving forward with getting Pine Avenue punched all the way through as well, so that's -- that's another benefit for -- for all involved for sure and the only -- the only thing I will say is the -- the fourth color palette they picked is -- somebody really has -- has it in for the Army monotones as it would be. So, I was kind of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F13 Page 9 of 38 hoping to see like a blue or an orange in there maybe, but other than that if -- if that's the paint schemes that are going to be in there that's totally livable and I'm sure people will be very happy with them. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Joe, go ahead. Dodson: Just to that point -- I didn't get to it quite well, but to Mr. Seal's point the -- the applicants did add a fourth color palette and I believe it is a bluish color, so it does add a little bit of flavor to the site. I agree, I was having flashbacks to being at West Point for a few months there, so that's a lot of green. But I think we will be okay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I think you had chimed in there before, ma'am. Go ahead. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just echo the other comments of the other commissioners. I think they did what we asked them to do and I don't see any big concerns. It's nice to have a -- a different product style that's not four-plexes stacked up, but it's something that will provide a good product that's affordable and has that live-work component, which I really appreciate. Fitzgerald: Agreed. McCarvel: Yeah. Just -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I agree. I was kind of on the -- the only thing I had wanted to see changed really last time was that intersection as well and I couldn't help but chuckle at Commissioner Seal's description. I guess we have to call these a mullet building now, with the business on the top and the living on the bottom. But I do -- I like them. I think that's a good integration. Fitzgerald: Very good. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't have anything substantial to add other than I think they have done a great job incorporating what we asked them to do and they have done a good job of creating a sense of community and within this development, which is always something that I like to see with these types of things where they have thought through how to integrate different aspects of the development, so that it flows together and creates a sense of space. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F14] Page 10 of 38 Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: It checks every box. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council, file number H-2020-0099 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 7th, 2021. And I don't think there is any modifications. Yearsley: I think there was one. Cassinelli: Was there? McCarvel: There was one. Yeah. Yearsley: The condition of the legal descriptions I think or something to that effect. Seal: There is actually quite a few. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: And, yeah, Joe -- Joe summed them up nicely in his letter. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Dodson: I was going to say, if you -- if you made it per my memo -- Cassinelli: Yeah. Okay. Fitzgerald: Per the staff memo. Dodson: And, then, the additional one of removing the condition requiring revised Iegals and, then, I think we are kosher. Cassinelli: Okay. I amend my motion to do the modifications to -- let me get that -- pull that memo up -- to be in line with the staff memo and the revised legal condition. Holland: I will second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0099, Mile High Pines Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F15] Page 11 of 38 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Deborah, thank you guys. Good luck and we will see you in the future I'm sure. Nelson: Thank you very much. Dodson: Good night, everybody. 6. Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Okay. Moving on to the last -- second to the last item on the agenda, the Tetherow -- Tetherow Crossing Subdivision, file number H-2020-0112. Alan, I will let you take the lead on the staff report, sir. Tiefenbach: Happy New Year, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. Can everybody hear me okay? Give me a thumbs up. Seal: A little faint. Tiefenbach: See my screen. Fitzgerald: You're a little bit -- on your voice, sir. So, if you can get a little bit closer. Tiefenbach: Wow. Sure. You're about the first people I have ever heard in my life that told me they can't hear me, so awesome. Usually my wife tells me to, please, keep it down. Is this better? Okay. Great. Fitzgerald: That's good, Alan. Thanks. Tiefenbach: So, this is an annexation, a zoning, and a preliminary plat. You said you could see my screen? Thumbs up, please, somebody? You can't see my screen? Cassinelli: Can see it. Fitzgerald: I can see -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F16] Page 12 of 38 Cassinelli: Oh, no. Fitzgerald: I can see something. Is that yours? Cassinelli: It says a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Tiefenbach: Okay. All right. Fair enough. Okay. I was -- I was trying to be cool, but I guess it didn't work. But this is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The site consists of about seven and a half acres of land. It's zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county. It's located on the northeast of North Linder Road and Ustick, but to the west of the property is zoned C-C. That went through a proposal for a townhouse development some time ago, which did not get approved. To the northwest up at the top is Eddington Commons, which you should remember and that was recently approved. To the east is the Woodburn West No. 2 Subdivision and to the south is the Creason Creek Subdivision. A little history on this property. In 2006 there was a proposal for this property. It was for 35 single family lots. That was not approved, but the Council denied that because they believed at that time that it wasn't ready, they didn't have the infrastructure, it was a leapfrog type development. Since that time it is mostly filled in and infrastructure has come out to the site. The property is zoned to medium density residential, which is eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. And, again, this is a proposal for annexation, a rezoning to R-8, and a preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and eight common lots. I will go to the plat here. Okay. So, first of all, there is five points of access. I'm going to use the color plat, just because I think it's a little easier to see on a public screen. There is five points of access proposed with this. There is three stubs. So, this is the first stub here to the north, if you can see my pointer. This is the second stub here to the west. And down here to the east is a third stub. So, those three properties have not yet -- although -- although this one to the west here -- this is Eddington Commons and it is in the process of--they just finished their final plat. So, you should see that develop very quickly. There are two existing points of access. The first is here. That is West Woodpine Street and that is the Wood -- or Woodburn West Subdivision. That's existing there now. There is a second point of access. Right now it's -- if you can see my pointer here it's actually called North Llama Road and it's a little over here to the west right now. It runs --the road runs right directly through the middle of this. As part of this development the applicant is going to shift the whole thing over to the east and is going to have now what's called a new Northwest 12th Drive. You can't see it on this picture, but on the other side of Ustick, below here to the south, is an existing Northwest 12th Drive. Usually the city does not support taking access off of an arterial and we usually recommend that those go away. In this particular case ACHD supports this and the reason why is because the existing access off of North Llama does not line up with any other access. It's configuration. This particular access they are going to align this Northwest 12th with the Northwest 12th below it. Also, the spacing requirements from Ustick and Linder are supposed to be 1,320 feet. The existing access, the North Llama, doesn't come close to that. This one is shifting it over and picking up a couple of hundred extra feet. ACHD is supportive of the waiver to the policy of this, because it's increasing the intersection distance, even if it isn't meeting it, it's better than the existing situation. There isn't going to be any required road improvements along Ustick. It's already a five --five travel lanes, a bike lane, and vertical Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F17 Page 13 of 38 curb and gutter and detached concrete sidewalk. However, the applicant will be required to construct all the internal roads to a 33 foot ACHD template. As you can see on the color plat, there are sidewalks proposed on both sides of internal streets and there is one common driveway that is proposed. Can everybody still hear me okay? Thumbs up? Yep. Okay. Good. Open space and amenities. I will move on to this next screen. This development proposes a total of 15.12 percent of open space. This includes several small landscaped areas over here and down here. Those aren't really being proposed as qualified open space. What it also proposes is this 25 foot buffer that is down here to the north of Ustick. It proposes several pathways, which we will talk about in a minute. A central open space at the northeast side of the property. Over here this is an existing ditch and there is an existing pathway here that is maintained by this HOA over to the east. This proposal is tying in to that walkway. So, they are orienting all of their common open space over to this existing ditch and over to this existing walkway and they are connecting with a walkway here and they are connecting with a walkway there. So, again, just a little bit to talk about the qualified open space. Thirteen percent of this would meet the requirements for qualified open space. This includes the central park, which is pretty much close to the center of the development. It includes several pathway common lots. So, there is a pathway lot down here to the west. There is another dog park and a sitting area and a pathway lot here and there are two pathway lots -- two pathways, one here and one here, and both of those connect in to the existing pathway that's along the ditch. Also half of the buffer can be counted as a qualified open space. This would be required to provide one amenity per our regulations. They are actually providing a -- quite a bit more than that. So, first of all, they are -- they are -- they are giving us a park or an open space of at least 50 times 100 feet. So, that's one thing to be qualified as an open space. But in addition to that you can call it an amenity if there is an additional 20,000 square feet and in this particular case they are proposing 33,000. So, maybe three quarters of an acre. It's significantly more than they would be required. So, that -- that -- just that amount of open space would be called an amenity. In addition to that they are proposing a recreational amenity, which they can talk about. It's going to be a playground and a seating area. They are also proposing the two pathways and the way that our code works -- it says that these pathways are not required per the code, then, they will be counted as an amenity, as long as they meet the minimum landscaping requirements and that's a five foot landscape strip on either side and one tree per hundred. In this particular case they are proposing two pathway amenities. And, finally, they are proposing this dog park and this sitting area here. One thing I want to mention is about the trees. There is quite a bit of mature landscaping here. There has been some -- some discussions between the applicant and the arborist in regard to whether or not they can preserve those trees. The applicant hasn't really given us any details yet on the tree preservation plan, but we are recommending that as a -- as a condition of approval of the final plat, that the -- we get a tree mitigation plan. It would say which trees would be preserved and which would be mitigated. Finally, there are -- the applicant has submitted sample elevations of single family homes for this project, but these homes are depicted as two story structures with two car garages, a variety of architectural elements and finish materials, including gabled roofs, dormers, stone wainscotting, lap siding, exposed timber and scallop wood shingles. Those types of scallop we see back in -- if you can see my pointer there. These little tiles here, these like fish scale things are the scalloped wood shingles. Some of these houses Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F18] Page 14 of 38 will be very visible from West Ustick Road. Therefore, staff recommended as a condition of approval that the rear and sides of these two story structures visible from West Ustick incorporate minimum articulation requirements. You will see that added to our recommendations for the development agreement. The last thing I want to talk about is there was a couple of clarifications that were made to the staff report. The first was on the original plat there is an easement that's shown there and it's -- it's kind of funky. There is a note there that says that, basically, the title work shows that there is an access easement there, but they couldn't find any evidence of that being actually recorded. So, staff had concerns -- the property to the north, we didn't want them to be cut off. We recommended as a condition of approval that the applicant provide us a recorded access easement to make sure that the property to the north has access. Since the time of the staff report the applicant has told us that they have gotten that access easement. It wasn't very clear on the plat, but they have given us the access easement and so staff is okay with that. So, you can actually strike that condition if you would like, that the access easement is no longer required. Fitzgerald: Hey, Alan, what number is that? Tiefenbach: Oh, boy. Let me -- Fitzgerald: Make sure I'm -- Tiefebach: That would be -- give me one second here. That would be on 1-C in the development agreement conditions. Can you still see the screen or did it go away? Okay. Good. Because I backed out I wasn't sure. There is two clarifications and these don't really need any changes. The first is that there was a condition in -- from -- from water in regard to roadway extensions to West Oak Creek Drive and Dixie Avenue. Those aren't pertinent to this development. The public -- or water should have removed those. I will make sure those are stricken for the staff report to the Council. The second thing is the fire district. There is a typo in there that says that they cannot meet the targeted goal of 80 percent or greater, but, actually, they can. So, I will make sure that we -- we had Fire send us updated corrected comments, so you don't need to worry about that. With that staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions listed in the staff report. It is my understanding that the applicant is in full agreement. They do have a presentation, however, and I will stand for any questions if the Commission would choose at this time. Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Are there any questions for staff at this point? Seal: Mr. Chair? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: I'm just -- in looking at the -- the open space kind of in that L shaped, do we know Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F19 Page 15 of 38 how the subdivision basically to the west lines up to that? Is that open space in that adjacent subdivision or are their houses there? Just trying to get a sense of how -- if that's boxed in or more wide open. Tiefenbach: If you give me a second I will pull up the GIS and take a look at that for you, sir. If you have any other questions in the interim. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: I kind of have a question that sort of piggybacks off that and that was that -- that mixed use parcel on the corner there, is that going to get--will they get cross-access? I think the cross-access was lined up directly to where that shared driveway is. But correct me if I'm wrong there, Alan. Tiefenbach: No, they are not proposing access to that commercial lot. I would assume that they probably don't want to have cars driving in and out from the commercial off of Linder. They are providing cross-access to the subdivision to the west through West Woodpine Street and I believe ACHD was okay with that. I'm -- go ahead. Cassinelli: Is that going to be an issue, though, down the road in trying to develop that commercial piece on the corner without -- without proper cross-access? Tiefenbach: Again, ACHD didn't have any concerns with that. The applicant has not proposed that. But I think -- we wouldn't really want to see cut through traffic coming through it. Right now it's zoned for commercial. It's not zoned for mixed use. If -- if townhouses or apartments went in there that certainly, I guess, there could be some -- some need perhaps for access, but if this is commercial it could serve as a cut through there. So, no, staff has not -- I'm not sure if I have a very good answer for that, other than staff has not perceived that for that particular reason. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Bill, go ahead. Parsons: Yeah. I can elaborate on that a little bit for Commissioner Cassinelli. When we first started pre-app'ing with this applicant we had entertained the thought of maybe having some cross-access or at least a stub street to that property. Given the proximity to that intersection and the fact that, you know, as Alan alluded to, we didn't want to funnel commercial traffic in front of all of those homes to get them out to Ustick. So, we agreed to work with the applicant and have them at least stub a pedestrian connection and that's what you see on the north side of that common drive that's currently located in the southwest corner. Where I think some of that interconnectivity is going to be coming from Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F20 Page 16 of 38 is this project does connect into Eddington Place. If you recall we did require a stub street as part of that project that does drop down into the commercial. So, yes, if there is commercial that goes on that corner they may have to go out to Ustick to get access to it or they could use that local street network and drive a little bit out of their way and go through the adjacent residential to the west to make that happen. But anything that goes on that corner I think is going to be a challenge and we just didn't want to burden this residential project with all of that commercial activity. So, essentially, staff made a concession, along with our partner ACHD, to allow a pedestrian only connection and at this point we don't know what's going to happen on that corner. It could be more residential. It could be commercial. As we discussed a few years ago, we all know there is a concept plan that shows all commercial on this site, but staff has met with a potential developer who is thinking about self storage and a commercial pad at the corner. So, if self storage goes on this it's more likely not going to get that interconnectivity that we desire, but it made sense to at least get a ped connection at this point. I don't -- I don't know what the long-term effects will be on that, but I think from -- I think when we went through that exercise of townhomes or four-plexes developing on that site and having a token commercial we will all agree it's just a tough corner. We just don't know at this point what's going to go on there. It may have a residential component with a small commercial aspect to it,just --just don't know at this point. But more than likely there may be another access granted to that piece off of Ustick in the future, at least a right-in, right-out only. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Tiefenbach: I was going to -- sorry, Commissioner Holland. Holland: Go ahead, Alan. Tiefenbach: I was going to follow up -- I was going to follow up on the question in regard to the open space and the existing properties to the east. If you can see -- can you see that colored drawing that I have right now? This is a track that's owned by the HOA. So, this will be a track that's owned by the HOA of this particular development. This in here is a track that's owned by the existing HOA and, then, beyond that track are the backyards of houses. So, it won't be directly backing to the houses, it will be backing to the track of the HOA of what that ditch and that pathway runs through. Seal: A follow-up question to that. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal. The -- so, the houses that backup to that, they have the visibility fence requirement; is that correct? The houses that are going in with this development would have the requirement. Correct. It would have to be either an open style fence, which would be -- open style or four feet opaque with two feet of lattice on top. I can't speak for the fences on the other side. I'm pretty sure that they are solid, but I don't know that for a fact. But, yes, correct, they would have to have -- for CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, they would have to have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F21 Page 17 of 38 visible fencing for that path. Parsons: Mr. Chair? I did the site inspection for that subdivision. Right on that east boundary there is four foot fencing along that -- that pathway in Woodburn West. Fitzgerald: You said four foot fencing? Parsons: Four foot solid fencing. Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Seal, did you have follow up there? Seal: No. Thank you for specifying that, Bill. That's -- I'm just trying to get -- it -- it's kind of boxed in back there, it creates a little private area that's -- would be kind of hard to monitor what was going on back there. So, knowing that that's open on the backside -- or to the east of it, I guess, would make that a moot point. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have any follow up on your question? Cassinelli: No, other than -- I mean I can address it once we -- once we close it. My concern there is -- is that piece to the -- directly to the west that's commercial, we have had so much problem with it and, then, cutting out. I know originally we had talked about -- you know, had that gone in first there would have been cross-access through there and now it's going to make that piece even more difficult to develop. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: My comments and question for staff are along that same lines that Commissioner Cassinelli just shared, too. I -- of all the projects we have looked at on this commission -- and we have looked at a lot -- this corner is the one that's giving me the most heartburn as a commissioner. We have looked at so many different projects and potentials for that -- that commercial piece and I really wish we had spent more time looking at it when we were doing the comp plan process, because I think we should have expanded the amount of commercial required there, because it's going to be a tough piece to fill, unless you just do something like storage and we have already approved a lot of storage on this corner. So, I would hate to see that happen there, because I think we have -- the northwest corner of Ustick and Linder also approved for a storage project. So, I would hate for it to be storage corner, because it's a great walkable corner with a lot of residential nearby, so it's just -- I don't know if there is -- I mean it's in the future use map it's medium density residential, but I don't know if-- if staff has any -- if they had any conversations with the applicant or if the applicant would be willing to entertain doing anything different -- adding some commercial components to their frontage there. That would make me feel a lot better if there was a possibility of doing that, so we would make that piece viable. But, again, that's redesigning an entire site plan. So, it's -- it's a tough piece, because I feel like while we are trying to follow what the future use map shows, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F22 Page 18 of 38 which is for medium density residential, we also try to make sure that the comp plan comes together in a way that supports overall development and I think by approving this -- and I had the same concern with the development that was to the north of that commercial parcel that we -- that went through the process, that by putting both of those first we box in that commercial piece and it's going to become unusable and becomes something that's not in the best interest of the city. So, that's my concern. I don't know if staff has any other comments about that. I don't know if we can make a request to have a better mixed use piece there that ties in with it, but I'm struggling with it just as much as Commissioner Cassinelli is. Fitzgerald: But you said it more eloquently. Tiefenbach: I don't think I can't add anything that -- that Bill has already -- hasn't already said. I mean it would certainly require a complete redesign, a whole new project for them. I don't think the applicant is proposing to do that. I would defer to them at this point to see if they really wanted to look at that. I'm reviewing the project based on what they gave us. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, I -- I think you bring up the same points I brought up back when we were looking at that four-plex on this site and, then, when Delano --or Eddington Place came in and itjust-- unfortunately I think we all wanted that mixed use to float either to the north or -- or to the east to try to blend in the commercial a little bit better with the surrounding residential uses. Unfortunately, the applicant that had a four-plex project, he just could not get all the parties to work together and have that come to fruition, because I think -- if I remember correctly this body wanted some of that commercial to float up along the Linder frontage and now we have kind of -- that -- that ship has sailed. We have approved a residential subdivision that butts up -- right up against C-C zoned property. I would share with the Commission that at least on the northwest corner, that storage facility is not moving forward. That gentleman never executed the development agreement and, therefore, it never gained any traction. So, it's still technically on the books approved for commercial across the street. It doesn't solve this problem, but rest assured I don't -- I think we are with you, we don't want to see -- for lack of a better term -- storage alley either on those two corners, because I think we want to have some of that walkability and some of that neighborhood serving commercial, because we are -- we have lost so much at the half mile even farther to the east. We want to preserve that. We do have a plan in the books with a development agreement that shows access coming off of Ustick and Linder for that site. So, although it may not mesh one hundred percent with these two developments, there is still something in a development agreement that -- at least that property owner is vested with and will have to come back and either develop it that way or work with the adjacent property owners to do that. But I'm -- I'm with Alan, let's -- let's get through our portion and let's open it up for the applicant and -- and see what they are willing to do and see if they are willing to make some kind of concession to either convert that common drive to a public street and -- and stub a street there. I mean that's certainly within your purview if you want that connectivity. I can assure you I have had these conversations with them and trying to figure out how we could better integrate that and, you are right, it doesn't always work to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F23 Page 19 of 38 have commercial directly integrating with a residential subdivision. Typically you have a -- a different zone or a different -- a higher density project to transition away from -- transition with. But, anyways, I -- that's -- there is my feedback. I'm certainly open to whatever the commission wants -- Fitzgerald: Hey, Bill -- Parsons: -- staff to look at or if the applicant is willing to make some minor -- minor changes. Fitzgerald: Just -- I want to make sure we are real clear, because the -- so, the northwest corner cannot proceed forward with a project without coming back before us; is that correct? They can't put storage up without coming back through us; correct? Parsons: You mean the -- Fitzgerald: The last -- I want to -- I want to understand that -- what you just said -- Parsons: Yeah. If they wanted storage they would need to do another DA mod and go through the Council and, then, come back to this body with a conditional use, just like the C-C that's adjacent to this property. Storage is a conditional use permit. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: So, it's not -- it's not by right, they still -- there is still a public hearing involved and they would have to modify their DA as well, because the -- the original -- a DA that was approved for that site in 2014 showed three commercial pad sites -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: -- on that corner. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: That makes me really happy, because I hated storage on that corner. I think I -- I don't know if I -- I think I was chair, so I didn't vote, but I was like, please, God, no. So, that makes me happy. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, ma'am. Holland: I would echo that, Mr. Chair. It kept me up all night for sure. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: Well, the other -- the other thing we tried to get the applicant to do was have a shared access to Ustick on their -- their west boundary -- shared with that commercial so it would not go through the residential, but it would just be used --almost like the Maverick on McMillan and Locust Grove where they built that road into the commercial and you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F24 Page 20 of 38 had the residential on one side and you turn into the commercial on the other side. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: That's something, again, the applicant could pursue with ACHD. I'm not sure if they are going to support that, given the offset of those access points onto Ustick. It just doesn't meet any of their policies. But those are conversations that we definitely had with them as well. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Holland: My follow-up question is are we still having active conversations with anyone on that commercial C-C parcel? Parsons: Again, the last pre-app we had was several months ago and it showed a multi- tenant building on the corner and, then, some storage that wrapped around that and we told them -- we had talked with the applicant about this project, because I -- it was in the process and we told them at a minimum you are going to need to provide pedestrian connection to that neighborhood and, then, figure out how to bring that other street into the -- that stub to your north boundary into the site and provide that connectivity. We told him we would entertain a small segment of storage. It couldn't all be storage, but if -- if they wanted to create a buffer from the multi-tenant building and maybe develop the northern half with some flex buildings and some self storage to go along with that we could be supportive of that, but they really needed to work with ACHD on access and try to integrate with the surrounding development as far as architectural style and walkability and even to that point of some kind of access or connectivity to one of the neighborhoods. So, it is somewhat consistent with our mixed use standards. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate it. No more questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. That was hugely helpful. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you get all your questions squared away? Cassinelli: Yeah. Yeah. I'm good. Fitzgerald: Cool. Okay. Any other questions for anybody right now? If not we will bring up the -- or Mr. Erickson take over and hear from the applicant. Ross, are you with us? I think? Maybe? Erickson: Can you guys hear me? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go right ahead. Erickson: So, I believe, actually, Tim Mokwa had a presentation prepared for this product. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F25] Page 21 of 38 He was more of the resource for technical or engineering questions, so -- Fitzgerald: Tim, are you available? Mokwa: I am available. Can you hear me okay? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Please state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, sir. Mokwa: Okay. Thank you. This is Tim Mokwa with Hayden Homes. 