Loading...
2021-01-21 WE IDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday,January 21, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Chairperson Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald Commissioner Lisa Holland 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 January 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from December 3, 2020 for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. - Continued to March 18, 2021 3. Public Hearing for Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) by Mark Enos, Located at 2972 E. Leslie Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 1.05 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for February 16, 2021 4. Public Hearing for Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) by Richard Schnebly, Located at 2690 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.75 of an acre of land with an R-2 zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for February 23, 2021 S. Public Hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive-Through (H-2020-0116) by Layton Davis Architects, Located at 3243 E.Village Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment in the C-G zoning district. -Approved 6. Public Hearing for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A.Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached),townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for February 23, 2021 7. Public Hearing Continued from January 7, 2021 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H- 2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-0 zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. - Recommended Denial to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for March 2, 2021 8. Public Hearing for Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A.A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved. B.A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the WE zoning district to the R- 15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. C.A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018- 079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. - Continued to February 4, 2021 ADJOURNMENT - 11:17 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 21, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 21, 2021 , was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Lisa Holland X Ryan Fitzgerald X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel McCarvel: All right. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January 21st, 2021, by Zoom and in person. The Commissioners who are present this evening are at City Hall and on Zoom and we also have staff from the city attorney and the clerk's office and Planning Department with us as well. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening you may observe the meeting and we can see that you were there. However, your ability to talk will -- and be seen will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. If you have previously sent a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and the clerk will run the presentation. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org forward slash live. We will begin -- we will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. When the public testimony is open the clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up to testify on our website. You will, then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission, unless you are representing a larger group, like an HOA. After that time we may ask you some questions for clarification. But once you are done you will be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. Once all of those who have signed up in advance are called we will invite others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only listening through a cell phone or Iandline you can press star nine. Wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer or phone -- and a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 6 Page 2 of 84 phone, et cetera, please be sure and mute those devices, so you don't experience feedback and everyone can hear you clearly. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail city clerk at meridiancity.org and they will be able to help you as quickly as possible. With all that being said let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I think -- no changes. We have Item No. 2 is -- the applicant is requesting a continuance and staff will inform us on that. So, at this time could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Seal: So moved. Fitzgerald: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the January 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we just have approval of minutes for the January 7th, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. So, can I get a motion -- a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Holland: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 7 Page 3 of 84 2. Public Hearing Continued from December 3, 2020 for TM Center (H- 2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C- G zoning districts. McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to continue -- continue on from December 3rd, 2020, TM Center, H-2020-0074. The applicant is requesting a continuance and so if we could have some comments from staff. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Yeah. The applicant would prefer to continue this to the February 18th hearing. Staff is recommending that it be continued to a later date to run concurrently with the upcoming planned unit development and development agreement modification applications for the same property. This was the reason this application was originally pulled back to begin with, so that could be reviewed comprehensively as an overall project. As is the street sections that are proposed with the preliminary plat and actually some have been constructed are not consistent with the Ten Mile plan and there are changes to the -- some of the guidelines in the Ten Mile plan that are anticipated to be incorporated into a new development agreement master DA for the overall site, so -- so, that's the reason staff would prefer to process this all together. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, what date are you looking for? Allen: Well, I think that the second meeting in March would probably be the safest. That would be the 18th. But I don't know -- the applicant may be able to provide more information on when they anticipate the additional items being submitted for those other two applications I referenced. If -- if it's going to be submitted soon, then, staff doesn't have an issue with the March 4th meeting, then, that would only delay it a couple more weeks than what they are -- what they really wanted to get on. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Follow up to Commissioner Fitzgerald's question. Do we have a lot on the agenda for the 4th or the 18th? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 8 Page 4 of 84 Weatherly: Madam Chair, this is Adrienne. Currently we do not -- I don't believe. I'm away from my computer trying to fix some technical issues, but we don't have more than two, I think, for the 4th and I don't think we have noticed anything for the 18th yet. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to address the Commission? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that might take us a minute to see if he is online. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Part of our reboot with -- it took away our guest list. McCarvel: Okay. We will wait. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. I mean I know you all have a pretty significant lineup for February. I know looking at what you have on the docket for the last two meetings is relatively significant, so I -- I would say -- I would suggest if we are going to do something we push it at least to that first meeting in March, if not to that -- where the staff thinks they can align everything. McCarvel: Agreed. I'm -- personally I like to error on the side of staff and not rush them. Holland: Madam Chair, I would be happy to make a motion, unless we need to hear from the applicant. I didn't catch all that. I'm sorry. McCarvel: I didn't either. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we are trying to test our sound again. Chris is going to talk through the microphone and see if you can hear him. McCarvel: Okay. Johnson: This is Chris trying to see if you can hear me through the sound. McCarvel: Yes. Johnson: We are going to pause for one moment, connect everything over and make sure you can still hear us. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: At this point I think I would be supportive of the March 18th date. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 191 Page 5 of 84 Holland: Can I make a motion or do we need to hear from the applicant? Weatherly: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my apologies for all the technical difficulties we are having right now. To pick up where we left off, I cannot locate anybody from the applicant's -- McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: -- team online. If they are online and you wish for them to talk I would just asked for them to raise their hand, so I can identify them. McCarvel: Okay. If the applicant is here for H-2020-0074, if they could, please, raise their hand to be noticed by the clerk. Okay. I would say a motion is in order. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we continue Item No. H-2020-0074 for TM Center to the hearing date of March 18th to allow staff more time to work with the applicant on supporting materials for the application. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2020-0074 to the date of March 18th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 3. Public Hearing for Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) by Mark Enos, Located at 2972 E. Leslie Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 1.05 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2020-001 -- I'm sorry. Dash 0119, the Mark Enos Annexation and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Planning Commission. Can you see my presentation and can you hear me? Thumbs up. Great. Alan Tiefenbach, planner with the City of Meridian. Again good evening. This is an annexation and zoning. The site consists of an acre of land. It's zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada county. It's located at 2972 East Leslie, which is south and west of the East Ustick Road, North Eagle Road intersection. The property is bordered on two sides by the city limits. To the north is R-15. To the east is R-2. Unincorporated Ada county to the south and to the west. Comprehensive Plan recommendation is for a low density residential. This is a proposal to annex and rezone Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 Flo] Page 6 of 84 of one acre of property to R-2 to obtain city services. The property is in unincorporated Ada county and is served by an individual well and septic. I will put this site plan up here. The applicant desires to construct a detached accessory building of approximately 1,750 square foot. That's what you see here on the north and that would be for RV garage and upstairs living. The applicant has been unable to obtain a new septic permit from the county. They want to add a living space above. They have been unable to obtain a septic permit for the addition due to the location and the limitations of the existing system. So, where the system is located where there is a ditch they can't expand the system easily. The county has recommended that the applicant annex into the city. The annex is -- the applicant has determined it would be cheaper to do this than to try to upgrade the whole system. That's the reason for this annexation. If the -- if the applicant chooses to use the upstairs living area as a secondary dwelling unit, it's subject to specific use standards, which includes the living area being less than 700 square feet, one additional parking space, and the property having to be occupied at least six months out of the year by the primary occupant. Comprehensive Plan is supportive of the secondary dwelling unit. There is recommendations in the plan that support the construction of accessory dwelling units, as well as increasing the diversity of housing. So, again, the only reason for this is for the applicant to be able to obtain city services, so they can build this second building. With that staff recommends approval. If you have any questions. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, this is Bill. McCarvel: Yeah. Do you have any -- yeah. Sorry. I was muted. Cassinelli: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. I'm just -- I'm curious on the -- the condition for owner occupied for at least six months out of the year. Is that city code on that? Tiefenbach: Correct. I think the intent of that is so that somebody remotely doesn't just try to Airbnb everything out and to make sure that there is somebody on site that if it is used for a secondary dwelling unit there are some eyes on the property and it's not all just a renter. So, yes, that is the city code. Six months out of the year. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? If you are in the -- on Zoom, please, raise your hand. Oh, there we go. Adrienne, do you see him? Enos: Am I unmuted now? McCarvel: Yes. Oh. There you go. Okay. Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 Fill Page 7 of 84 Enos: This is Mark Enos. Address 2972 East Leslie Drive in Meridian and, no, I don't -- I don't have anything to add, unless there is specific questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Just really quick. Mr. Enos, how are you accessing that secondary dwelling? Do you have a driveway you are adding to your lawn? Enos: Sure. On the right side of the property there is already a gravel driveway that accesses the back of the property. Fitzgerald: And that's on your property? Enos: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. That just--that was a question for me. Thank you. Appreciate it. McCarvel: And do we have any -- anyone signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this? Please raise your hand. Okay. Seal: No one in chambers either, Madam Chair. McCarvel: So, I think at this time if I can get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-20 -- sorry. Lost them. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Can I -- I make a -- or I move that we close public hearing on H-2020-0119, Mark Enos Annexation. Holland: Commissioner Holland second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor -- and second on -- all those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F12 Page 8 of 84 MOTION CARRIED: ALL YES. McCarvel: Any other discussion on this? It is pretty straightforward. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, this is a pretty simple one. I -- I appreciate they -- they are wanting to add an additional dwelling unit. I think there is space there and if Ada -- if Ada county can't serve them for a new well and septic, then, I think picking up the city services is appropriate. So, if anybody has a problem let us know. If not I will make a motion. McCarvel: Always in order. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council file number H-2020-0119 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21 st, 2021 . Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0119 to recommend approval. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 4. Public Hearing for Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) by Richard Schnebly, Located at 2690 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.75 of an acre of land with an R-2 zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Schnebly Annexation, H-2020-0115, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen- Thank you, Madam Chair. Oops. Can you all hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Allen- Thank you. I'm sorry. I thought I was muted. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of .63 of an acre of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at 2690 East Franklin Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation on this property is commercial. The applicant is proposing to annex .75 of an acre of land and that goes to the section line of East Franklin Road as required by rezoning, with an R-2 low density residential zoning district. The reason for annexation is that the existing septic system on the single family residential property failed last -- late last year and the applicant had to hook up to city water and sewer service. No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. As a provision of hookup to city services Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F13 Page 9 of 84 annexation into the city is required. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is commercial. Because there is an existing home on the property and the use is proposed to remain residential, an R-2 zoning district is requested as recommended by staff as a placeholder zoning district until the property redevelops or a change of use to the property is proposed in the future. At such time the property should be rezoned and the use -- development should be consistent with the commercial future land use map designation. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan staff does recommend a development agreement is required as a provision of annexation that requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the commercial designation prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the property. This would not prevent the applicant from selling the property for continued residential use, but would preclude it from being subdivided to increase the density on the property and further the residential use of the property. Written testimony has been received from Brad Miller from Adler Industrial. He has concerns pertaining to compatibility of R-2 zoning of the property with adjacent industrial uses to the north and suggests commercial zoning might be more compatible and a better option. I did touch base with Mr. Miller and did explain that this is just a placeholder zoning that's requested and supported by staff. Anyway, just to explain that. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation with R-2 zoning and the requirement of a development agreement as previously mentioned. Staff will stand for any questions. Holland: Madam Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel -- or I mean Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. There we go. Thank you. Commissioner Holland, I think you started first. Holland: Either way. Sonya, just one quick question. With the --the comment that came in from Brad Miller, if they have an R-2 designation does it impact them any way on the industrial side of things with setbacks or anything like that? Because I know sometimes there is additional setback requirements for residentially zoned properties next to industrial areas. Or is there a way that in the development agreement it could be noted that they would be exempt from those traditional setbacks, because it's planned to be commercial in the future? Allen: Well, I believe that the -- I'm just double checking that. I believe that the industrial uses to the -- the industrial property to the north is already improved and, therefore, nothing additional would be required. If the site were to redevelop with the new uses, then, yes, a buffer to residential use is required. Holland: So, follow up to that. Do we -- if it is all developed, then, probably no concern, but if somebody was to come in and do another industrial use their way, we can put that note in the development agreement or the staff report that it's a placeholder zoning and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F14 Page 10 of 84 the typical buffers wouldn't apply, because we are going to follow the notes of the future use map for that site? Allen: I will defer to legal on that, but I don't believe so. The developer -- or the requirement would -- would be on the priority under development and it is based on the zoning district of the property under -- under development. So, I believe it would apply in either case. Pogue: Agreed. McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, did Brad have a response to your comment? Did he give you feedback? Allen: Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seemed okay with that explanation and -- and, yes, I can see from the aerial that that property to the north is currently developed. He represents the property owner to the north. Adler Industrial. Fitzgerald: Got it. Okay. Allen: I think he just wanted the comment to be on the record. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Parsons: Commission, this is Bill. McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead. Parson: I was going to also let the Commission know that the two vacant parcels there have also been approved by the city to develop industrial uses. So, it will be a fabrication shop and some outdoor storage. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff before the applicant? I don't see the applicant in the Zoom audience. Do we have the applicant in chambers, Commissioner Seal? Weatherly: Madam Chair, it looks like I do have somebody raising their hand -- McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: -- wanting to talk for a moment. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. So, is this Mr. Schnebly? You are on mute, sir. If you are -- you will need to unclick your mute. I think you have the permission to talk if you unmute your -- your side. There you go. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F15] Page 11 of 84 Schnebly: Can you hear me now, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. There you go. Please state your name and address for the record. Schnebly: I'm learning how to work this. My name is -- McCarvel: We all are. Schnebly: My name is Rich Schnebly and my -- you want my home address or the address of the property that I own? My home address was 4050 East Hubbard Road, Kuna. 83634. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything you would like to share with us about your application? Schnebly: No. I believe it's pretty straight forward. My one concern that I had after being given the staff report -- and I will have to tell you that Sonya has been very patient with me throughout this whole process and that she's tried very hard to make sure I understand things, but still this is very new to me and trying to work through all the ins and outs of this project have been somewhat overwhelming. But, anyway, the one thing that I had after the staff report was this DA that -- this development agreement that you wanted me to sign or apparently is required and never having seen one or whatever I was very very concerned over what obligations it would put to me, what kind of legal stuff that I would be required to do and that this is kind of something you guys apparently need or want and I have questioned the necessity of it, because it just seemed most everything in there is kind of a given. You know, if the house changes hands at some point down the road certainly don't have any thing, but if it's sold to somebody that's a commercial developer I mean however it's zoned or whatever don't -- don't they still have to come in front of you guys to get it rezoned for commercial use and come with a plan. I'm somewhat uncertain why the development plan even needs to be in place and the fact that I get charged for the privilege of signing it. McCarvel: Okay. Sonya, do you want to respond? Allen: I'm sorry, I was tending to a technical difficulty and I did not catch that question. I apologize. McCarvel: Mr. Schnebly wants further explanation on why he needs the DA agreement. Schnebly: Madam, could I interrupt there just a second. McCarvel: Sure. Schnebly: Sonya and I had a pretty good discussion last night via e-mail and she tried her best to explain the necessity of it and the requirement of it and, again, I understand it, but I still have a little bit of resistance I guess. So, if you guys really feel that it's a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F16 Page 12 of 84 necessity-- the one thing is I just happened to notice on one of the other applications that you had that in the staff report you have a zoning of R-1. I only put a zoning recommendation of R-2 in there, because it was one of the recommendations Sonya put out in the pre-planning meeting that we had to go forward for my project and would a zoning of R-1, would that help better that it could only be a single family dwelling on that acreage and maybe a development plan wouldn't be needed. But at the same time if you guys do feel that you do need to put the development agreement together and it is required, I will go forward with it, but I guess the one thing I could ask of you is I don't know if you have it within your power to maybe waive the fees for having to put that together, because I still have to go forward this spring. This project has been enormously expensive for me and not planned and has been kind of a financial burden to me at the moment. So, the 300 bucks or whatever that was being required to -- to put this agreement together could be better used this spring, because I have to totally re-renovate my entire front yard on that property that got tore up in this project and that money I think could certainly be better used to put things back together again this spring. So, that's my comments. Thank you very much. I will let you guys go forward. Allen: Madam Chair, if I could respond to Mr. Schnebly's suggestion for R-1 zoning. The city does not have an R-1 zoning. R-1 is a county designation. The lowest density zoning designation the city has is R-2. So, that's why staff recommended that zone. McCarvel: Thank you. I guess at this time do we have any further staff comments from Bill? Parsons: Sure. I'm listening to their conversations, so I think this body is aware and also for Mr. Schnebly, certainly wouldn't want to put undue burdens on homeowners or people that just want to hook up and -- and honor their commitments with the city, but this site is a little bit different. We are -- we actually have a comprehensive plan designation of commercial, but we are recommending a residential zone to help assist with his need to annex in and that's really our standard process, so the state statutes enable staff to require a contract with annexations or rezone. So, once -- he's right, though, they -- technically he could come back through -- whoever buys the property could come back through and rezone it and, then, at that time the city, through our process, could require a development agreement or amendment to the DA if-- if you choose to do that. The city does not have a fee waiver process anymore. We modified the code a few years ago and took that out. The Council at the time had determined that, you know, it just doesn't set a good precedent to be waiving fees for applications, because there is staff time involved, there is -- there is so many different staff members touching these applications. But what I can recommend to this Commission is certainly the city has the ability to get some other assurances with the rezone, but to me it's really a Council decision. They are the ones that are going to be making the decision on the land use. So, if that's something that the Commission feels is appropriate in this case, then, I would go forward on a recommendation of the annexation without the inclusion of a development agreement. That's certainly something you can do and see whether or not Council would support that recommendation. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F17 Page 13 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, Bill, we can't recommend that anything on that property until it comes back, has to go through the process again? We can't make that determination in a DA? Parsons: Oh, sure you can. You always have the -- that's what a DA mode is; right? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: You put a DA in place. Yes. The avenue to change that contract is to go before City Council. Fitzgerald: Yeah. So, that's my one concern about not putting a DA in place is that comes back and it still remains residential down the road where it's supposed to -- where I think it's a commercial zone. Parsons: Correct. Fitzgerald: Or industrial zone. So, that would be my concern about that. Parsons: Yeah. The long-term vision for this property is commercial and we don't want the residential. Not that it -- it can't continue, but the intent is not for that to be residential forever. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner -- Commissioner Holland. Holland: Questions for staff. If we condition it so that they don't have a development agreement, can we still make a condition through annexation that they are not allowed to subdivide the property in the future? Parsons: Madam Chair? Allen: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Where did Sonya go? Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, state code does not allow annexations to be conditioned. The only method we have of doing that is through the development agreement process and agreement. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F18 Page 14 of 84 Holland: That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying. McCarvel: And I mean it just helps everybody be clear -- you know, a future purchaser, it just helps things from slipping through the cracks, so -- okay. If -- anymore comments from the applicant? I think we still have you. We are answering your questions and staff's at this point. Schnebly: Am I still on with you? McCarvel: Yes. Schnebly: Okay. I certainly understand and, like I said, Sonya has been very very patient with me and tried to explain it to the best of her ability last night to me. So, I -- and if you don't have the ability to waive fees anymore, I guess you -- I will have to accept what you move forward with and go from there. Right now I'm just trying to honor my commitment to you that--of annexation, because all my permits were issued early on, so that we could get the house back up and habitable, because I have people living in it and they really needed to be able to use the system. So, anyway, thank you very much for your time tonight. I do appreciate it. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to testify on this application or do we have anybody signed up? Weatherly: No, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time if I could get a motion to close the public hearing for H- 2020-0115. Holland: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2020-0115. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Comments? Discussion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: We did a lot of it. Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think my comments kind of float into what I said. I mean I totally understand the challenges that come with attaching to the city services and this just happens to be a unique property that we -- we see further commercial use on it and I -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F19 Page 15 of 84 I'm sorry for the applicant's situation. I know it's -- having a development agreement does cost money and I -- and I'm definitely sympathetic to that. The challenge is if we don't do it and we -- and he sells that property or something changes with it, we can't control what happens after annexation and so, unfortunately, I think we got to have a development agreement go with it in my opinion. So, that would be my -- my thought is that we attach it with an R-2, that's fine, but, then, it has to come back through the process to get redeveloped once that next step happens with that property if it's redeveloped in the future. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would echo Commissioner Fitzgerald's comments. I -- I wish that we had the ability to do a fee waiver, because I would make that recommendation to Council that they consider waiving the fee, but if that's not a tool that we have available to us -- I don't know if there is anything creative Council can do to help them, but I think it's -- I think it's important to have that development agreement in place just because of-- it's a step away from the Comprehensive Plan that was designated for that property. I think the only other possibility -- and I don't think this is an option either -- is requesting the waiver of the fee on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but that's the same -- same situation. We don't have that ability to change those fees. McCarvel: I agree. I do feel -- I mean it -- we need the DA in place just for transparency for everyone involved and as fast as things move here it could easily be forgotten, so -- any other comments or motions? Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Unless there is other comments I -- I will move -- I will make a motion. After hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file Number H-2020-0115 for the Schnebly annexation with the request that they would work with staff on a development agreement. I think that might already be in the staff report, so maybe it doesn't need to be in the motion. McCarvel: I believe it's in there. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2020-0115. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F20 Page 16 of 84 5. Public Hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive-Through (H-2020- 0116) by Layton Davis Architects, Located at 3243 E. Village Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment in the C-G zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio, the drive-thru, H-2020-0116, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of .97 of an acre of land, zoned C-G, located at 3243 East Village Drive. This property was annexed back in 2007 as part of the larger Village of Meridian project. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation, which has been amended twice since that time. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment for Cafe Rio within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility to the north Chick-fil-A as required by the UDC. Cafe Rio is proposed to occupy the southern tenant space of a 10,000 square foot multi-tenant building. The existing drive thru is separated from the drive thru to the north by a public street, East Village Drive. Therefore, no traffic conflicts exist between the two sites. The proposed use is subject to specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, drive-thru establishment. Staff has reviewed the proposed site design and found it to be consistent with these standards. Access is proposed via a driveway from a right turn lane from Eagle Road on East Village Drive along the northern boundary of this site across the abutting lot. Direct lot access via Eagle Road is prohibited. ACHD's traffic engineers have reviewed and approved the proposed turn lane configuration. A reciprocal cross- access easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress exists between the lots in the subdivision. A cross-access agreement also exists for shared parking between businesses and lots in the subdivision. Parking lot landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Street buffer landscaping was installed with development of the subdivision along North Eagle Road and East Village Drive. Because the drive-thru lane and back of the building with mechanical equipment will be highly visible from North Eagle Road, staff recommends additional landscaping, consisting of coniferous trees and bushes, is provided within the street buffer along Eagle Road to screen this area and functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that incorporate materials consisting of EFIS in two different colors, tile, metal and concrete trim and accents and standing seam metal roofing. Final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received from John Davis, Layton Davis Architects, the applicant's representative, and they are in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F21 Page 17 of 84 McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Holland. Holland: One quick -- just one quick question. Sonya, is the drive -- driveway through the north side of the property, is that where the entrance is, or does it come in on the south side for the drive thru? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, Commissioners, the drive through --the site plan is oriented to the north. Top is north. So, they come in along Village Drive from the north, down in here, if you can see my cursor, and -- and up around this way. Holland: Okay. Perfect. Thanks. Allen: Yep. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: This is Cassinelli. Sonya, I was curious about the landscape issue brought up. Is the -- are there not parapets around the top there? You mentioned --of mechanical equipment on the roof. Allen: Well, Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, the code does require mechanical equipment on the roof to be screened, but this -- what I was referring to is mechanical equipment on the rear of the building visible from Eagle. Cassinelli: Oh. Okay. Okay. Got you. Sorry. Allen: Either way we want it to be screened. Cassinelli: Yep. Holland: Madam Chair, one more follow-up question. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Is that an escape lane in -- around the drive thru that I see kind of on that southwest corner? Allen: If you -- Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, if you look at the hatched area right there, that's the escape lane, and, then, they can drop off here where the road is and go out. Holland: I have gotten stuck in a long drive thru before and -- you turn the corner and, then, realize there is 20 cars in front of you sometimes and you need to escape. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F22 Page 18 of 84 Allen: Right. Our -- our city code requires an escape lane if the stacking lane is greater than a hundred feet in length. Holland: Perfect. Thanks for clarifying. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Do we have the applicant in chambers or -- oh. Do we have -- is that said John Fink is the applicant? Allen: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Fink, if you would state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Fink: Are you able to hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Fink: Wonderful. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight and thanks for the presentation, Sonya. Everything's pretty straight forward. We are going to add another 10,000 square foot building on this property. Right now there is only going to be one restaurant in this building. We do not plan to put a restaurant on the north side of this building. There may be a restaurant in the middle of this building, but they will, obviously, not be a part of the drive thru. But the staff recommendations from Sonya will add extra landscaping in the back, will widen the sidewalks on any pedestrian walkways and we are in full agreement of that. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Do we have anybody wishing to testify on this application? Weatherly: No, we do not signed up. I did have one person raise their hand. Layton Davis Architects. I have moved them over and they have the opportunity to speak. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead. Layton Davis. Davis: This is John Davis. McCarvel: The floor is yours. We can hear you. Davis: Yeah. I was just offering if there was any -- any questions. That's why I raised my hand. I have nothing further to add. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you. So, if there is no more comments from the applicant and no questions, could -- any -- any other final thoughts from the applicant before we close? Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020- 0116. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F23 Page 19 of 84 Fitzgerald: So moved, Madam Chair. Holland: Second. McCarvel: Did I hear Madam Chair in there somewhere? It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0116. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Thoughts? Comments? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think the -- I mean the Chick-fil-A is pretty significantly distanced from this and I think the stacking lane that they have is pretty significant. It's long and they have an escape lane at the end if they needed to get out of there for -- so, it seems like a reasonable use and with guidance from the applicant not having other restaurants using the drive thru under the circumstance I think it makes sense. I don't have any problem. It looks -- looks pretty straight forward. Cassinelli: Madam Chair. McCarvel: Yeah, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Commission Cassinelli. I would echo those comments by Mr. Fitzgerald. McCarvel: Great. Thank you. And I would just remind whoever is making the motion it's a CUP, so it's approval, not a recommendation. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve the drive thru for the Village at Meridian Cafe Rio, H-2020-0116, for their conditional use permit for a drive-thru establishment with the conditions in the staff report. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0116, Meridian Cafe Rio drive thru. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Fink. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F24 Page 20 of 84 6. Public Hearing for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi- family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is the public hearing for Prescott Ridge, H-2020-0047. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This project was previously heard by the Commission in September of last year. The Council heard this application and was not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without inclusion of the 1 .27 acre parcel at the northeast corner of the site. So, if you will remember, this is the medical campus portion of the site, the commercial area. There is a parcel right here, if you can see my pointer, along the northeast corner that was an outparcel previously and was not included in this application. So, the Council remanded the project back to the Commission for inclusion of that outparcel in the annexation application. The applicant has submitted updated plans for the overall project that include this parcel and the annex -- annexation boundary now consists of 128.21 acres of land, with 19.85 acres in the commercial portion of the site. An updated conceptual development plan was submitted for the medical campus portion of the site as shown that depicts the three story hospital in the same location and the medical office building now shifted to the northeast corner of the site, if you can see my pointer there it's this area right here. The medical office building changed. It increased in height from three stories to four stories and is proposed to be approximately 80,000 square feet that now incorporates retail and restaurant uses on the entire first floor, which provides a mix of uses desired in a mixed use regional designated area that was not there previously. Staff wasn't planning to go into the whole application again, since this was heard previously by the Commission, but if there is any -- any questions you have or anything you would like me to cover I'm certainly willing to. The rest of the development really didn't change. It's -- it's the same. It was just the commercial portion of the site. Holland: Madam Chair? Sonya, did we approve another hospital just down the street from this one, too? Do we have two medical facilities going in next to each other? Allen: And the Brighton application, Pollard Subdivision, directly to the north across Chinden did include a hospital in their concept development plans, yes. Holland: And I remember -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F25] Page 21 of 84 Allen: I don't believe there has been any movement on that as far as I know, though. Holland: Okay. One more follow up if I may. I read that there were some concerns potentially with the emergency vehicle access coming in and out. I think that was my -- my only main concern on this project. Do you have any comments related to that? Allen: The emergency vehicles should be -- it's -- well, let me clarify. Were you referring to emergency vehicles with the emergency department in the hospital? Holland: Yes. Allen: Yeah. Yeah. They will be accessing the site from Rustic -- Rustic Oak Way and Chinden. So, they will -- they will come out of here -- there will be a signal here, traffic signal, and they will come in here and access and -- and the ambulance -- ambulance entry is right here, if you can see on the site. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Go ahead, Bill. Holland: Go ahead, Bill. I will ask mine later. Cassinelli: Go ahead and wrap it up. Holland: My only other concern was the way that single family abuts the commercial site. Did staff have any concerns with that? Because it looks like you have got some pretty significant commercial frontage against some of those backyards there. Allen: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland and Commissioners, yeah, that -- that really hasn't changed, but the improvements to the site plan have been the -- the shift of that medical office building as far away as they can get it at the northeast corner of the site. They are providing a 30 foot wide buffer that's heavily vegetated as you can see along the west and southern boundaries adjacent to existing and future residential uses. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Shall I go ahead? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, just real quickly, I'm assuming that -- I know the last time we saw this that -- that they were hoping to have that parcel under contract. So, I'm assuming that that -- that is now the case. But my real question here is how does the layout of the medical campus differ from -- because the -- to me the last time we -- I think we have seen a couple versions of it and it -- it -- I'm not sure if this goes back to the -- closer to the first time we saw this or the last time we saw it. Do you have -- do you have a rendering of what that looked like, the layout of the medical campus, when we approved it -- when we last saw it? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F26 Page 22 of 84 Allen: Yes, I can find one, Commissioner Cassinelli. It was roughly in this location right here, though. It was oriented more north-south and right here where my pointer is. I can find one for you if you will give me a minute. Cassinelli: Okay. Because if memory serves me, we also saw a completely different rendering of it at one point in time, but I don't remember if that was the first time out. Allen: Yeah. There were several iterations of the concept plan. It's been constantly evolving based on staff -- staff recommendations and the public's requests as well. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant with us? If you could raise your hand. Oh. Okay. Mr. Connor? Connor: Yes. Hi. My name is Patrick Connor. I would like to share my screen if I can. McCarvel: Okay. And if you could state your name and address for the record. Connor: Yes. Thank you. My name is Patrick Connor. Address is 701 South Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. McCarvel: Thank you. Go ahead. Johnson: Madam Chair. Mr. Connor, you should have the ability to share your screen now. Connor: Okay. Thank you. One moment, please. Hey, Stephanie? Okay. Thank you. Sorry for the technical difficulties. As I said before, my name is Patrick Connor with Providence Properties. This is the third time we are presenting this project to you all at the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the exception of Commissioner Holland, I don't think you have seen this full presentation, so I would like to run through it just so you have an understanding of the full project. As I get to different parts of it where things have changed I will stop and spend extra attention, so the full Commission can see what we have changed and improved. So, this is Prescott Ridge. The location -- the project location is in northwest Meridian, just south of Chinden, and east of McDermott Road. Everything you see on the screen here is either platted, built, under construction or approved for construction. The project does include 28 acres of a site that's owned by West Ada School District. It's part of our project to get them legal -- get the legal lot legally annexed and zoned as part of our application, but it will develop separately from our project. Here is a future land use map. The majority of the site is medium density residential, with the north portion as mixed use regional. I also want to point out that a portion of the Peregrine Heights neighborhood is also mixed use regional to our northwest. The current zoning. To our south is R-4 and R-8. To our north is general commercial. The requested zoning boundaries --we requested about 16 acres of general commercial, 7.92 acres of R-15 zone, and about one hundred acres of the R-8 zone as shown on the map. This preliminary plat, as Sonya alluded to, has not changed really at all, with the exception of the addition of the 1.2 acres as requested by City Council. So, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F27 Page 23 of 84 that is now part of this preliminary plat, as shown in the north corner of the property. Three hundred and seventeen single family lots, 38 townhome lots, eight single family attached two unit buildings. We have 14 multi-family lots with four-plexes on each of those lots. So, it totals about 56 units. Forty-two common lots. The one medical campus lot, about 16 acres, and, then, the Ada county -- or West Ada School District parcel, which is 28 acres. Our qualified to open space is about 15 and a half percent, which is shown on this map. I should note that this excludes the commercial property and the West Ada School District property. It does include what is included in the residential portion of the project. We do have a main central park with a pool and a clubhouse, with a large tot lot. We have pocket parks scattered around, including two tot lots and a dog park on the west side of the property. Here is some renderings of that central clubhouse with the pool and the large tot lot and here is some renderings of the smaller tot lots and the pocket parks around the property. The pedestrian connectivity is always a big necessity for community and it's always a big amenity that people desire. So, what I have shown here are the pathways that are through our common lots that kind of break up the -- the blocks to allow for connectivity and pedestrian connectivity and also recreation. There is also a ten foot Parks Department pathway that runs from the north of the property through the medical campus, through the cul-de-sac, through the center of the property of the center park and to the school district site. Also the ten foot pathway continues down Rustic Oak to Rustic Oak -- or Oaks North south of our property. Here is a shot of the phasing plan. Just want to point out the -- phase one hasn't changed. We are building the full extent of Rustic Oak in our property from the south portion all the way to the north portion. This was something that the Fire Department liked and that the city did like, because it offered two points of access to our south to Oaks North and also to the north at Chinden and, then, extends all the way farther west to McDermott with those two points of access to ensure that the fire emergency response time is up to snuff and up to their level of service. With this full build out of Rustic Oak from the very beginning it will connect to the Oaks North, Rustic Oak and, then, down to McMillan. Both the Fire Department and the Police Department have said this would improve the police and fire response times for the entire area. We do have 15 neighbors to our west that are not in the city limits, but they are in the county, but we have paid attention to their access point on the south of their cul-de- sac. We are stubbing a road here. To ensure that they still have emergency access or to give them a secondary emergency access we have offered to install an electronic gate with an opticom device that would not impede their response time, but also prevent any through traffic or cut-through traffic through Serenity Lane from Prescott Ridge. In working with a neighborhood over the past year we have made a lot of different changes, particularly to the medical campus, but this is one example of a gate that they would like to see that we would have installed on the property to ensure they have emergency access, but to restrict the cut through. I'm going to talk a little about the housing types and then -- and, then, get more in particular about the product. So, the majority of the property is the mixed 45, 50 and 60 foot lots that you see in yellow. Then you have in blue the cluster of 40 foot lots, but the option to have attached units in those. In the green are a townhome variety that we will get into more detail later and, then, the red you will see is the multi-family portion of the site. What you see in purple are large lots, 70 to 100 feet in width. We located these next to our neighbors of Peregrine Heights as a buffer and as a transition to their large lots. In working with the neighborhood and the -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F28 Page 24 of 84 particularly the HOA and HOA board, we have committed to limit the height restriction to single story on these nine lots shown. Particularly this is to make sure that the two stories wouldn't block any sort of view of the mountains that they had and lower the scale of our homes adjacent to their properties. Here is an example of some of our homes for our 40, 50 and 60 foot plans and these are larger 50 foot and 60, 70 and up houses with a third car garage option. Here is an example of our attached single family. So, getting more into the townhouse -- and you have seen a couple of variations of this townhome. This has not changed since the last hearing where we really improved the layout. Just for some background, we now have two points of access of this private drive to Rustic Oak and Wildfire Drive. We have 46 total townhome units, but there is three different townhome product types. There is 29 rear load townhomes, which are the ones in the center and in the north part of the site. These will have two car garages, but their front yards are fenced in, but that's for their -- their private spaces that opens up to a common view MEW here and these open up to more of a private MEW on the north end. We also have front load two car garage units here on the west side. They actually have a backyard that's fenced in for privacy and on the south side of this townhome complex are our two unit duplexes, which are front load onto the -- onto the public road, but also have private driveways. We do have a common MEW area here and we have this amenity pocket park over here with a pergola, barbecues, seating and a fire pit. Here is an example of the rear load townhomes in the center of the site and the north of the site. This is an example of the townhomes on the west portion of the site. These designs are -- actually the architecture is getting updated to match the overall architecture for the traditional townhomes and duplex product. And this is the duplex rendering. Here is an example of some products that we have worked on as a team around the country, different MEWs and how they can live to be communal spaces that open up and are used by the community and here is an example of some amenities that we would have in that townhome gathering park. A private space located in the townhome area. This is one area that we have improved since the City Council hearing in December. Some of the comments we got were having also some private amenity areas for this townhome -- or for this multi-family. So, we included a new tot lot here in the southeast corner, as well as a gathering place here in this area of four lots. We have also included the location of our mailbox kiosk and a service shed for maintaining the landscape around the units. Here is an example of a rendering of the front, side, and rear of these -- of these multi- family four-plex units. We are building these units in two or three other communities around the valley. For all of our homes of all varieties we are committed to a hundred percent energy star certification. Along with Brighton we have delivered the most homes in the Treasure Valley that received this certification of energy efficiency to help decrease energy costs, but also help the environment. All the homes also -- our buyers have the opportunity to come to our design center to customize their home. Here is a shot. We are on the cover of the Parade of Homes last fall and here is a shot of some of our interiors. Lastly, the medical campus. And to answer some of your questions from before -- and I do have an exhibit in here that shows the other layout, but this medical office building was initially shown to you all in this corner over here and some of the comments that we got from the Commission and from our neighbors was it was too close to our neighbors next door and so we located it as far as we could in the northeast corner over here. Also I don't know if you remember, but the southern -- the bottom portion of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F29 Page 25 of 84 medical office building is retail and a restaurant. Initially the retail and the restaurant were a separate building. We went ahead to make it a true mixed use. Put it on the bottom floor to allow more kind of neighborhood friendly services for retail and -- and restaurant bottom floor and having the top three stories as a medical office. The hospital building was -- most recently has always been oriented this way. Initially, probably about six or seven months ago, the building was rotated 90 degrees clockwise. Some of the comments we got from our neighbors was they did not want the loading zone next to their homes and so we rotated this direction. We also moved it another 40 feet most recently to the east to alleviate it as far away from the neighbors as we possibly could without taking away our ability to park and to loop emergency traffic through the site. Other than that nothing really has changed on this layout for the medical campus. What you see shown and circled in red are the outdoor areas and integration into the neighborhood and just for reference, Commissioner Holland, because this is a commercial site and these are residential, we will have an eight foot high masonry wall on the south and the west portion of this site, as well as a 30 foot wide landscape buffer. We think that this will give a pretty sufficient vegetative buffer between the residential and the commercial uses. There will be two access points of pedestrian access into the medical campus, both here to the townhomes and here is a ten foot wide pathway through the single family that will continue on to Chinden and the path -- the city pathway that's already built. Here is some renderings of the large -- larger hospital building here and, then, this is an example of what the medical office building would look like. The architecture will -- will match what the hospital looks like, but this is the medical office campus that HCA operates in Caldwell and this is the same sort of use and -- and feel that they would have on this campus in Meridian. These are just some schematics of some integration into the park system and pathways, outdoor seating, walkways through greenspace and areas for people to gather outdoors. So, that concludes this presentation. As Sonya said before, we were remanded from City Council to include that other parcel,. Answer any questions on that. That outparcel is now acquired by us. So, it's part of this application. So, it's no longer a what if it becomes part of the project, it is now part of the project. We are very happy to present this to you all again and, hopefully, I was able to fill in any sort of questions you had on things that we have changed and, hopefully, was able to remind you of some of the good and positive aspects we have in this project. So, with that I stand for any questions. McCarvel: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Connor. I think that, you know, getting that parcel in -- included in this and being able to see the finished product is very helpful. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair, I would say thank you for the -- the overview, because I wasn't here for the first time this came through. I might have been on maternity leave when that one came through. So, thanks for the overview. I appreciate it. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F30 Page 26 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. With nobody being signed up, is there anybody in the audience, if you just hit raise your hand or star nine. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I see a couple people raising their hand. Cory Coltrin. One moment, please. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Coltrin. Please state your name and address for the record. Coltrin: Madam Chair and Commissioner, this is Cory Coltrin at 6178 North Serenity Lane. I am the third lot from south off of Chinden down Serenity Lane, just as a reference there, and I would recommend to the Commissioners and to the chair that you reconsider or turn down, actually, the rezoning from RUT to C-G, that that be denied. We have got a 25 year neighbor -- and the reason for that is we have got a 25 year plus neighborhood here. I have been here 22 years now. I have got my -- raised my family here. I have got my life invested into this property. We always knew that, you know, at some day there would be some type of growth going on and -- behind us and -- and we -- we knew that. But the idea to change this from RUT to C-G and put a hospital right in our backyard just breaks our heart and it's going to significantly impact us, you know, and I'm also concerned with -- with the access that they are proposing off of our private road and I know we are going to have some comment on that coming in, but I just want to -- to voice my opinion that I am totally opposed of this medical campus. Yeah, they -- you know, they are going to put an eight foot wall, but how does an eight foot wall, you know, block out a 56 foot hospital. Not to mention the -- it doesn't matter how -- how a wall or how many trees -- and the trees just, you know, inhibit our -- our beautiful view that we already -- that we -- we have had of the mountains and what you are going to be taking away also from -- from the -- from the hospital. So, I appreciate your time and you consider denying the rezoning of that -- that parcel of property. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Coltrin. Anybody else, Adrienne? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm going to allow Mr. Jacobson to talk. One moment, please. McCarvel: Thank you. Jacobson: Madam Chair, can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Jacobson: Very good. My -- my name is James Jacobson. My address -- my -- my residential address is 8386 West Sundisk in Boise. But my purpose in being here tonight is that I was recently approached by the Peregrine Heights HOA. I am an attorney with the law firm of Sasser and Jacobson and Mr. Coltrin has already spoken. He is a member of the HOA and has been my point of contact. My purpose in providing comment is simply on behalf of the HOA. I think that there are some legitimate concerns that have yet to be addressed and I appreciate that the presentation offered some overview and some Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F31 Page 27 of 84 additional insight, but I don't think that the -- the issues regarding the abutment to the residential have been appropriately addressed. I think Mr. Coltrin spoke to some of his concerns with regard to that. The ingress and egress off of this frontage road that's been proposed from Serenity Lane I don't think have been appropriately addressed. There was some mention of a gate and using that to try to address the --the volume of traffic coming off of Serenity Lane into the proposed medical campus, but there was no addressing as to how that gate is going to be used or controlled and how it's going to, then, effectively deal with the potential increased traffic to the medical campus. Also there was some mention of -- by the chairperson of an additional medical facility located just a short distance from this proposed one. I think that's some concern that we have got two medical facilities that are being proposed within a short distance of each other and -- and so I think that this particular project bears some additional consideration regarding those issues that -- that haven't been adequately addressed. I know that this was something that was presented back in September of 2020 and that we are here now with some effort having been made to try to address some issues, but I don't think that they have been. And so as Mr. Coltrin indicated, I know that there is a desire for the project to be rejected, but at a minimum there should be some additional addressing of those issues adequately and appropriately before a vote is taken and approval is given. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else, Adrienne? Weatherly: Yes, Madam Chair. Next will be Sue Ropski. Sue, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Ms. Ropski, if you would unmute your mic, the floor is yours. Please state your name and address for the record. Ropski: Madam Chair, thank you. My name is Sue Ropski. I live at 6262 North Serenity Lane, which for point of reference is -- Cory Coltrin's next door neighbor. I'm the second lot as you come in on the east side. I moved here 21 years ago from Chicago to get away from exactly what I'm going to be sitting in the middle of. I have been a registered nurse for 35 years and I have concerns that we will have medical campuses across the street from each other. Regarding the medical campus in the back of my property, I'm very thankful that you turned the loading dock, but I still have concerns, knowing what goes on at a hospital, I don't see anywhere marked on there now where your medical waste facilities will be and I am concerned with a loading dock still on the side, that the noise will affect our neighborhood. The height of the medical office buildings has fluctuated between three and four feet. So, I just want you to imagine sitting in your backyard looking at a tower of a building that -- I mean my -- my gardens will be gone. I won't have sun in my yard. I just have concerns that this is going to dramatically affect not only our quality of life, but whether or not I'm going to have my basic hobbies that I have been doing from gardening to having a green yard. So, I oppose a four story structure that is going to block my sun, block my view, and change the quality of life. The access road I don't believe has been addressed and I know that my neighbor Mr. Pittman, who is the first street coming in, is -- is very concerned about how that traffic will move alongside his house and into the neighborhood. So, I -- I go along with Cory and I continue to oppose this project. But thank you very much for letting me give my opinion. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F32 Page 28 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you, Sue. Adrienne, who do we have next? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Patricia Buckholtz. Patricia, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Patricia, you have entered. If you can unmute your mic and state your name and address for the record. The floor is yours. Buckholtz: I'm actually not a part of this. I just wanted to see if I could get the name of Mr. Jacobson's law firm again. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: It will be in the minutes. Adrienne, do you know it offhand? Weatherly: Madam Chair. Patricia, if you want to e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org with your request we would be happy to help you with that information. Buckholtz: Okay. Great. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Cary Pitman. Cary, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Cary, if you would like to unmute your mic and state your name and address for the record. Pitman: The address is 6203 North Serenity Lane. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, sir. Pitman: Yes. So, as was previously stated, I am the first property going south off of Chinden on the east side and there is -- the -- a proposed frontage road that continues to be an issue on how there is going to be enough space between ITD's right of way and my property line and there seems to be some issues with -- and, of course, the fire chief and those have not been responsive and -- or been in these meetings and there was a point of -- there was a certain amount of space that needed to be between the property line and the ITD right of way that was a minimal property -- or minimal distance and I'm concerned that that's not been addressed in a -- a manner that someone has never really come out and said, yes, we can and cannot have this much space or can't have -- or we need this much space to get a firetruck and/or other vehicles through this space that is considered to be there -- an access to this medical campus. McCarvel: We will have the applicant address the questions. Did you have any others, Mr. Pitman? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F33 Page 29 of 84 Pitman: Not at this time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Doug Haneborg. Doug, one moment. Haneborg: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Thank you. State your name and address for the record, please. Haneborg: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and staff. This is Doug Haneborg. I'm the HOA president of Peregrine Heights. I live at 6002 North Serenity Lane, Meridian. 83646. So, I just wanted to start off by saying that we do appreciate Patrick and his team trying to meet some of our needs and our concerns of our neighbors and, you know, such as like the single story lots that are abutting our larger lots that he spoke of and the southern gate as well. Patrick has accepted and made some adjustments for some of our requests and we do appreciate that. But, however, that being said, there are still ongoing communications with the neighbors of Peregrine Heights to check the support levels of this project and there are still major concerns as you guys have heard previously tonight. Patrick had asked me if I could maybe write a letter in support of the project and I wanted to run that, you know, by our neighbors and get a pulse and I have met a lot of resistance in doing that and I received several responses from our neighbors in writing and I just wanted to share a few snippets of those responses. One neighbor had stated given that we still don't know what else they can sneak in via amendments between now and the time that this is all built out, we not only don't see how we can rubber stamp the plan, but why we should. We are quite sure that P&Z and the City Council don't expect or require us to, especially since they put the whole hospital complex in a separate application in order to move this all through faster. It's certainly not going to be helpful for our neighborhood. In response to Patrick's requests, he was also wondering what other requests that we had and the neighbors feel like we have already been sharing that with him and have been turned down on some of those. For example, a buffer space between some of the back fences and our yards. Fewer houses abutting the southeast Peregrine Heights properties and the fact that they are ignoring the major frontage road issue. Another neighbor response was: I'm hesitant to sign off on a letter of support. Each time we meet more details come to light. Since the hospital campus is an evolving project, things can continue to seem to change. Another neighbor wrote: We are adamantly opposed to having a hospital next to our subdivision. I have always expected that there would be a nice residential neighborhood behind our property, but would never have imagined someone would try to put a hospital there. Lastly, another neighbor wrote: I'm not a supporter of this project. I have no desire for a large structure behind my house with parking lot lights everywhere blocking the view that was one of the reasons why I purchased this home and the road that they want to put 25 feet from our yards is not acceptable. As previously stated by other people tonight, too, there is a consensus that the private road and it being owned by our HOA, legally the development cannot tie into a privately owned road for their access requirements without our consent and so that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F34] Page 30 of 84 seems to be an ongoing discussion and issue. That's all that I have at this time. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. Haneborg, could I ask you a quick question? Haneborg: Sure. Fitzgerald: So, when the highway district or ITD eventually closes your road off, where are you going to get access? Because that's what is eventually going to happen. We have been -- we have been -- in the earlier conversations about this that is the access to your neighborhood, whether it be private or not. It is likely going away in the next five to ten years. Is that -- can we agree on that? Haneborg: Well, that's what it sounds like and that's kind of our question, too, because if this project requires two access points and that one's being taken away, then, it doesn't have two access points. Fitzgerald: It does. On McDermott it has one on -- on Chinden. So, I'm confused. I think beforehand we were -- we kind of found an even medium by hopefully giving you guys a gated access for that until your right-in, right-out comes into play and, then, the actual eventual termination of your road goes away. So, I thought we had come to that -- Haneborg: So, that would be the southern -- the southern access point with the gate. But the frontage road is still an issue, because if you are saying their second access point is off of McDermott, then, what's -- what's the need or requirement now for the access point on our private road? Fitzgerald: And I think it was for you guys, to be honest, and -- Haneborg: No. This is -- Fitzgerald: We will let Patrick respond to that, but -- McCarvel: Okay. Haneborg: And I think it's been a consistent issue and one of the largest concerns is that road tying into our private road. You know, there is -- like you are saying, what the highway is going to do is what the highway is going to do and so that's why we don't even understand that if in five years I agree with you, if they block that, then, it's a null and void, you know, reason now, because within five years what's even the point of that road there tying into ours if it's going to be blocked off anyways and that's one of the concerns, because, then, if for those five years we just have an excess of traffic that, you know, isn't Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F35 Page 31 of 84 necessary or required. And, again, there is no other access road anywhere down Chinden. Not even on the busiest intersections or any of those -- any neighborhood there is not one I have seen anywhere. Do you guys know of any? So, it doesn't make sense to us why this little strip has an access road that will probably be not accessible in five years as you are stating. That's part of our -- our issue, too. And, then, you want to put it 25 feet from someone's yard, you know. So, that's where we are stating that there is -- it's not clear, it doesn't really make sense and if you are saying their other access point is McDermott, then, that's -- that makes sense; right? Because that's a future --those are the two -- that's what I have been saying, too. If it's McDermott and Chinden, then, why are we putting an access road for, you know, a short -- short little gap that there is no other access roads anywhere else down Chinden on north or south and if it's just to fulfill a little requirement or something for the hospital, that's where it doesn't make sense to us. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Haneborg. Haneborg: Thank you. McCarvel: Do we have anybody else, Adrienne? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I don't see any other hands raised. McCarvel: Okay. And, Commissioner Seal, do we have anybody in chambers wishing to speak? Seal: We do not. McCarvel: Yes? Seal: No. McCarvel: No. Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to comeback up and address the issues that we have heard? Connor: Yes, I would. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead. Connor: Before I address them, Sonya, do you want to talk a little bit about the Code, UDC 11-3H-4B that tied us to the frontage road with the intent to connect to adjacent properties, particularly the property on the west side of Peregrine Heights? Allen: Madam Chair, would you like me to address that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F36 Page 32 of 84 McCarvel: Sure. Allen: Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the city code requires a frontage road adjacent to state highways. So, it's the -- the access road is not simply serving as an emergency access from Chinden. I mean it is, but the -- the main reason for the access -- well, let me back up. With -- with the first phase of development the applicant is proposing to construct a collector street that's going to extend from Chinden Boulevard to the property's south boundary, which will eventually connect through to McMillan Road. So, that will eliminate the requirement for --for an emergency secondary access from the Fire Department when that is constructed. The -- again, back to the frontage road requirement. That is a -- the UDC requires frontage roads to restrict accesses to state facilities for safety reasons. So, people aren't constantly, you know, slowing down, pulling out into traffic. So, that will serve as an access road between the property to the west of Peregrine Heights Subdivision when that redevelops and that will provide an access road out to the signalized intersection at the collector street Rustic Oak Way and Chinden. So, the applicant isn't really -- it wasn't their idea to propose this road, it was -- it's a city code requirement. With the State Highway 16 going in further to the west there it -- it locks in this property -- kind of landlocks it without these access roads. Hopefully that helps. McCarvel: And I guess to Mr. Connor, then, we have had several questions about that access road, if it fits. Connor: Yes. Allen: Yeah. And I can actually respond to that, too, Madam Chair. Joe Bongiorno, Deputy Fire Chief, has been out to the site, has inspected the road, as well as reviewed the -- the plans and he has determined that it meets the fire department standards for access, which will also meet the city code requirements for frontage road as well. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: And the frontage road is not a public road, but more of a private driveway access, just to clarify. McCarvel: Okay. And, Mr. Connor, I think we had also questions about where the medical waste was going and the -- the gate for the emergency access. Connor: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will answer all the questions that are brought up. McCarvel: Okay. Great. Connor: So, just some quick background. I think we have had three -- either three or four neighborhood meetings about this project and the comment about the site changing and moving around is accurate. I would say it's changed because of comments and us Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F37 Page 33 of 84 trying to accommodate changes that are asked either by the neighbors, by staff, or by the Commission. So, we are changing it. I would argue that we are improving it to be a better product -- product -- project, but also a better neighbor for the neighbors. So, just briefly just going through it, yes, by city code we are required to have the frontage road. The intent of their frontage road is to connect to the property on the east side. I have worked with the current planner that's working on that project on the east side of Peregrine Heights to coordinate a plan as was recommended by staff and by Chief Bongiorno to ensure that they have that access road as well -- that frontage road as well. We understand that it does kind of create a unique situation with the driveway to Peregrine Heights. We have offered to put in -- put signs that say for emergency use only and trying to deter any sort of traffic from using that road, as well as not printing any sort of signage for the hospital to use Serenity Lane, but to drive all the traffic through Rustic Oak. So, that's one accommodation that we want to ensure. If and when the access to Serenity Lane does go away, the -- the only point of access will be the southern part of Serenity Lane through our project. So, we did do a few changes to the building. So, we oriented the loading dock -- and this is also the location of the trash receptacles, which is on the south side of the building. That was a recommendation by -- by Ms. Sue Ropski and we made that change pretty early on in the revisions of this project and we maintained it. The comments about the height of the building, so the hospital building, the larger building, was made three stories and combining the restaurant and retail into the medical office buildings it did -- it's at four stories. That's -- the initial application was a three story building for the medical office building. Again, moving it all the way to the northeast corner we were trying to alleviate the concerns that were brought up at a previous public hearing that the building was in the wrong location. The attorney, Mr. Jacobson, saying that there is still concerns to be addressed. We have been addressing concerns throughout this project. At the last neighborhood meeting I had two big takeaways from the HOA president, the HOA members and neighbors. The first concern was -- and I believe it came from Mr. Coltrin, but he wanted to seethe hospital moved over further east. I moved it I think 30 to 40 feet further east, while maintaining the necessary parking that we had on our east side, but also allowing enough traffic moving to the ambulance entry as I previously said. This is as far east as we can move the building to make it work and function as a hospital. So, that was the first request from the neighborhood. The second request is that we look at decreasing the height of our residential units adjacent to them. Initially I was only given the permission to decrease the height of four houses. I had bent over backwards and asked for permission to move that number to nine as recently as just a few days ago. The HOA president Mr. Haneborg asked me for an additional lot to be dropped down to one story and I made that accommodation. So, that's nine houses that we are taking down to help their view--their view shed. Also this building in the northeast corner, the medical office building, we orientated it east-west. That actually will take away from some of the visibility of the emergency room and the hospital building by moving in that direction. The sole reason for this movement was to help alleviate some of the questions and the concerns that these neighbors have had about their view. So, those are the concerns that have came up in the most recent neighborhood meeting and all neighborhood meetings and I have asked if there is anything else that is to be addressed. They have brought up the issue of the frontage road required by code. I believe that those issues are addressed and it's necessary for access, as well as it's part of code and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F38] Page 34 of 84 it's part of this project and so there is really nothing that we can change on that. There is alternatives if -- if and when -- a possibility in the future, as this whole area here -- pretty much the whole scene that you see is on the future land use map for mixed use regional. If and when these homes redevelop we could potentially have a stub road at this point. There is -- there is options down the road for how this whole area can redevelop in the future. As far as the parking lot and the lights and -- and having that use, we will be using -- using parking lot lights that only shine on the pavement and not up in the air. This hospital, just for clarification, is going to cater towards women services. Typical hours are, you know, 7:00 o'clock in the morning until about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon for most of the surgeries and the operations. It's a fairly lightly used hospital use. It's not a trauma hospital, so any sort of big issues or ambulances will go to St. Al's or St. Luke's and not to this hospital. The ambulance entry is really only required because of the level of surgeries that they would do for the outpatient surgeries in the hospital. So, also any sort of -- you have regulations for no sirens and no lights adjacent to certain neighborhoods. So, that's a policy they have to not disturb any sort of residential areas around the area. So, just another clarification. We are -- we are about-- I think it's -- and I can do the measurement, but I think we are over 120 feet from the edge of the property line. This buffer zone is 30 feet, plus 20, plus probably another -- I would say 80 to 100 feet and so the argument that the building is 25 feet from the property line is not an accurate representation of this project. Hopkins: Yeah. I will add some things. This is Stephanie Hopkins with KM Engineering. 9233 West State, Boise. 83714. Just to kind of touch on a couple of the code related things and to kind of add to what Patrick has already said. I think Doug and maybe another neighbor had mentioned that they think that we are kind of sneaking things through. I think Patrick did a good job of, you know, explaining how many times we have met with neighbors and all the conversations we have had with them and staff and -- and other stakeholders in the area. Additionally, any applications that were --that the hospital will have to have a conditional use permit, which will include more detailed plans, more requirements, such as photometric tests and -- and other things that will require that we make sure we are not disturbing them with light and that any noise is mitigated and we comply with design standards. In that application and through the next -- and the application, after that we would have to comply with all the code requirements and -- and the neighbors would have another opportunity to talk to us about their concerns and thoughts, too. I think Doug had also mentioned that he was hoping to see residential in this area and, as Patrick had said, this area on the future land use map is designated mixed use regional zone, which the future land use and that -- that area really does guide development towards higher developments or higher density developments for residential properties. So, really, the only residential designation we would be able to request here is R-15 or the R-40 zone and, in fact, they actually hope that you are going to have more of a commercial and a regional draw to the area. So, that's kind of where we landed with this project through several discussions with the city and, you know, just looking to see what makes sense in the area. So, I think that's all I had to add. Connor: I just want to add just one more thing. There has been some mention of there is already an unimproved medical campus across the street. We are fully aware of that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F39 Page 35 of 84 In fact, HCA, who is attached to this project, was initially attached to that project and so they decided that their relationship would be better used with us on this side of the street and so from -- from a resident and a user standpoint having multiple medical options nearby is actually beneficial as a consumer. You, potentially, have more access to a variety of doctors and options, potentially at lower cost of surgeries and operations, as well as there is some efficiency and it's smart to have an adjacency of uses of -- of similar medical professions across the street from each other. So, it can be almost like a medical hub. Obviously, the market will dictate what services that each of the hospitals provide, but in many cities all across our region and around the country there are many different medical operators who operate adjacent to each other and this is not to be, you know, to be in competition at all times, but also there is real efficiencies and this can be a real win for the city and for the consumers from a medical standpoint. So, I think that covered most of the questions that were -- that were brought up. McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I may have missed it. I apologize. The hospital is -- was it five stories? Is that what I heard? Hopkins: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, it's -- it's a three story hospital. Yearsley: Okay. Hopkins: Four story medical office building with the retail and restaurant on the bottom floor. Yearsley: Okay. So, for a long the residence to the west I know we got a 30 foot wide buffer with trees. Are you planning a fence or a structure of any kind to block the noise? Connor: Commissioner Yearsley, by code we are required to do an eight foot tall masonry wall. Yearsley: Okay. Connor: So that -- and, actually, in talking with the neighbors over this time, they may -- I believe were -- were happy with the 30 foot buffer and -- but they also were saying, you know, we don't want too many trees, because we don't want them to grow too high, because that would obstruct the view even more. So, we want to make sure that we work with the neighbors ensuring that we put in appropriate species of trees there that you don't completely block out their view. So, that's something that we want to make sure that we work with the neighbors as we pick the right species of trees to offer the visual and sound barrier, but -- but not too much. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F40 Page 36 of 84 Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-0047. Yearsley: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Let me start out by saying I sympathize with the folks that share this -- the border there to the west. So, I have had a place with a view twice in my existence here in Idaho and I have moved out of both of them, because houses or something else were built behind me. So, I very much sympathize with that. But I mean how do we protect a view? It's not in our purview. It's nothing that anybody owns. We have been through this before with other applications and although I sympathize with them, there is also an understanding when you move in that there is going to be building around here. There is -- there is no stopping it at this point in time. Hopefully we have done a good job in mitigating, you know, the growth that comes here and making sure that we are responsible about it. I mean I know that so far I mean I have just been jotting down -- I mean the hospital was turned and lowered. The fencing was revised. They put in a 30 foot pathway. They have put in an electric gate. ACHD has approved -- I mean the city was the one that asked them to put in the access point. The commercial building has been moved. They lower the houses to one story around. They are working with West Ada School District to bring in a school. I mean I can't think of -- and through the entire process I think that they have tried to be very transparent. I mean we have worked with a lot of developers and builders that I feel are not transparent, they are trying to get away with an absolute minimum and bring things in. I think these guys are being very creative and I think they are trying to add something to the community that I think is sorely needed, not only in services, but in jobs as well. So, having all that done and, again, there are -- there has been a lot of changes. I mean we have seen this thing three times now and all the changes that I have noted here and everything that I see coming through are all because of recommendations that have been made. I don't see anything that's coming in here as, you know, they are trying to sneak in or put it in sideways or whatever the verbiage is around that. So, I mean at some point in time you have to accept that you are going to have neighbors. That's -- I mean it's an unfortunate thing and, again, sympathize with that. But, you know, at least it's not a big box store or you know -- you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F41 Page 37 of 84 know, an R-40 or something like that coming. I mean a quiet little hospital that's sitting there, I would almost welcome it in. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I would like to echo a lot of what Commissioner Seal just said. One of the things that, you know, we have seen this, like he said, three times and I -- I feel for the residents that are next to this project. One of the things that kind of keeps them back is this -- and I know this is not their intent, but the compromises that have been made are not -- it's not a -- it's not a capitulation to do everything that is asked of the developer, there is a compromise that has to come from both sides, and I feel like throughout this process that that has been the goal of the project is to meet in the middle on a lot of these things and so I -- I applaud, you know, the changes that have been made and some of the things that they have changed even since we saw it last time in the residential piece, I -- I like, you know, what they have done with the -- that four-plex area and making that more of a livable space and the -- I continue to like what they did with the -- I think it was the second time we saw it when they changed the townhome section to have the MEW and creating that sense of space within that area. The whole project has done something that I appreciate, which is creating a sense of space, a sense of community within a project and I think tying that into the medical campus is great with what they have done and I -- I'm in favor of where they have moved the medical office and the consolidation of it into one building. I know that added a story, but it did improve the -- the traffic flow in that area and it provided a -- provided a different aspect that seemed kind of cramped before, but feels like it -- it will really do what they had intended to do from the get go. I think that, you know, where this is next to the state highway is a great location for a hospital facility and especially where, you know, it's going to have the two highways crisscrossing not far from this and it's also going to improve what else is going on in this general area with, you know, bringing jobs out to northwest Meridian where, you know, we need to continue to have places for people to work near where they are living potentially and so we don't want to have solid -- just solid, you know, residential use throughout an area. It -- it doesn't hold up well in my opinion over time. McCarvel: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: So, here is my -- you know, one -- one thing I will -- I will note. There seems to be far more comments by the residents of the -- of Serenity Lane there this time than -- than last time, which -- which is interesting and I thought we hit a lot of the concerns last time. But here is what really -- here is what's kind of getting -- getting to me and bothering me. When we first saw it back in September it was a -- it was -- one of the buildings was four story and one was three and, then, when we saw it in October and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F42 Page 38 of 84 think we went past midnight that night and I hope we don't do it tonight, but when we -- when we saw it then and went over it, they had reduced the height of -- of both buildings and taking them to three stories and that was -- I think that was a big part of -- and we liked everything else they did on the residential set, but I -- but I think that that was a big thing with -- with all the Commissioners, that they -- that they really looked at that and they -- they -- they did what they could to work with the -- with the neighbors there to -- to reduce the -- the height to try and keep a view to a degree. They moved -- you know. And we had asked him that I could -- you know, I'm looking at the motion that we passed last time and it was -- it was a three story medical office building be moved to the east and now that they got that lot they were able to do that, but now they bumped it up to four. So, we approved it unanimously as a Commission at a three story hospital and a three story office building and now they come back today and one of those buildings is now a four story. I don't know how much the hospital has changed. It doesn't look like much. It's -- it has been orient -- reoriented a whole lot from the very first time it was, but it looks like it's pretty similar to when we approved it. But the big one is that we have -- what we approved was a three story, where now they have come back -- kind of feel like a little bait and switch. They have come back now since going to Council with a four story and that's not -- that's not what I wanted last time. I don't know if -- you know, I can't speak for all my fellow Commissioners here, but I do know I'm looking at the motion and -- and what was made there and it was an approval based on both buildings being three stories. So, where -- where I sit -- I'm -- that's what I wanted, that's what I said yea to on the approval and that's what I'm sticking with is -- if they came back four -- or if they came back with the three story on the office building -- and I realize they are trying to put -- they want to put retail and restaurant on the bottom floor. I get what they are doing. But that's -- with all the work that we did and the hours we spent on it, that's what we approved and now we are --we are --we are looking at something different now to approve it and, really, all Council wanted to do was kick it back to us until -- until we had that parcel as part of it. Well, now it's -- the design has changed since what we approved. That's what I'm trying to say. So, I -- personally I can't get behind it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I ask Commissioner Cassinelli a question? Cassinelli: Yeah. You bet. McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I get what you are saying. I think the -- if I recall correctly -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong if you are looking at the notes, but there was a request to not only bring that -- that parcel in and try to incorporate it, move the medical building over, but also include retail. That was a direction they gave them --we gave them. So, I think they are going after the direction we gave them or at least that was my understanding of the direction we gave them. Because we would like to see some type of retail restaurant pad, something there that incorporated that into just -- not just an office building. So, I mean moving it, you know, 50 to 80 feet or more, I'm not sure exactly what-- at least a significant amount is much more than the angle you are looking at if you -- if you had it in the middle of that parking lot and so we approved it not knowing exactly if that thing was going to be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F43 Page 39 of 84 -- it was going to be approved with that new lot or not and it was in the middle of that thing. So, we had moved it over 80 to 100 feet and it's added a story that we asked for. I mean we didn't ask for that specifically, but we asked for retail and restaurants to be on that pad somewhere. So, I don't think they are bait and switching, at least I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I don't think there is a bait and switch going on. I think there is -- they are listening to us and trying to incorporate what we asked them to do. So, that -- at least that's what I took away from it. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Can I just ask a clarification question to staff? Do we have anything planned to the east of this development on Chinden right now or what the future use map is there -- is still continued -- possible commercial zoning there? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, we do not have anything directly to the east yet. That area is also designated mixed use regional. I believe there is a landscape company there now. Holland: So, it's likely that at some point that would continue with more commercial? Allen: That's correct. Holland: Okay. Thank you. I don't know if you want me to make my comments now. McCarvel: Go right ahead. Holland: I -- this is my first time really looking at this application, because I was out the last couple times you guys heard this. I think, again, I was maybe on maternity leave or elsewhere, but apologies for not being involved in that before. I love -- I really like commercial developments. Obviously, that's my background is economic development. Hospitals bring great jobs. They bring great wages. They bring great amenities that are needed for communities. So, people don't have to drive as far for medical services. If I could have picked where to put one I wouldn't have chosen to put it necessarily next to an R-2 subdivision, so that's -- that's my challenge to looking at it and I know it sounds like you guys have done significant rounds of conversations on how to be as amenable to that neighbor as possible. It's tough. I would -- I think it looks like they have made some good concessions to try and fit in there. The residential component I think it's -- it's a well balanced project. The only heartburn I'm having is still with that Serenity Lane and how that ties in. I wish that there could be another row of homes to transition it, but I know that that would probably still have some heartburn for those folks as well. So, I commend you all for making the recommendations you did. It looks like they have integrated a lot of those components. I would also agree with Commissioner Fitzgerald's thoughts on the -- moving the building to the east. If it's going to integrate with future commercial you are likely going to have other structures that will come in at a height and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F44] Page 40 of 84 you are kind of transitioning it over to the east side. I think it might be far enough away that the difference between a three story and a four story is not going to make a huge difference where it's located. So, I'm okay with the four story building there for the office, because it adds the -- the potential to have more restaurants, live-work spaces available to the public there, but I certainly commiserate with the Serenity Lane folks and I'm struggling on how to help them, but it's -- it's tough that that neighborhood is located next to this project or that this project is located next to that neighborhood, which ever way you put it. That's my only heartburn. McCarvel: Mr. Yearsley. Yearsley: Yes, Chairman -- or Chairwoman. You know, it's -- I guess for me is the homeowners, you know, to the east--to the west has had a great opportunity for 20 years to live out in peace with -- with nobody around them and, unfortunately, growth has finally caught up to them. As I have been listening tonight I have -- I have tried to determine is the use appropriate for the area. Initially I thought that the