1406 North Main Street, Suite 109, Meridian. 83642. And what I'm trying to do is share my screen. Can you see the little cover page of a PowerPoint there? Fitzgerald: We got you. Mokwa: So, I will try to be brief. I suspect there is going to be more question -- more value in question and answer than there would be in a long drawn out presentation and I think Alan did a good job of covering the project and the staff report is very detailed as well. So, as was mentioned we are proposing an annexation with a zone of R-8. This property is an in-fill parcel surrounded by R-8, as well as the R-15 Eddington, and, then, the project -- the parcel we have been talking about here at the corner. I have had conversations -- it was probably around the same time that this potential applicant was meeting with staff for a pre-app and they -- we did discuss the potential for cross-access here, as well as a potential shared access on the property line. They were opposed to that and we were opposed to that as well. This is a seven and a half acre site that we are working with and to introduce potential storage unit traffic through here or commercial that we have no idea what it's going to be, it just doesn't seem like this seven and a half acre residential site is a contiguous -- or a consistent use with that commercial at that corner. They do have an access from Eddington Common -- Commons that was approved and it's up here and we are providing a interconnectivity with Eddington as well. There is also a -- and I know -- you know, I don't know the details of this, but there is a Ustick Road north -- the north boundary or north improvements there is a curb cut to this existing parcel. I don't know that ACHD would stand by that, depending on -- I guess on what the use and what the site layout look like. I'm jumping around here. I'm trying to think of what questions were asked. Let me -- let me get back on point here. So, we are proposing 46 building lots in here, eight common area lots. Our average lot size is 4,236 square feet. We did work with staff. We revised this area quite a bit. Can you see my cursor? Okay. So, we have revised this area quite a bit to make this a larger central play area. Originally we had our -- had a play area down here, which was about the size of one lot. So, we have -- we have consolidate -- consolidated that into a more central area. I wanted to talk just briefly about some of the communication that we have had with our -- our neighbors, particularly the neighbor to the -- the neighbor to the north. This is going to remain a county RUT parcel and, then, the neighbors to the east of us -- this existing Woodburn Subdivision. So, with the owners of the north, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, we had several meetings and eventually became to some agreements here. Staff mentioned that there is an existing access easement that runs right -- roughly right through the center of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F26 Page 22 of 38 the site and tied into his driveway access right here. This access -- we believe that we have the right to vacate and access as long as we are not land locking him and we are providing him some public right of way access to his property. You know, we -- we had a little bit of a difference of opinion initially, but we were able to work through some of those issues and come to an agreement that he would not challenge vacation of this easement provided we met a couple of conditions, specifically that we locate this Llama Way stub at the location that currently meets his access point to his property. The reason that that was important -- it saved a berm and some landscaping along this boundary and it just worked well with the way his property is currently set up. We also agreed with him that we would -- which we are going to be required to by code anyway, but that we would install this six foot solid vinyl fence prior to doing any home construction. We -- there is an existing large -- I would say it's at least 20 -- maybe 30 inch caliper or more willow tree that's a quality tree on his property, but we agreed to hold our house back and our fence back, so that we can create an easement on this Lot 5 of Block 2 to protect the root zone of that tree and, then, lastly, we agreed that Lots 2 through 5 would be limited to single story to prevent some of the impacts on his adjacent property. So, that was one of the areas. The other one was with work -- in working with the HOA management people for the Woodburn Subdivision. They were in agreement if you -- if you follow this tree line there is an existing ditch there that is a -- it's just kind of a skunky stagnant water ditch with a lot of volunteer overgrown shrubbery. It's in both of our interest to clean that area up. So, our -- our proposal to them was that we would remove this existing -- there is -- they had fencing along their back -- their lot, as Bill mentioned, but there is an existing chain link on the east side of this ditch as well. So, we would remove that. We would tile that ditch and fill it in and, then, landscape this area, including even -- even a little on their side where we are, you know, having to fill in that ditch and I think it makes for a much better landscaped common area and appearance from both subdivisions. One of the factors, though, was that Bill -- Bill or Alan mentioned there is a lot of existing trees along here. Many of them are dead within the ditch itself, so we -- I met with the forester out there. Matt went through and flagged up all of the existing trees that are worth saving and so we surveyed those in and when we are doing our design for the tiling of this ditch we are going to save as many of those as we can and where we can't we will -- or per what staff mentioned here -- as Matt mentioned here, this 346 inches of tree mitigation required, that would be required if we removed every one of those trees that he flagged up. Our intent is to save as many of those as we can. So, anyway, back to the overall. You know, there is really not a lot that I wanted to add beyond --you know, we are meeting the comp plan. The six units per acre seems to be a good transition from the higher density of the Eddington to the R-8 here. We have met the city's requirements for -- and exceeded the city's requirements for common area and amenities and qualified open space. But I guess I would just be happy to answer your questions, if I can expand on some of that a little bit. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tim. We appreciate it. And we appreciate the efforts to work with the neighbors and bring that into -- and that's not always an easy thing. So, thank you for that. Any questions for Tim at this time? Tiefenbach: Mr. Chair, this is Alan. Staff. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F27 Page 23 of 38 Fitzgerald: Go ahead. Tiefenbach: Sorry to interrupt. I wanted to note that this is the first time we have been told about the agreement with the applicant and the homeowner regarding the one story requirement on the north side and the fencing. I think it's important that that be added to the DA if -- if we are going to go forward with that. If -- we don't have that in the DA or the conditions of approval and that doesn't exist, because we have not heard this before. Fitzgerald: Got it. Thanks, Alan. And, Tim, you're -- you're fine with adding to the DA? Mokwa: I would be happy to add that to the DA, because we are required to do that as part of our agreement that both us and the neighbor to the north signed. So, yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant on -- especially the commercial questions you had. Anybody want to discuss that with -- with Tim at this point? Commissioner Holland or Commissioner Cassinelli, do you guys have a question? Cassinelli: No. I'm good. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland? Mokwa: Could I add one more point? Fitzgerald: Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Tim. Mokwa: Okay. I just wanted to tell you -- back to this issue about an additional access or making this a vehicular. I -- you know, I have worked on a lot of projects. This is a seven acre site with five access points right now. So, I think -- I think the amount of interconnectivity that we are already providing, both, you know, vehicular and pedestrian is -- it's pretty high for a site -- in-fill site this small. So, I hope you will take that into consideration when -- if you are considering asking for another access point here. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: Mr. Chair, I -- Tim, I think you heard some of my comments before we -- we listened to yours and I appreciate that this is a -- it's a tough site and I know you guys -- you guys create great product. I have seen some of your product where it does interface with commercial in some other neighborhoods that you guys have developed, too, and I wish that there was a win-win here and I know that it's -- it's not your responsibility to develop that site that's adjacent to you, but I'm still trying to figure out a way that we can help make it successful in the future. I would hate to see storage be on a hard corner. I think this commission in general has that comment every time there is a storage facility that comes in on a hard corner. So, I think it would be our hope that whatever comes forward we might push back to have maybe some sort of office use or something that's maybe not a retail use that has a lot of traffic going through it, but maybe there is some Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F28] Page 24 of 38 sort of win-win in how we can develop that to be -- you know, maybe it's a hair salon type thing or it's a doctor's office, dentist, those kind of things that could go in there. Some of that kind of neighborhood commercial. But I -- I still don't like the -- even if that doesn't go through, having a shared drive kind of going in there, where it could have been a full access going through, it -- it's still a tough layout for me just in that piece and I don't know if there is anything we can do to make a compromise that would give a little more visibility there and I understand your comment about having five access points and certainly don't want to make you have another one, but I would sure like to see that road go through, even if it was -- I don't know exactly how we can change it, but I just don't want to pigeon hole that other commercial development so they can't develop it as anything but storage. Mokwa: Yeah. I don't -- I don't know what I can say. I mean I really -- I mean we would -- we would certainly consider if it's -- if it's a condition of getting our project approved. I -- I really don't like it for--for our purposes, which is what I have got to be concerned with. I -- you know, I -- I understand where you are coming from and I -- I definitely can see your point. Part of why we put the shared driveway with the pedestrian pathway there, because we thought that having the pedestrian connection to an -- to an ultimate commercial, hopefully, was a good, you know, interconnectivity. But just the -- just the idea of inviting additional commercial traffic through this small area, I just -- I have my reservations. So, I'm sorry, I don't know what to propose to -- to help there. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead if you have follow up. Holland: That's all I have got for now. I just wanted to make those comments. Fitzgerald: Okay. Holland: Thanks, Tim. Mokwa: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Tim? Okay. Tim, we will come back to you in a minute after we take any public testimony and let you close. Mokwa: Okay. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone in the audience or online that would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do have one person signed in wishing to testify and he's here in house with us and that's Rick Wagner. Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Wagner, if you will come and join us at the podium, please, sir. And, please, give us your name and your address and the floor is yours when you are ready, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F29 Page 25 of 38 Wagner: My name is Rick Wagner. I live at 1250 West Ustick and I have the property to the east of this development. I have two concerns. One of them is that I noticed that one road is going to go -- it looks like it's going to go right through my house when they extend it. That one. Right there. Yes. And so I would like, you know, a barrier along that whole property line. Vinyl six foot solid fence. I get enough problems with the subdivision to the north. They use my property as a thoroughfare to Ustick. So, I would like something to stop that from your subdivision. The other thing is that there is a ditch in the front that runs along Ustick. It's a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation ditch. I use that for flood irrigation on my property. I know that the City of Meridian is going to require pressurized irrigation. I got a question. What's going to happen to my ditch? That's two things I have got. Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Wagner, we will make sure that Tim clarifies that when he -- when he closes, but I know that they have to keep your water -- they have to keep your access to your water, so that -- that will be maintained no matter what. That's a requirement of development. So, we will make sure that that -- and Tim can talk about that, but we will make sure you are covered on the water side, because that's a requirement. They have to make sure your ditch rights and your water rights are maintained. Wagner: Thank you. How about a fence? Fitzgerald: Let me let Tim talk about that. If you want to take a seat I will have him close, if he's willing to take that on. But I know there will be a sign that stubs -- at least a barrier of some kind, but I will let him do that when he closes. Wagner: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Wagner. We appreciate you being here tonight. I don't see any other attendees. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else who would like to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I don't have anymore information on anybody wishing to testify. Fitzgerald: Tim, do you want to answer Mr. Wagner's question and, then, close when you have a chance? Mokwa: Certainly. So, first on the fence we would install a six foot solid vinyl fence along this entire common property line, including across the stub street and the barricade or the standard ACHD -- this road is intended to be extended in the future sign would be mounted on that six foot vinyl. So, sometimes you will see where they will -- they will put the vinyl fence along the property line and leave this gap open. We will fence right -- right across the road. So, this entire property will be separated by that. Secondly, my answer on the irrigation would be the same as yours, Mr. Chairman, is that per Idaho Code we are required to -- you know, we can't impede anyone's water right or their ability to drain their -- their flood irrigation water. So, if that's what's happening along the ditch along Ustick Road now, we are required by Idaho Code to maintain that. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, sir. Do you want to close? Any further comments? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F30 Page 26 of 38 Mokwa: No. Just that, you know, we -- we have taken quite a while to get here to this point. You know, this -- this -- discussions with the property owner to the north and the access to Ustick and the alignment here, I mean we have had so many meetings and conversations with ACHD and a couple with Meridian staff. That all evolved from our discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to the north and I think we were able to come to a solution that they were happy with or at least -- I mean their preference would be that this would stay an open field, but in the absence of that I think they are happy with the solutions that we worked out and we tried to be accommodating with them. ACHD was happy with our access plan here in that, you know, there is an existing 11 th Street, I believe it is, that -- that borders Mr. Wagner's property over on the east side of his property. That's what drove this stub street connection here, is that that, then, provides an opportunity for, you know, cross-access with this piece, should it ever redevelop, and our property to a one safer aligned intersection on Ustick Road. So, those were some of the -- some of the things that led to the sign that you are looking at tonight and so, you know, is it perfect? Probably not, but we tried to be as accommodating as we can and also to do what we feel like is going to be a good project. So, with that I -- I'm done. Fitzgerald: Thank, Tim. We appreciate it. Further questions for Tim at this point? Okay. Hearing no further questions, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. McCarvel: Alan, can we get that one picture back up on how this connects to everything around it? Tiefenbach: Which -- McCarvel: You had a good -- you had a picture during your presentation. Tiefenbach: Oh, let's take a look here. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F31 Page 27 of 38 McCarvel: Okay. Seal: I think it was GIS data. McCarvel: And while you are looking for that -- Tiefenbach: Yeah. Oh, was it? Bill, can you bring that up? Because I can't do that from my end here. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: It might have been the one from the applicant. Tiefenbach: Bill -- Bill, I can't get to the computer at work from where I am right here, I will have Bill share it. Parsons: Yeah. It was the applicant's presentation. McCarvel: Oh, was it? Okay. Parsons: So, you can -- you can give him the right and he can probably just bring it back up. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: I noticed that, too. I was like that's a great graphic. I wish I had that in my presentation. And it does -- it does show how it interconnects with all the adjacent properties -- McCarvel: Yeah. Parsons: -- and what's happening in the area. I think that's critical for you all tonight. McCarvel: Yeah. And -- Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, can you bring Tim back into the panelist side, so we can ask him to -- Parsons: Bring up his presentation. Fitzgerald: -- bring up his presentation again. Seal: She had to step out for just a second, so as soon as she comes back in I will let her know. Fitzgerald: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F32 Page 28 of 38 McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, do you want to go right ahead with your comments. McCarvel: Yeah. In the meantime, yeah, we can take a look at how that all connects again. But, otherwise, I really appreciate this applicant working so well with the neighbors and going the extra mile and some of those details. Of course, I always like to see a little bit bigger corner lots, instead of those common drives, but for a small site I think there is a lot to like about what they have done with the pathways connecting to the subdivision to the east and just in general keeping that open space more centralized and utilizing that well. Yeah. I don't think we have ever seen a seven acre site with five accesses. So, yeah, I mean in general we like it. I -- I like it. But, yeah, if we can -- if -- I guess this is our one stab to see if there is anything that can be done with the site to the west on the corner, but, then, again, it's not this applicant's problem to solve, unless it -- you know, there is something that makes sense. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm kind of-- I have a tough time with this one, because I -- I think there is -- we are asking a lot of the applicant. I remember one day when I was on the other side of the dais where I am now when we were asked to masterplan a giant, you know, section around us and after spending all that money and doing that it was denied anyway. I understand the desire to not pigeonhole one square, but we are putting the -- that onus on the applicant and I think that's -- that could be a little bit brutal. But I know that -- that's where it's never going to be easy. It's not now or will it be in the future, whether we have cross-access or not, just because of the way it runs and there is a giant lateral that runs through it. So, I -- and I think we got to be --we got to be cautious about how we approach this, because I mean there are small businesses, like little coffee shops or some that can use -- that don't have a ton of traffic, but I -- I understand that we have looked at this corner 40 times, so -- and I think we asked Steve Arnold to redesign it four times. So, I get the concerns, because I think they are all there. But I do like the effort that -- that they have put into making this work and I know the -- especially the RUT piece to the north, we have heard from that homeowner several times in different applications and I appreciate that -- the work that went into doing that. They are making it so it would work for his family, so it's tough. It's not an easy one for me either. And it is -- it does meet the comp plan and the zoning currently, which is another piece I have to wrestle with. So, Commissioner Holland, you came off of mute. Go right ahead, ma'am. Holland: I did. I still struggle. I -- I like the idea of being able to have a shared access road that would divide these two, because I think that would fix some of the problems for me, too, but that would be redesigning their site plan and I know that they weren't in favor of that option. Because I think it does work really well. I have seen it in a couple places. There is a spot on Linder and McMillan I want to say that they have something like that, too, where residential is on one side and commercial is on the other side of a road and it works really nicely there. I wish that that was something that we could have them look at. I understand their concern, too, about having another access point that comes through their neighborhood, because people would probably float through there. I just hate seeing it blocked off there. So, I'm still struggling with it. I don't know what else we can do there, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F33 Page 29 of 38 but my -- my preference would be to -- my number one preference, if we had the ability to have them do it, would be to have that shared access road that would divide this property line, because I think that would make a big difference. But I don't know if that's something that this commission would like to look into, because that would mean that they would have to redesign their plan again. I don't know if that's helpful. I -- I do appreciate what they -- what they have put forward. I think it's -- if you are just looking at the site by itself it's not a bad development. I know the product type looks good. It will match with what Eddington Commons does and it's such a good transition from Woodburn. It's just a tough -- I hate that it's -- it's tough in the regional perspective of what it's going to do for what's around it. I wish the other piece was done first. Fitzgerald: Or master planned into it and I -- I know it's really hard to do that. And we have asked everybody to try that and it hasn't seemed to work. Holland: Yeah. I wish that they could come in together jointly with these projects. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, I know you popped off mute, sir. What do you have to say? Cassinelli: I kind of have a question and, first, let me say that I do like the project. For an in-fill I'm happy with the R-8, that's it's not R-15, that we are not -- you know, I like the layout. Their product is -- their product regionally is -- is good. I'm happy with all that and -- and I -- you know, I -- I sympathize with them with -- with five access points there that's a -- that's a ton for -- for seven acres. But I have got a question for staff. I just want to pose this. Either for Bill or Alan. If that commercial would have developed first -- and I know it's not, but had that developed first with a cross-access point to the -- going -- going towards this -- this parcel, would there be a requirement for this developer to line up with that and to -- to make that happen? Tiefenbach: This is Alan Tiefenbach. If there was already an access that was required we would make them line up for it. The thing is it's not going to meet -- first of all, it's not going to meet ACHD spacing requirements. They are going to have an issue with that and it just depends on what kind of commercial development it is, because depending on what it is they wouldn't want that cross-through traffic. So, yes, if there was one already approved they would have to line up with it, but I'm not sure ACHD would support additional accesses coming through there. Bill, do you want to add anything? Parsons: I think you have it covered, Alan. I think -- when I'm looking at the -- so I'm looking at the approved concept plan and the development agreement for that piece that came in. It was called Sugarman and there was never a shared access on the property like we are talking about tonight. It goes back to almost what Tim's comment was where there is an existing curb cut already constructed out there and that's where they showed their access coming in from. And, then, they were tied into the property to the north. So, even on the approved concept plan it never contemplated anything to the west -- or the east of this -- this east boundary here. I'm going to look at some of the DA provisions and see if that was the case. But I -- I don't recall it being the case. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F34 Page 30 of 38 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have follow up there? Cassinelli: I did. For Bill or Alan. In previous talks with -- well, with a potential project there on that corner, is ACHD -- are they in agreement to keep that curb cut access there if there is not the cross-access, so at least that parcel would get a right-in, right-out off of Ustick? Parsons: Well, I'm looking -- well, that's -- that's a good question. It goes back to almost -- you know, like anything -- here is my experience with ACHD and these -- these access points. Sometimes as part of a road widening or intersection they will widen it and they will put the access points in. Sometimes they work with the property owner and they, basically, vest that property owner with those access points. Other times I have seen it where they have said, no, we reserve the right to remove it at any time when there is a conflict or depending on the use. So, I'm not sure if any of those agreements exist for this particular development. All I can do is go off the concept plan that we have approved as part of that development agreement. It shows a curb cut. It does say that direct -- so, I'm -- I'm quoting verbatim from the recorded development agreement for that commercial property. It says direct lot access to West Ustick Road and North Linder Road is prohibited, except for the access points approved with the plat. I can tell you the plat has expired. There is no longer a valid plat. Only the development agreement runs with the land currently. So, it says access to North Linder Road shall be restricted to right-in, right- out and -- only and access to Ustick Road shall be determined by ACHD. So, again, as determined by ACHD. So, they have the ability -- Fitzgerald: Hey, Bill? Parsons: -- to say no, they have the ability to say yes, just -- again, it's going back to -- it's contingent upon what -- when the actual development is proposed and right now all we have is a concept plan and zoning. Fitzgerald: So, looking at the -- at Google Maps, there is curb cuts on both sides. There is one on the north boundary on Linder and there is a Ustick curb cut and that's after they have widened both roads. Parsons: Yes. And that's consistent with the concept plan that's in the DA. Fitzgerald: So, I'm just -- just for informational purposes for the commission -- I don't know if we can bring up Google Maps. I have it open. Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm looking at it, too. Fitzgerald: So, there is curb cuts that are there and that's post widening. I would guess that that's where they go. But I understand the concerns. Parsons: And, then, I'm looking at the plat that's tied -- that was at one point valid and it showed those curb cuts were -- that's where the cross-access drives would come into the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F35] Page 31 of 38 development and serve of all those commercial lots. So, again, it's consistent to what the contract is currently on the property. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: While I don't want to pass the buck onto Council, we could always just make a note instead of requiring that they change it, that Council take serious consideration on whether or not they think there should be cross-access there and just make a note that it was a big concern of ours, but not condition it. I might be willing to do that as a compromise, because I don't know that I have got a good solution for them of how to fix that, but I would at least want Council to consider with the applicant whether or not they could do a shared access or have that common drive become a public drive through to give cross-connectivity. But I don't really want to condition it. I would just at least like Council to have that conversation with them and see what they think. I don't know if that makes a compromise, but -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: So, a few things. You know, reiterate a couple of things that were said earlier. You know, this is a lot of interconnectivity already for such a small piece, but, you know, in-fill is hard and I appreciate the work that they have done, especially in regards to working with the neighbors to address their concerns and really being thoughtful of making sure that their designs took those considerations and integrated them accordingly. I am lucky enough to not have been through some of the trauma that you guys have with this -- this particular area, so coming at it with, you know, a little bit naivete -- a little bit of -- whatever that -- Fitzgerald: We call it fresh eyes, Commissioner Grove. Fresh eyes. Grove: One thing that I'm looking at, though, is -- I like how -- I like this project and I like what they have done with it, you know, with the constraints that they have. With the commercial lot, that piece to the west that we are discussing, I understand what we are saying with creating that connectivity, but I'm somewhat of the mindset that I don't necessarily think that having that direct connectivity is the absolute best piece -- or best idea just in terms of-- there would still be connectivity to the north and --which allows the access back out to Linder to the north and, then, out to Ustick, you know, by going east and south, which creates a longer path, but I think that allows for that connectivity, but it's inconvenient enough for people that people wouldn't use it as much because people take the path of least resistance and so almost saying, yes, there is access there, but it's not direct access, so we are somewhat limiting it, because we are -- it's almost a traffic calming feature by not having direct access. So, that's my counter point. I don't know that it's valid necessarily, but that's just kind of how I'm looking at it, with not having been Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F36] Page 32 of 38 through what you guys have on -- on these other projects, so -- Fitzgerald: I appreciate that. I think that's -- fresh eyes are always helpful. Additional comments? Commissioner Yearsley, you came off mute. Yearsley: Oh, I -- I agree with Commissioner Grove not having dealt with it. On the -- on its own merits I think the subdivision looks good. I think they have done a decent job. You know, there is already two access points on that property already. So, I would be in favor of just moving it forward. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I think there is a lot of reasons to not have that cross -- cross-access into the commercial right in front of the residential there. I mean they -- they don't have to redesign the whole thing and I think -- yeah. On its own it's -- it looks good. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Yeah. Echoing a lot of what I have heard already, I like the piece as it -- as it stands. I mean they have worked really well with the neighbors. They interconnect really well. They provide an abundance of interconnectivity. I -- I do agree that it's very concerning that that commercial property doesn't have the cross-access happening to it out of this, but to land that burden on this project is -- is a little troublesome, too. So, I agree that we should maybe -- that we should put something in there for City Council, let them know it was a large issue for us, you know, in case they don't read through everything that has happened here tonight. I do imagine when we get to that -- the next application for that commercial piece of property we are all going to roll our eyes as it comes through, because it's -- it's a tough piece. I mean it really is. You know, I -- I have been here for one of the hearings on it. I was here for the storage that was approved across the street and that was very contentious as well. So, it's going to be a tough one. But as far as this project I'm very much in support of seeing it move forward. And with that I can take a crack at a motion, unless somebody wants to jump in. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Motions are always in order. Go right ahead. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2020-0112, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 7th, 2021, with the following modifications: That they strike recommendation 1-C. That they add agreements with the northern -- northern neighbors to the formal DA. That we ask City Council to consider cross-access to the commercial property to the west as it was a large concern for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F37 Page 33 of 38 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, is there a discussion about making sure that fence continues across the road for Mr. Wagner's -- or I mean Mr. Wagner's property? Would that be amenable to your motion? Seal: I think he addressed that, but if -- do we want to make that a formal recommendation? I mean I'm -- Fitzgerald: It's up to you. I think I would like to make sure that that gets somewhere in there, so we can ensure that that's blocked off. Seal: Okay. I will amend my -- my motion to include that a six foot fence is down across the eastern border of the property from the common area to the north all the way to Ustick Road. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0112. Any other further comments before we take a vote? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can -- can I just get a repeat of the language on the recommendation to Council regarding the cross-access? Seal: What I said was that we ask that City Council consider cross-access to the commercial property to the west, as it was a large concern for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any further comments? Seal: I'm just surprised I can read my own handwriting there. So, that's my only comment. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0112, Tetherow Crossing Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 3. Election of 2021 Commission Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Fitzgerald: Tim and -- we appreciate you being here tonight, sir. Ross, thanks for being here. We look forward to -- good luck on City Council and hope things go well. Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F38 Page 34 of 38 Last item on the agenda. I'm retiring, so thanks, team. It's been a blast. We have to make a formal discussion on who wants to take lead of the commission. It's been fun leading the crew and I'm retiring after next meeting, so, please, take over and our fearless attorney leader will be guiding us if there is any questions. But any comments or questions or thoughts on who would like to take on the role of chair first? Or vice-chair. I would entertain any comments or thoughts on either one of those. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Not it. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Not it. Fitzgerald: Okay. That -- that narrows it down. Commissioner McCarvel, you came off of mute. McCarvel: Mr. Chair, I nominate our Vice-Chair Lisa Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Well, I don't want to continue the trend of saying not it. I -- I will start with -- I am very grateful for the opportunity to have been vice-chair this year and I have really enjoyed the opportunity to fill in for a few meetings. With having a new little guy and having a lot of extra on my plate with trying to balance him, I think that this would be the year I would prefer not to be chair. I would be more than happy to consider being vice- chair again, if you would like -- would like me to fill in from time to time, but with the extra time commitment I think it would be a good year for someone else to have that opportunity, if that's all right. But I certainly appreciate the nomination, Commissioner McCarvel. I would return to say that I know Commissioner McCarvel has been chair in the past and has done a fabulous job and if she would be willing I would nominate her to be chair, since she's had experience and, again, if -- if anybody would like me to, I would be more than happy to continue serving as vice-chair, but I would also be happy to let someone else have that opportunity if they would like to. I know Commissioner Seal does an excellent job as motion maker, but I can certainly see you with an interest in potentially having that opportunity. So, I will leave that out there. But I certainly appreciate everybody on this commission and really enjoy the opportunity to still stay a part of all the discussions moving forward. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F39 Page 35 of 38 Cassinelli: I would -- Commissioner Seal as well. Fitzgerald: Commercial Seal or Commissioner Grove, any thoughts? Seal: Yeah. I'm -- I think it's something that in the future I would like to do. At this point I don't know -- I don't even know what the extra duties are, so -- and I don't know that I have the right cheat sheets to get by with the whole thing. So, yeah, I mean if it came down to that I would gladly serve and do it, but I don't know that I'm the best qualified person in this panel to -- to do that at this point. I'm still learning. Yearsley: I'm sure Ryan would hand you all his cheat sheets. Fitzgerald: I don't know about the cheat sheets, but the staff is awesome about meeting with you on Thursday afternoon and helping you get all the things you need, too, so -- but I also -- I understand having -- it was nice to serve as vice-chair first and, then, get to step in the chair. So, I -- I have been there as well. Commissioner Grove, any thoughts? Do you want to throw your hat in the ring or are you happy -- Grove: I do not. I can barely make a motion. Yearsley: Well, that's the great thing as chair, you don't have to make a motion. Fitzgerald: Exactly. Just hang out and watch. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove did not say not it. Grove: Not it. Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel, what's your thoughts? Would you -- you do -- are you ready again? McCarvel: I would do it if nobody else is going to -- Yearsley: I was going to say, be careful what you ask for. McCarvel: I know. Yeah. If Commissioner Seal would prefer to do vice for a while, I would do it and I'm sure there would be plenty of opportunities on my calendar for him to practice a few times. Fitzgerald: That almost sounded like a motion, but you can't motion yourself. McCarvel: No. No. No. Holland: Well, first of all, I will make a formal motion to appoint Commissioner McCarvel as chair for the 2021 year. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F40 Page 36 of 38 Seal: Second. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner McCarvel as the new chair for 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Congratulations. McCarvel: That is not the way I saw today going. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, you want to take over now or -- you want to do last motion? McCarvel: Well, I nominate -- are we -- we got to do vice? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. McCarvel: I'm thinking -- I would move that Commissioner Seal be vice-chair. Cassinelli: Second that. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner Seal as vice-chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Besides Commissioner Seal, you can't oppose yourself. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Holland: I will give you my cheat sheets, too, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Thank you. I appreciate that. Luckily, we live close. I can just walk over and say help me. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel has all the notes, too. She's good at that stuff. McCarvel: Yeah. Well, I don't have all the new stuff with all the Zoom technology. That's a different little spiel at the beginning. But, yeah, I would like to get some experience spread around here. Holland: I will send it out to everybody, so you all have it in case you want it. Cassinelli: Commissioner -- Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F41 Page 37 of 38 Cassinelli: How long have you served on the Commission? Fitzgerald: Five wonderful years. Cassinelli: And are you just retiring because it's been five wonderful years or do you have something big on your agenda that -- Fitzgerald: I have coaching baseball and being a helper in my -- my son's Scout troop. So, that's Thursday nights and that's where I told the Mayor I was reluctant to step off because I love doing this and I like working with you guys, but my kid is ten years old and he's getting bigger fast, so I'm going to go coach baseball and help him with Scouts. Cassinelli: Awesome. Seal: Very cool. Yearsley: Sounds like a great opportunity. Fitzgerald: I will miss you guys. It has been -- it has been an awesome ride. I saw Greg Wilson today and we were joking around, because he's like you made it the full five years, I'm so proud of you. Because he bailed on me, because we got sworn in together and he was giving me a bad time, but -- yeah. No, it's been a pleasure, guys. It's been fun. So, I will miss you. Maybe Commissioner Yearsley in a year or two, it's like get dragged back into this stuff. McCarvel: We will see you back in in a few years. Yearsley: Well, you know, it's kind of nice to know what's going on in the city. You know, for the last couple years I have been not -- not been in it. It's -- I was like, well, what's going on? What's this going in? So, it is nice to know what's going on. Fitzgerald: Totally agree. Totally agree. It's been cool to watch some of the things we have approved get built, too, so -- McCarvel: Yearsley is going to be a lifer. Holland: I almost nominated Commissioner Yearsley to be vice-chair just to keep him rooted in with us. McCarvel: Oh, that's a spectacular idea. Cassinelli: How quick he was in there with that not it. Fitzgerald: Well, thanks, team. I will be with you as a commissioner for one more meeting and, then, go from there. So, Madam Chair, it's all you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F42 Page 38 of 38 McCarvel: Well, would somebody like to make the last motion? Commissioner Fitzgerald? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded that we adjourn the meeting of -- what is today? January -- Fitzgerald: 7th. McCarvel: -- 7th. All those in favor. Any opposed? Meeting adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:41 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 1 21 �2021 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the December 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 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 2. Ll 14 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020- 0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Item 2. 115 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 1DAH0 DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for 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 and waive the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11-3A-13)to allow in a residential district for Poiema Calvary Chapel,Located at 3727 E.Lake Hazel Road in the R-15 Zoning District,by The Land Group,Inc. Case No(s).H-2020-0095 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: December 17,2020(Findings on January 7,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 17,2020, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 17,2020, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 17, 2020, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 17, 2020,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-7 84 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). Poiema Calvary Chapel CUP—H-2020-0095 Page 1 Item 2. ■ 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of December 17,2020,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17, 2020, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted.With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. 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 17,2020 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). Poiema Calvary Chapel CUP—H-2020-0095 Page 2 Item 2. F117 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the— 7th day of January ,2021. COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED_ AYE COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED AYE COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED AYE r an Fifigerald, Chairman Attest: 1DIOFNO SEAT. Chris Johnson,Ci lerk rr y r., a. 0 . Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: b-twDated: 1-7-2021 City Clerk's Officef IN CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDF,R CASE NO(S). Poiema Calvary Chapel CUP—H-2020-0095 Page 3 �tem2. Exhibit A F1181 STAFF REPORT C: E IDIAN -- 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 2. 119 1 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 2. 120 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 2. 121 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 2. F123] 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 2. F124] 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 2. ■ 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 2. F126] 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 2. ■ 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 2. ■ B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on December 17.2020.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subiect Conditional Use Permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Tamara Thompson,The Land Group: Daryl Zachman,Calvary Chapel Pastor b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Tamara Thompson and Daryl Zachman d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application. Joseph Dodson f Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The amount of parking available with each phase relative to the minimum required- b. Which direction the outdoor amphitheater is facing and how any amplified noise will be mitigated as requested by the Applicant. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 11 Item 2. F129] 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 2. F130] 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 2. ■ 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 2. ■ 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 2. ■ n C U) o / co / Y �1- m7T77II ❑J / r. 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 2. 134 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 I� T.' F 1 � 4�CHA ERY TREASURE VALLEY .....-,... 1 4�CHAPERY �`� � v s Page �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 �,: mid ........... .......... ...... ....... Avow 3 �ti CALVARY � Y 4�CHAPEL v TREASURE VAiLEY .a��,.�„ 3 _-- TRFASURE Page Item 2. 138 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 11-3B-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 2. F139] 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 11-513-617. 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 „lyei4 of Take 14azel to be r-eplaeed 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 i2 ineh diameter-,not a-a 9 ineh diamete as shev,%.We prefer-te have a mainline stub of serviee line (whiehever-is needed)to the f,twe ehtweh lot t elimin e eutting the new r-ead in the future.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 2. F140] 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 2. 141 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 2. F142] 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&r0o=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.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=214579&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/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; Commission 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-1 S 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, Commission finds 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.; Commission 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 2. F143] 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, Commission 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; Commission 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, Commission 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, Commission 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) Commission 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 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings Changes to Agenda: Item #4 – Vicenza North Subdivision – Application must be continued due to the site not being posted in accord with the UDC. 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 Continuation Summary of Request: See Memo sent to Commission by Staff. Original 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 January 7, 2021, 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 January 7, 2021, 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: Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) Application(s):  Annexation, zoning and preliminary plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 7.58 acres of land, zoned RUT in Unincorporated Ada County, located NE of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: West – C-C and R-15 (vacant and Edington Commons – approved in November), North - vacant unincorporated, East – R-8 (Woodburn West No 2 Subdivision), South – R-8 (Creason Creek Subdivision). History: There was a previous proposal to annex and rezone to R-8 to allow 35 single family lots in 2006. This was subsequently denied by the Council (AZ PP H-06-030). Significant reason was listed as “piecemeal development.” At the present, City property has been annexed south, east, and west of the property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Summary of Request: Proposal for annexation, rezoning to R-8, and preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and 8 common lots. Written Testimony: None Notes: Access Development proposes 5 points of access.  Three are stubs – W. Woodpine to the west into Edington Commons, one north and one eastern stub.  Two points of access are from existing streets – W. Woodpine St (Woodburn West Subdivision) and W. Ustick Rd.  Present access from W. Ustick Rd occurs at N. Llama Lane. th  N. Llama Ln will be closed and new access (NW 12 Dr) will occur slightly to the east.  ACHD supports this access because it will line up with an existing street and will slightly increase the intersection spacing from what presently exists.  W. Ustick is already improved with 5-travel lanes, bike lanes, vertical curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site.  The applicant will be required to construct all internal roads to the 33’ ACHD template.  5’ sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all internal streets.  One common driveway is proposed with this development. Open Space and Amenities  Development proposes 15.12% of open space.  This includes several small landscaped areas on either side of the northern stub, a 25’ buffer along W. Ustick Rd, several pathway common lots, a central open space, and landscaping at the northeast side of the property adjacent to the ditch.  13.46% of this space would meet the requirements for qualified open space. This includes the central park, ½ of the buffer, a pet amenity and seating area, and pathway connections to the existing pathway along the ditch.  One qualified site amenity is required.  Applicant proposes: o 33,457 sq. ft. central park with a playground and two pathway connections. o This meets the requirement for a minimum of 50’ x 100’ to be credited as qualified open space, a recreation amenity and the additional 20,000 sq. ft. required to be credited as an additional amenity. o The central park exceeds the minimum landscape requirements of one deciduous shade tree per eight thousand (8,000) square feet and lawn. It also contains two pathways that connect to an existing pathway along an existing ditch, and these two pathways are landscaped with at least 5’ landscaping on either side and 1 tree per 100 linear feet. o Because the pathways meet the landscaping requirements, are not required sidewalks and connect to existing pedestrian and bicycle routes outside of the development (pathway along the ditch), these pathways would be also be considered an amenity. Trees There are existing trees that meet the requirements for preservation or mitigation, particularly in the vicinity of the ditch at the northeast portion of the property. The City Arborist has noted he has had preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding which trees should be preserved versus may be removed, although staff as of yet has not received a tree mitigation plan. This will be required with the final plat. Building Elevations  The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project.  The single-family homes are depicted as two-story structures with two-car garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs, dormers, stone wainscoting, lap siding, exposed timber, and scalloped wood shingles.  Some of the houses will be very visible from W. Ustick Rd. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of the 2-story structures visible from W. Ustick Rd incorporate minimum articulation requirements. Corrections The applicant responded to staff that there are three items of the staff report that need clarification: 1. An existing access agreement has been recorded with the property at the north. This condition of the staff report is not necessary. 2. A condition regarding requiring re-routing existing water and sewer mains into the proposed roadway extensions of W. Oakcrest Dr. and N. Dixie Ave does not apply. 3. Fire comments state the project does not meet targeted goal of 80% or greater, but it should have said it does. Staff agrees with the applicant on all the proposed revisions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject annexation, zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions listed in the staff report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0112, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 7, 2021, 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-2020-0112,, as presented during the hearing on January 7, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0112 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 7, 2021 FLUM FLUM Proposal for annexation, rezoning to R8 common lots. 8, and preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and - The applicant responded to staff that there are three items of the staff report greater, but it should have said it does. Fire comments state the project does not meet targeted goal of 80% or 3.does not apply. into the proposed roadway extensions of W. Oakcrest Dr. and N. Dixie Ave routing existing water and sewer mains -A condition regarding requiring re2.north. This condition of the staff report is not necessary. been recorded with the property at the hasAn existing access agreement 1.that need clarification: Item 4. L144 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from December 15, 2020 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Application Requires Continuance 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. Item 4. F145] (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHG-. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 7, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from December 15, 2020 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Application Requires Continuance 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 Item 5. L146 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from December 17, 2020 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. Item 5. F147] (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 7, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from December 17, 2020 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- 1S (11.42 acres) zoning districts. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 1S.9S acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-1S zoning districts. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 13S residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-1S 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: January 07, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 i PROJECT NAME: Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) j 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 5. Mayor Robert E. Simison 148 E IDIAN.� City Council Members: =�� Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault D A H O Luke Cavener Liz Strader December 31, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Kent Brown, Kent Brown Planning FROM: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner RE: Mile High Pines Continuance (H-2020-0099) Dear Commissioners, Mile High Pines (H-2020-0099), was heard by Planning and Zoning Commission on December 17, 2020. At that hearing the Commission continued the project to the January 7, 2021 hearing date in order for the Applicant to address Staff s conditions of approval and revise relevant plans related to these conditions, especially those related to the utility easement within the private streets and the public sewer and water lines. Public Works has given Planning Staff a memorandum(part of the public record) outlining their preliminary support of the utility plans with an understanding that some minor aspects may change at the time of Final Plat submittal. Since the hearing, the Applicant has submitted revised plans to Planning Staff which has resulted in a number of recommended changes to the conditions of approval and development agreement. The revisions made by the Applicant have not changed any of the open space and parking counts in noticeable ways. Any updated numbers will be added to the staff report following the Commission's final recommendation to City Council to ensure transparency. Please refer to the attachments and subsequent bullet points below regarding the changes since the Commission hearing. The revised plans show the following changes made by the applicant based on the Commission's motion: • C-C zoning and preliminary plat now match—the Applicant added additional commercial lots to eliminate any split-zoning onsite. The C-C zoning is now Community Development Department - 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 - Fax 208-888-6854 - www.meridiancity.org Item 5. F149] approximately 4.5 acres and includes that area containing the clubhouse and vertically integrated structures. o The clubhouse can reside in either the R-15 or C-C zoning district and still maintain compliance with the UDC. There are leasable offices within the clubhouse for use by the residents. o Staff already has an existing condition to provide revised legal descriptions to reflect the revised zoning prior to the City Council hearing. • Applicant revised the 3-way intersection near the entrance into the development from Pine Avenue. There is no longer an awkward roundabout but instead, a"T-intersection." o Staff is unaware if this is a 3-way stop. It is presumed the north-south road is a through street and the bisecting east-west street must stop at this intersection. • Applicant has provided conceptual elevations for the commercial buildings along Ten Mile. o These elevations are conceptual only—each new commercial building is required to have a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review and each building will have to comply with both the Architectural Standards Manual and generally compliment the residential elevations at the time of those submittals. o In general, the elevations show the form and scale of the future commercial buildings as well as aim to carry over varying roof lines from the residential portion of the site. ■ Staff is recommending an additional Development Agreement Provision in line with the review of these elevations. The parameters of the Commission motion to continue and the revised plans have resulted in Staff modifying certain conditions, striking others, and adding an additional DA Provision. Staff recommends the following changes be made to the staff report by the Planning and Zoning Commission, noted with strikeout and underline changes below: • A.2—Keep as is because the Applicant has provided a new plat but the revised legal descriptions are still needed. • Strike condition A.3b—Ver-ify the submitted perking data noted on the "ConditiefU • Strike Conditions A.4a& 4b—a. The Landseape Galettlatiens/Requir-effients table in4ude the following: 1) the total linear-feet of all pathways and the r-e"ir-ed flumber-Of ntmil;er of trees per-UPC 11 3G 3E. b. Revise the landseape plans te add a 5 feet wide landseape bttffer-along both sides eff the pathways leeated along the perimeter-of the site (ineluding the multi use pail • Strike Condition A.6 and all subsequent sub-conditions—The Appheant shall revise all appropriate plans to eemply with the following ehanges to the site layou4 at least ten-(44) days prior-to the City Getmeil hear-in-,—, • Strike Condition A.7 - , the ApplieapA shall obtain P41ie WoFks appr-oval of their-titility plan to ens I -71 Rons r-equir-ed to the over-all site design ean be analyzed by Planning Staff for-eemplianee thUPC. 2 Item 5. F-15o] • Strike Condition A.11 —At least ten (10 days prior-to the City Couneil hearing, the Appheant shall revise the proposed 3 way intefaal inter-seetien between the r-esiden and eemmer-eial area in the neAheast pot4ien of the site and submit the r-elevafvt r-evised plans te Planning Staffi. The Appheant shettid work with all r-eleva*t depaftmefAs to • Modify Condition A.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 each commercial site. • Strike Condition A.14—The Appliean4 shall provide ^ eptu ' elevations for-the proposed ee er-eial Wildings at least ten(10) days pr-ier-te the City Getmeil hearing.- • Modify Condition A.15 —The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for the entire applicable within the R-15 and C-C zoning districts)portion of the subject site prior to applying for any building permit in either zoningdi strict. • Modify Condition B.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 reeer- led approved, prior to applying for building permits. • Add DA Provision—"Future Commercial elevations shall be generally consistent with the submitted concept elevations in size, form, scale, and roof lines; at a minimum, future commercial buildings on this site shall have at least one (1) field material and color that matches the residential portion of the site." Exhibits: A. Revised Preliminary Plat B. Revised Conditional Use Plan(site plan) C. Revised Conceptual Engineering Plan D. Revised Landscape Rendering E. Conceptual Commercial Elevations 3 Item 5. ■ A. Revised Preliminary Plat 5€ y €g gd , i1�( �.�8g s -11 �/ �j i vv � \ 1 - / 5 In z i — -_— — III If � o s .'CW ail Hoo .13r1. -"��$- ,a II PR ELI NA 1InEA RY P LAT p �y�.. a 'e> Ilry Fnglneedng,Inc, MILE HIGH PINES SU BDIVI SIGN - ' BARON PROPERTIES LLC =3 l QrilEnememinulPwnnmFiCAou rry. 4 Item 5. F152] B. Revised Conditional Use Plan(Site Plan) 11; I I I III I I g I f s -- �/ 'vim � �-1 �I �� • �'II'i I 3 \ r \ ��\ \9/: \/\ �� \ � • 4 ��ICI fill ..I a a �� ITM III II } y — � I, �1.01 — 1: a ,. � �If III I � i I r - _ \ � x. --- - - --_ n .is° as dI> x H o e 19 �' h7 _ CONDITIONAL USE PLAN A s hey Engineering,Inc. vE yam, cnou MODERN CRA ILE FTSMAN AT TEN M N =��,,��,� Cini Ensmemixsl�x+xixsl m BARON PROPERTIES LLC 5 Item 5. ■ C. Revised Conceptual Engineering Plan LE r �, �II�R& 17 ' � _� �\� /.✓/ � �� ICI � � P r� I v�.4 � I II A , Illy r�Lj l III 0� J I I � �,_ ✓ Fri � �,„� I �a a O mm W�54hcg��� � E A � o CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLAN x I. _ z ��° Iley En@neeAng,Inc. Q MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE 'n may`r Crm Exorn[wrnol7unnluolCAU� r.^ E3ARON PROPERTIES LLC 6 Item 5. F154] D. Revised Landscape Rendering I� FnvnP� q / c � iuuous I i .a s\ - -* II. MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE `R ENS"TNr �ECEMBER 30,2010 - JENSEN6ELT5 MERIDIAN, ID CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN 7 Item 5. F155] E. Conceptual Commercial Elevations (Concept Only) BARON 9w TEN MILE & PINE AHCHiTECT6, LI�AkT EP�� SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS Aa W _ BARON TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS ` XUIL COFFEE HOUSE 8 Item 5. Fl 56 BARON TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS imp r BARON TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS 74 9 Item 5. Fl 57 BARON TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS BARON TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS JI? 10 Item 5. Fl 58 BARON TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS ow .,. BARON TEN MILE & PINE dACK„FiB „.wrEa. SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS J• 3 _ 11 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. F160] 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. 161 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. 162 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 1 1 1 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 1■rlll 11111111111111111111111 ,� I - - .k" �,k�. - - z W �.. W -- D - FRANKLIN — - • - 1' 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 ■son n Olson so _:nuonnn■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■•: 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 �_—■■■■•111;_I' � D � IIIIIII:==111 ■ :. � � 1 11 �- • :1 1 Item 5. F164] 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. F166] "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. F167] 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. F168] 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. F169] 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. F170] 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. 171 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. F172] 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. F173] 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. F174] 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. 175 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. F176] 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. F177] 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. 178 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. F179] 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-8o 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 80' 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. 181 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 point; 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. 182 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. 183 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�P 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 84 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 N 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. 1U 11 15 14 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS CURVE DE A BEARING CH0R0 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. 185 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. 186 ��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 dIi z a i w pit .0 a a R' 'I III y v� eE I� 9 1 III FE lip .. .% r w WI r K�' WHOM gg gg , III � Ya9 M Y Page 28 Item 5. Fl 87] 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 6R ---------- -------- ------ ---------------------- ----------- ------ ----------- 117 JI Ir f -EL-1 n zi Jul IL �N, G -------- -- -- Page 29 Item 5. Fl 88] 11 r L--- 4- why 7 M E H C 7 -7 i�Jll m __r. < H 7' c LL� v Page 30 Item 5. 189 D. Landscape Plans(date: 9/29/2020) Hw 1 m' e IK oil 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 92 '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. F195 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. 196 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 97 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 ❑❑ xL 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 98 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. 119-91 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 r � SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-BACK VIEW ❑� 38FD-2 BATH FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACK VIEW Page 41 Item 5. F 00 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. F201] 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. F203] 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. F204] 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. ■ 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. F206] 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. F207] 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. F208] 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. F209] 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. F210] 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 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. F 11 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 Item 6. L212 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Item 6. F 13 (:�N-WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: January 7, 2020 Topic: public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 07, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 z PROJECT NAME: Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) 3 PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO { 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 1/7/2021 Legend � DATE: ILIPrajec!Lacfliiar TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach 208-884-5533 ---- Bruce Freckleton,Developments Services Manager - 208-887-2211 4 ' SUBJECT: AZ,PP H-2020-0112 i OEM Tetherow Crossing Subdivision I � LOCATION: The site is located northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation,zoning from Ada County RUT to R-8, and preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 7.58 acres of land. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 7.58 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 46 building lots,8 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 46 of units) Density(gross&net) 6.07 Open Space(acres,total 15.12%total, 13.46%qualified open space.This includes [%]/buffer/qualified) '/2 of 5,134 sq. ft.of buffers. Amenities 33,457 sq. ft. open space with playground,trash,and pet station. Physical Features(waterways, A ditch parallels the property on the east perimeter. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 15,2020—4 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) There was a previous proposal to annex and rezone to R-8 to allow 35 single family lots in 2006.This was Page 1 Item 6. F 15 Description Details subsequently denied by the Council(AZ PP H-06-030). Significant reason was listed as"piecemeal development." At the present,City property has been annexed south,east, and west of the property. B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Direct access from W.Ustick Rd. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Greater than E Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross 5 points of access—3 stubs,one southern connection to W. Access Ustick Rd and eastern connection to W.Woodpine St. Existing Road Network No existing internal streets,W.Woodpine St.to the east and W.Ustick Rd to the south are existing. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ W.Ustick improved with 5 lanes,bike lanes,curb,gutter Buffers and 5-foot detached sidewalk. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will construct all internal roads to 33' in width. Distance to nearest City Park(+ .5 mile to Settler's Park,a 60-acre Regional Park. size) Distance to other key services Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.7 miles to Fire Station 2 • Fire Response Time <5 minutes • Resource Reliability 85% • Risk Identification 2,resources are adequate • Accessibility Yes • Special/resource needs Aerial device will be required • Water Supply 1,000 gpm required • Other Resources None Police Service—No Comments • Distance to Police Station 4 Miles Ada County Schools Impacted Schools Hunter ES— 1.6 Miles Sawtooth MS—.5 Miles Rocky Mountain HS— 1.6 Miles Capacity of Schools Hunter ES—675 Sawtooth MS— 1,000 Rocky Mountain HS— 1,800 #of Students Enrolled Hunter ES—504 Sawtooth MS—905 Rocky Mountain HS—2,412 Estimated#of students generated by development Hunter ES— 15 Sawtooth MS—8 Rocky Mountain HS— 10 Page 2 Item 6. F 16 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14 • Project Consistent with • Additional 88 gpd committed to model WW Master Plan/Facility • Piping coming in/out of SSMH#2 needs to have a Plan minimum angle of 90 degrees. • Since property to the north is not a phase of this project Road number 4 sewer line needs to end in a manhole at the northern end. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Water connection to the west must line up with layout of Edington Commons Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Praject Laca�an � Proiect Luc a=or _w l ?ei r� W.i- ntial S U Da t identia�l { Page 3 Item 6. F217] Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 1 Legend � PretREP REP Lnca�or� _i City umils T RUT . U R-15 _ EEO 1 1C-C Li RUST UT 4 ' RUT 16 � R- � � RUT � � � , ' R- UT RUT ® Rr " X Applicant Information A. Applicant Representative: Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC— 1406 N.Main St. Ste 114,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Dennis Creek—770 E. Clear Creek Dr,Meridian,ID 83646 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 12/18/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/16/2020 Radius notification published on 12/18/2020 Nextdoor posting 12/16/2020 Sign Posting 12/21/2020 Page 4 Item 6. F218] IV. 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 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 is surrounded on three sides by the City limits. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FLUM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 6.07 du/ac, meeting the required density range listed above. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. 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): • 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 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. There are other housing types, multi family and attached single-family within the subject square mile. The FLUM recommends densities of between 3 and 8 dwelling units per acre. Given this density recommendation, likely any resulting housing would be single-family. • 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 33,457 sq.ft. open space with playground and seating area is toward the center of the development.A 5'wide pathway connects from the primary internal north—south street(NW 13`h St) across this open space and connects to an existing pathway which runs along a ditch to the east. This pathway is shown to connect to a future pathway to the north of the property that provides access to Sawtooth Middle School. There is also a micro pathway across a common lot connecting to the Alpine Townhouse development to the west. There are multi-modal routes proposed both to the development and within the development. Page 5 Item 6. F219] • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) Attached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all streets. Sidewalks will be completed to the terminus of all stub streets which would connect to any future development.As mentioned, there is a walkway which connects to a pathway along the existing ditch pathway to the east, and another pathway which stubs to any future development to the west. "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) Water will be provided from a connection which is available at each end of W. Woodpine St. Water will be stubbed to the vacant parcel located to the southwest of the site. Sewer will be extended from an existing sewer stub located within the W. Woodpine St.and from an existing gravity sewer located in W. Ustick Rd. • Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. (2.02.02F) To the northwest of the subject property is Edington Commons, a subdivision of 92 lots averaging 3,700 sq.ft. and zoned R-1 S (single-family attached and detached)which was approved in November 2020. To the east of the property is the Woodburn West Subdivision, zoned R-8 with lot sizes in the 5,000—6,000 sq.ft. range. The property southwest of the subject property is zoned C-C(recommended for Mixed Use Community) and was proposed for townhouses in 2018 but was subsequently withdrawn. This development proposes architecture consisting of one-and two-story homes with pitched roofs, stone bases and/or lap siding with gabled roofs and dormers comparable to what has been approved with the Edington Commons Subdivision to the west. Staff believes the proposed average of lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. would provide an appropriate transition from the 6,000 sq.ft. lots to the east(Woodburn West), the 3,700 sq.ft. lots to the west(Edington Commons)and the property at the northeast corner of W. Ustick Rd. and W. Linder Rd which is recommended for Mixed Use Community(meaning higher density and commercial uses could be appropriate). In order to ensure compatibility and quality of design with existing and approved residential uses surrounding the property, staff recommends a condition that rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 15-22 of Block 3 and 2-3 of Block 4 that face W. Ustick 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. • 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) The proposal includes five points of access. Three of these are local stub streets, with two connections to existing streets-one of which is W. Ustick Rd, an arterial. An access from W. Ustick Rd to this property already exists via Llama Ln. This proposal would eliminate Llama Ln. and create a new public street, NW 12`h Dr which will align with existing NW 12`h Dr. on the opposite side of W. Ustick Rd. (to the south). ACHD supports this as the road alignment Page 6 Item 6. F220] would be better than what exists, and there would be slightly better intersection separation from the intersection of N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. (See Access, Section G below for more information). D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. E. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning districts in 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-6 for the R-8 district.All lots proposed meet the minimum 4,000 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. The longest block length(Lots 2- 12,Block 3)is 440 feet. 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 40', and required 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. One common driveway is proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided a common drive exhibit which demonstrates 3 units are served whereas a maximum of 6 units are allowed. The common driveway meets the minimum width of 20' and does not exceed the maximum length of 150'. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer. The landscape plan does reflect a 5' wide buffer to the north separating the common driveway from a 4' high solid vinyl fence with 2' lattice top. North of this fence is an approximately 18' wide common lot containing a pathway to the west. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4): This development proposes five points of access. Two points of access are to existing streets. There will be a connection to existing W.Woodpine St.which serves the Woodburn West Subdivision to the east,and there will be a connection to W.Ustick Rd(arterial)to the south. Access from W.Ustick Rd presently occurs via N. Llama Ln,which runs north-south. This proposal would eliminate N. Llama Ln. and construct a new north-south road slightly to the east which would align with existing NW 12t1i Dr. on the south side of W.Ustick Rd. Although the new access for NW 12'Dr.will not meet ACHD spacing requirements of 1,320 ft. from the N. Linder Rd./W. Ustick Rd. intersection,ACHD supports an exception from this policy. This is because the new road would align with an existing one, and the distance from the intersection is slightly more than what is existing. All internal roads in this development are proposed to be built to ACHD standards with 33-foot wide local street sections with curb,gutter, and 5-foot wide Page 7 Item 6. F221] concrete attached sidewalks. W. Ustick Road is already improved with 5-travel lanes,bike lanes, vertical curb,gutter, and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site. Three internal stubs are proposed. One stub is proposed to the north to unincorporated vacant property, one stub is proposed to the west to connect to W. Woodpine St. in Edington Commons (final plat approved Nov 4,2020), and a third stub is proposed to the east(existing single-family home and telecommunications equipment which will likely redevelop in the future). The preliminary plat reflects an access easement across to a northern property which is not part of this subdivision, and notes it is unknown whether or not this access easement is granted or recorded.As this northern property is essentially landlocked, as a condition of approval, staff recommends that prior to signature of the City Engineer on the final plat, a new temporary access easement be granted to this property until such time as W.Woodpine St. and N. Llama Way is constructed to the property and dedicated as public right-of-way. ACHD has reviewed this proposal,notes it will generate 434 vehicle trips per day, and supports it as proposed. ACHD requested a note to the plat prohibiting direct access to W. Ustick Rd,which has been added. 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 single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. The preliminary plat reflects an additional 30 on-street parking spaces. These would not be used in the calculations for required parking. I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): Three micro-pathways are reflected on the landscape plan. A 110' micro-pathway is proposed from the internal road to the C-C zoned property to the west., and there are two micro-pathways connecting from the central park amenity(Lot 1,Block 6)to an existing pathway along a ditch to the east. The ditch pathway is shown to connect to a future east-west regional pathway to the north. All proposed pathways meet UDC 11-3A-8 with at least 15' wide easements (or common lots), at least 5' of landscaping on either side, and one tree per 100 linear feet. Fencing along these micro-pathways is shown to be 4' solid vinyl with 2' lattice open top. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 No parkways are proposed with this development. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The landscape plan reflects 15.12%of total open space. This includes several small landscaped areas on either side of the N. Llama Way stub,25' buffer along W. Ustick Rd, several pathway common lots, a central open space, and landscaping at the northeast side of the property adjacent to the ditch. UDC 11-3B-7 requires street buffers with detached sidewalks to be measured from back of curb. As measured from back of curb, approximately 13' of the required 25' landscape buffer along W. Ustick Rd is located within ACHD right-of-way. Per UDC 11-3B-7-05,the applicant shall be Page 8 Item 6. F222] required to obtain a license agreement with ACHD prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. There are existing trees that meet the requirements for preservation or mitigation,particularly in the vicinity of the Users Drain Ditch at the northeast portion of the property. The City Arborist has noted he has had preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding which trees should be preserved versus may be removed, although staff as of yet has not received a tree mitigation plan. This will be required with the final plat. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): 13.46%of qualified common open space is proposed. This includes a 33,457 sq. ft. central park feature(Lot 1, Block 6), %2 of the 25-foot-wide buffer along W. Ustick Rd., a 3,867 sq. ft.pet amenity and seating area(Lot 1, Block 3) and a 1,970 sq. ft.pathway common lot(Lot 13 Block 3). N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(7.58 acres),a minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. The applicant proposes a 33,457 sq. ft. central park with a playground and two pathway connections. This meets the requirement for a minimum of 50' x 100' to be credited as qualified open space, a recreation amenity(playground),and the additional 20,000 sq. ft. required to be credited as an additional amenity. The central park exceeds the minimum landscape requirements of one deciduous shade tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet and lawn. It also contains two pathways that connect to an existing pathway along an existing ditch, and these two pathways are landscaped with at least 5' landscaping on either side and 1 tree per 100 linear feet. Because the pathways meet the landscaping requirements,are not required sidewalks and connect to existing pedestrian and bicycle routes outside of the development(pathway along the ditch),these pathways would be also be considered an amenity. The proposal exceeds the requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 and is a located in an appropriate location taking advantage of being central to the development and adjacent to an existing ditch and pathway. O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): A ditch is adjacent to the property at the NE. This ditch will need to be piped per UDC 11-3A-6. P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The landscape plan reflects existing fencing along the northwestern perimeter of the property. New 6' solid vinyl fencing is proposed along most of the remaining perimeter of the property. 6' vinyl lattice top fencing is proposed along both sides of pathway Common Lot 13,Block 3,most of the periphery of Central Park Lot 1,Block 6 except for the eastern portion adjacent to the ditch, and Common Lot 1,Block 3 (the dog station). The fencing appears to meet the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Q. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Water is available from W. Woodpine St. Sewer is available from W. Woodpine St. and from a main in W. Ustick Rd. Water and sewer will be stubbed to the vacant property located to the southwest. Pressure irrigation will serve all lots. The system will be owned and operated by the homeowner's association. Surface water is delivered to the site at the southeast corner of the property along W. Ustick Rd. Page 9 Item 6. F223] R. 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 VI.F below). The single-family homes are depicted as two-story structures with two-car garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs, dormers, stone wainscoting, lap siding, exposed timber,and scalloped wood shingles. 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 noted in the Comprehensive Plan section, some of the houses will be very visible from W. Ustick Rd. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 15-22 of Block 3 and 2-3 of Block 4 that face W.Ustick 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. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation,zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VII.per the Findings in Section VIII. Page 10 Item 6. ■ VI. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 11/9/2020) err33 - k � I CAR r-cC 1L,{car-I;c �li.h i�r is� i RV r I- -'T RM-. I �ex�ra�I P+LL r-Ell - -T�L, rcay.,r.�a`r�a�x,s Kkf , .-_.- I r: �' �'•' a �.• ,i - - - L.I•' � �7 LIMAOMMDFM ®H0741 COYOIb � _ I ` � �I ��_ _.��•� '.:� anr�vra�nann�rww'. II Ft 16 r — Z I r - _ II — I 7�I[I�I Yi l I �ti�rl 1 I I I ' _ •4k.5' � Iar�.� rmcu IT LAL mo aauAav or ar fo-M Page 11 Item 6. F225] B. Landscape Plan(date: 11/9/2020) u h •• L NPee ,• Ei:511Hq I I I 11 II ?M1.'+' '-- LOCATION 4 H-Li II[.J{Ru. s I h 6OHMON AREA MrAL NA-BER OF I X 0. I•I 114 II K #--e Nhtr F�nTk11t kkH ,w3--W-rxr m olrul L:er i. :`ram,,.•. 5} MILE.AREA TO LC 6YY1 f�'r r.E 1G •� 4 !{--,tD'P w O[57L7O1+Fk-1 TrT'r F',b.,Fk1►71C: a-a g. ;,f •-r3 ;{,STwL'4kl �.. �rr.I&4IFd ewz 4+;r{�. Pt Df*AT Srs fEH 4-1 IM 3-3 ----- I 0-3 � I --- I ----- I ! '—' +-a I ,II- ccl6k�rI�FJ I I.II it lI II I I.' O-M ILK r.mm'ST I �n 5 I li 1 r z = I lil lil I, i i t -i I II 14 �3 III .13 I II V I rII yII f1�4 I ii-5 I I�I III II I � I Pd11, i I..�I� I riciutriu EVE rH II IY I U I I 1 r". I 1 �7}. I r•L- r ate. fs• L ., ElU Hi L---------`+ - ---- c......tu�cc.a..au�co.....[�[[cc..... _____________________ �-s[. ro—����=sue.........-}___. Page 12 Item 6. F226] C. Color Landscape Plan(date: 11/9/2020) I� - - r ± barnwffi5ETAwhm W'.+.TiCK bPF5 4� e-7 -7 I 1-2 I Y i kllanotP�. II. III =.-L F&R* R EV TTI'M7. _ _ _ SI •6LAS6 I TRES F VIDEO r 1 �•�.� S5 ]-1 i E*&nl6 MEES YZ5 Tc]Tt }L TL2:.AMMA TO R CC" —FEWE T To , H�4L Tr?Tr :a 1 {T7'Pl D*Pd4►4%r#ITr'' 8Ar1 FrATl Aky MP • f+i1,T1Yi1,.Y 3YSTCFI r K - - n. E -z,G.7 ,, ' $1.i,�J 'RUk. 5_3 43 I i k i �•� __ 1 r I F S-M1 1 *_1 i 9-0 I w4 ItWct ert" -e• 1 ,t.. 12-3 '-7 Ir1 tTTf'TT if-r I 1-21 I 14s I IF-3 I i6-.3 I ,1-3 I m'S I 7i-'J 3-4 Pe USFDf ...........Y.a..... .Lila.r.LL..��.u!■!�l4..aal TL[[�- 1. ----------------------_-v_-___ -- ■l L..._.. falL•a_.+..}.!!!].Y..�.T7 Page 13 Item 6. F227] D. Open Space Exhibit(date: 11/6/2020) TETHEROW CROSSING SUBDIVISION F7QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE(11-3C'r3.B.4) F-1 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE(11-3C'r3-B-1 A; (59XIIDd'AND PLAYGROUND AMENITY) --- QUALIFIED OPEN SPADE-1 MICRO-PATH- WAY(11-3G-3.1) F-1 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE SEATI NO, PET STATION AMENITY(11-3G F-1 NON-QUAUFIED OPEN SPACE F7COMMON-SHARED DRIVEWAY F-1 BUILDING LOT RIGHT OF WAY IT] COMMON K nS&6UFFEFtS QUAIJ FIED QUAUFI E D ACTUAL OPEN OPEN AREA SPACIE SPACE 35F) CREDIT AREA(SF) HALF OF 25•FOOT W.USTICK RD_BLUFFER(11.3G•3,1141 51134 10D% 5,134 PLAYGROUND&OPEN SPACE LOT 1-6(SO'X 100'MINI{11-3G-3_B_1.A] 23,457 10M 32.457 OPEN SPACE BENCHES,TRA$H,PET STATION-LOT 1-3 3,K7 lbo% 3,857 MICRO-PATN1WAY5 LOT 13-3 1197D 100% 11971) OPEN SPACE-OTHER NON QUALIFIED 3,057 IYA SHARED DRIVEWAYS 2,409 09A TOTAL OPEN SPACE 4%a-94 SF 44,42a $F QUALIFIE OOPE N SPACE MDVIDM 44,428 13-46% TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED- 49,894 SF 1$-12% Page 14 Item 6. ■ E. Common Driveway Exhibit(date: 11/6/2020) 13-3 F CONCRFTF TRA,.SH"AD 31�4 SF CONXRETE&MED DRIVEWAY # F. FRONT Ff FMNT I � • I I I I �—lll IDI G SETMICKE I I—DUI-01M3 SETBACKS I I� BUILDING sEr ,cs I x I f�: •F I +}:17 :F I I . I I I I I r I �FNCE( YR.) I I I I I I I I_ I ?•. I I I I - I ---- ----' --- - -- ---- -- - - - - - - - 59z= zF Page 15 F. Building W W - # a : f, Ego Page 16 Item 6. F230] G. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit. CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION ATION TETHEROW CROSSING SUBDIVISION 1/4 LOCATED IN THE SVV 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 36: TAN-, R-1W., B.M. 35 36 CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA ODUNY, IDAHO 41 I N89'S1'�4"Ir 274.58' � ti 725,48' w w -- -. C c1a PROPOSED ANNEXATION — _ 8.12 ACRES ST tn � a cw o 11 OF POINT OF BEGINNING -- — --- 35 �s 665 6J' _ _ � a 7223' 1331 1 W. USPCK RD, N8843'0 W 493,39' w 1 f1 �- ......... .......... ......... ... 53843'02'E 2662,34' B+�S ,-..-.--.IS fF SEARING....,..-..... ......... . .. ...... ..............-..... ' 1 ' ndlin LaM Surveying and Cmadting ni E ETH ST..M.,A MERIbu%{ID�.ihn2 Cm ae62040 120A}26b 255F rax xxm'le�tlfaN Wn.de td»} ;. Page 17 Item 6. F 31 Legal Description Proposed Annexation Tetherow Crossing Subdivision A parcel being located in the SW' of the S'JV'/, of S ectian 36. Township 4 North, Range 9 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada Coumy, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the southwest corner of said Section 36, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SW' of said Section 36 bears S 88043'02" E a distance of 2662.34 feet; Thence along the southerly boundary of said SW'. S 88043'02" E a distance of SUM feet to the POINT OF RECINNING; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N O'll T23' E a distance of 48,00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of W. Ustick Road; Thence continuing N O'lT23' E a distance of 787,24 feet to a point- Then ce N 89'51754" E a distance of 274.59 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of Woodburn West Subdivision No. 2 as shown in Book 111 of Plats on Pages 16040 through 16044, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said westerly boundary of Woodburn West Subdivision No. 2 the following described courses, Thence S 14'45'42" E a distance of 356.68 feet to a point; Thence S 81'01'42" E a distance of 125.46 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly boundary 8 0'02'28" A a distance of 434.45 feet to a point on said northerly right-of-way of W, Ustick Road; Thence continuing S W02'28" W a distance of 48.00 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of the SW' of the SW' of said Section 36; Thence along said southerly boundary N BV43`02"VV a distance of 493,39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, This parcel oontains 6.12 acres and is subject to any easements o �k- LA&,,)s existing or in use. s 7-6,� Clinton W. Hansen, PLS Land Solutions, PC zo October 6, 2020 ' 0 1 Page 18 Item 6. F232] 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 VI and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 15-22 of Block 3 and Lots 2- 3 of Block 4 that face W.Ustick 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. c. A temporary access easement shall be granted across the subject property to the adjacent property to the north.Said easement shall exist until such time as W. Woodpine St. and N. Llama Way are constructed to the property and dedicated as public right-of-way. 2. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VI, dated 11/9/20,is approved as submitted. 3. With final plat submittal,the Landscape Plan included in Section VI, dated 11/9//20, shall be revised to reflect a tree preservation and mitigation plan that is approved by the City Arborist as required per UDC 11-3B-10. 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 6. The applicant shall comply with the sidewalk and parkway standards as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-17. 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 ditch to the east shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches,laterals,canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 9. 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 11-3B-12C. Page 19 Item 6. F233] 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-613-7. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Additional 88 gpd committed to model. 2. Piping coming in/out of SSMH#2 needs to have a minimum angle of 90 degrees. 3. Since property to the north is not a phase of this project Road number 4 sewer line needs to end in a manhole at the northern end. Applicant shall be required to re-rout the existing water and sewer mains into the proposed roadway extensions of E. Oakcrest Dr. and N. Dixie Ave. 4. Water connection to the west must line up with layout of Edington Commons 5. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by GeoTek, Inc. indicate 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. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, groundwater was encountered in all of the excavated test pits,ranging from 4.8' to 6.9' below ground surface. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. General Conditions of Approval 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 Page 20 Item 6. F234] 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 21 Item 6. F235] 19. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 20. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 21. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. Page 22 Item 6. ■ C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217408&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS REPORT https://weblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218948&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 E. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217397&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky F. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=21809l&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCi ty G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218390&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. SETTLERS IRRIGATION https://weblink.meridianciby.org,/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217508&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ia I. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancioy.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218520&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty 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: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 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; Staff finds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that 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; Page 23 Item 6. F 37 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 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section 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. 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; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Page 24 Item 6. F238] 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The applicant will be required to submit a tree mitigation plan that is approved by the City Arborist prior to final plat. Otherwise, staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 25