hospital was five stories, but three stories I don't see as a big an issue, especially as far away as it is. My one concession is they are going to do an eight foot wall -- masonry wall. I would consider making a motion go ten feet tall if-- if, you know, as an option just to give a little bit more screening for the homeowners if they prefer. I have watched and seen other areas have the same issue with remote residents out in the -- out -- out in the fringes getting caught up and it is tough, I feel for them, but at the end of the day, you know, development has come close up to them. It may not be the development that they want, but I think it is an appropriate use given the location to the highway and the future State Highway 16 and so I think with that -- and, then, also I echo Commissioner Fitzgerald. We asked them for some rough commercial and I like where they put that and added the story there just to give -- and it's far enough away that I don't think it will be as big of an impact as more commercial use on -- closer to them. So, with that I would be in favor of the project. McCarvel: I guess I will go ahead and throw in my two cents. I think with the highways where they are -- I mean they just -- we need to have -- it begs for a regional use and I feel bad that they have -- you know, that their houses were once upon a time next to a much slower moving highway or way less traffic, but the growth has come and I think it's an appropriate use and, yeah, personally I think I would rather have this than a big R-40 development right behind me and that's -- you know, a 15 or a 40 is what could potentially be there. I think this is probably a better transition and saves the view and probably less noise for more of the homes there, because you have got, you know, parking lot for the most part not obstructing several of the home views, so -- and I think the applicant as well as done a lot. I mean a lot of what we have asked in working with neighbors, you know, like I said, it doesn't -- sometimes it's just not everything you want, but I think they have done a good job in providing better access in the future for what's coming. Anybody else? Comments? Motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair, I will make a motion. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F45] Page 41 of 84 Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21 st, 2021, with the following modifications: That the block wall to the east be raised to ten foot upon approval of the homeowner's association of that -- that increase at City Council. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley -- Allen: Madam Chair? McCarvel: -- did you mean west? Yes, Sonya. Allen: Clarification. Yes, I believe he meant west. Yearsley: Yes. Allen: But city code restricts the maximum height of fences in the commercial districts to eight feet in height. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: However, you could -- you could require a two foot berm with an eight foot tall fence on top -- Yearsley: I like that, Sonya. You are awesome. Allen: -- for the same result. And they could also apply for alternative compliance to that section of code that restricts height to eight feet as well. So, either one of those options and you could -- you could allow for either of those options if you would like. Alternative compliance has to be approved by the director, so there is no guarantee in this forum that it would be approved. Yearsley: I like the -- I would like to amend my motion to add a two foot berm with an eight foot block wall to the west. Seal: Madam Chair, quick -- McCarvel: Oh. Could we -- Seal: -- if I could make a point. We -- I mean the whole argument started out we were trying to protect a view. If we put a ten foot fence and they are going to have a view of concrete. Yearsley: Well -- and I -- you know, for me it was -- is based on, you know, if the homeowners association doesn't want that that they can say no. That was my -- my motion is based on approval of the homeowners association. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F46 Page 42 of 84 Seal: Okay. Yearsley: My only concern was the noise from the hospital, trying to help block the noise. Seal: Understood. McCarvel: Okay. Is there a second? Holland: Second the motion of Commissioner Yearsley. McCarvel: We have a motion for approval of H-2020-0047 and a second with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Connor and Stephanie. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is -- I think I will stop real quick. Does anybody -- do we want a five minute break or do you want to plow through? Okay. It's 8:32. So, let's do five minutes. (Recess: 8:32 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.) 8. Public Hearing Continued from January 7, 2021 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile 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 (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. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F47 Page 43 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. So, we will reconvene and start -- next item on the agenda is the public hearing continued from January 7th for Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Joe Dodson, associate planner. Bear with me through this one. It's a complicated project and I will probably explain a lot. I am going to do my best not to get too far into the weeds and rather let you guys ask those questions if you want them. I hope that you all have reviewed my staff report, as it has a lot more of the detail. Secondly, I do -- I have heard that the applicant is in attendance and I will be running their presentation from home -- or madam clerk. So, now we can get going. As you can see on the images in front of you, this is a project located generally in the northwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile, but behind -- all the undeveloped land behind the existing Walmart. The property consists of two elements. The MDA, the development agreement modification, consists of approximately 76 acres, while the plat and rezone request consists of 63 and a half acres of land. The rezone request -- or currently it is zoned C-C, C-G, and L-O as -- and R-15 for the remaining piece along the south. North is R-8 and residential zoning. To the west is R-4 and residential zoning. To the south is R-8 and residential zoning is -- or residential uses. Volterra South and, then, also to the south as C-G with the noted Walmart and some other smaller commercial uses. East across Ten Mile is more R-8 zoning and residential uses, some L-O and, then, on the northeast corner of McMillan and Ten Mile is more C-G, but it should be noted that the largest lot in that area was approved for a large 55 and older multi-family community. This application is located in the mixed use community future land use designation as a very small area of medium density residential along this western boundary that is basically part of the existing Bridgetower Subdivision. As noted the applicant is requesting a rezone and it totals 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 37 acres to approximately three and a half. Reducing the L-O zone from approximately ten acres to one and a half and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13 acres to 16.7 acres. It includes a preliminary-- preliminary plat request that consists of 169 single family residential building lots, detached residential, six commercial building lots and eight common lots on 56.9 -- or 57 acres of land and the development agreement modification as noted as part of the request -- well, they want to amend the existing development agreement for the purpose of developing the site with detached single family and general commercial consistent with their new development plan as seen here with the new zoning exhibit. Excuse me for a second. One correction. The -- this portion here, if you guys can see my pointer, this small -- it's about three and a half acres -- is actually supposed to be C-C and not C-G. The rezone exhibit submitted by the applicant are wrong and I -- one of my conditions of approval is to correct that to include this area as C-C. They would have to revise their other rezoning exhibits as well. And, then, north would be to the right on this image for reference. Moving along. The applicant is proposing to construct the project with six acres of qualified open space, which amounts to the minimum ten percent. The qualified open space consists of the Ten Mile buffer, the collector street buffers, the pathways, multi-use and micro, and other smaller landscaping lots. The applicant is not including any of the open space from the existing development, but is removing some of the existing park area for some lots within this plat. As you can see there is a dotted line on this. That Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F48] Page 44 of 84 is the boundary of the existing park right now where the fence line is. So, they are taking just these -- this little area here. The applicant has submitted a master open space plan for both -- which I should say it shows compliance with the overall required minimums and approved amounts for Volterra North and South, which were previous approvals. Specifically as noted, the existing park is over 13 acres in size and that was constructed and improved in 2017. It was approved to be a minimum of 10.2. So, it is currently larger than what it is intended to be. With this plat the applicant is leaving 11.4 acres of the park untouched and, therefore, exceeding the approved park size. One qualified site amenity is proposed in this development consisting of a segment of multi-use pathway as required by the master pathways plan. It is going to be on the north side of this collector street. Connect all the way to Ten Mile, run along it, cross the local streets, then, connect back into the multi-use pathway existing in Bridgetower. The proposed plan as noted is over 40 acres in size, so that requires at least two amenities. I have recommended a conditional approval that the applicant add an additional amenity within the proposed subdivision or within the shared park. I would like to note that there have been some discussions of potentially adding one in the park in Volterra South. In order to make that work staff needs to see an overall amenity list as well and make sure that there is enough amenities nearby this subdivision for that to work. Otherwise, the amenity will have to be on this side of McMillan and within the subdivision. Access is proposed via new local street connections to an existing -- to an extension of the collector street as noted that goes through the site from the southwest all the way to the northeast and is shown as West Gondola Street. The commercial portion of the site has driveway accesses to this collector street as well, but only on the east side of the street. West Gondola will be extended from the center of the development where existing North San Vito Way and North Vicenza Way intersect. North San Vito Way is this western one and Vincenza Way is this eastern one. Both are shown as collector streets and end right in these points. Gondola will continue east and north and connect to Ten Mile Road. The applicant is proposing to construct all internal local streets of the subdivision as brick pavers, as he did in Bridgetower, and extend the two local street stubs from the Bainbridge Subdivision to the north. Through the traffic impact study the applicant is required to construct dedicated westbound right turn lanes on McMillan Road at both existing collector streets, San Vito Way and Vicenza Way. So, again, those are westbound turn lanes on both of those. The TIS provided by the applicant did not incorporate any of the future commercial -- any of the future commercial traffic, because no end users are currently known and the applicant does not intend on constructing the commercial until at least phase five of the development. Because of this exclusion, ACHD is requiring that an updated TIS be submitted prior to the first application for any use within the commercial portion of the development. Staff fully supports this condition by ACHD. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 169 detached single family lots, eight common lots, on 41 acres of the 63 acre rezone request and will -- as I noted with six commercial lots. According to the phasing plan, the residential and commercial is constructed over seven phases with residential being in the first four. The applicant is also proposing to fully construct a collector street extension in phase five, which staff does not support, and has recommended it is constructed fully with phase one for added connectivity and overall circulation. The applicant is requesting to modify the existing DA, which is the existing concept plan that is in front of you now, which is, again, as I noted, approximately 76 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F49 Page 45 of 84 acres, because it includes the existing R-15 piece, which is right about here. It should -- it is now being proposed to include detached single family dwellings as discussed. General commercial, a small area of office, and conceptually multi-family along McMillan. The existing DA includes a concept plan for this mixed use area from 2008. There was a modification to the DA last year--or, sorry, we are in 2021 now. In 2019 and it continued -- which they brought forth this concept plan with it and the majority of the existing DA provisions. This existing concept plan received a -- and, again, it's from 2008 when the property received a comp plan map amendment to change the property for medium density residential to mixed use community. The current concept plan depicts a large scale business park consisting of a private hospital or other large employer, large and small scale commercial, and a large area of assisted living facilities with supportive medical offices in the area that is zoned R-15. To put it more bluntly, this was intended to be another Silverstone or El Dorado type of business park. That was the initial intent when this came forth in 2008. It was intended to be an employment center here in northwest Meridian. The applicant believes the existing concept plan depicting this business park and medical campus is no longer obtainable on this site, because of various market factors and the fact that no hospital or large employer has requested approval. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a new concept plan and plat with a significant reduction in the existing commercial in order for the single family residential to be developed. As part of the rezone request the applicant is requesting the overall commercial zoning from approximately--sorry. Is reducing the overall commercial zoning for approximately 63 acres down to approximately 22. This loss of 41 acres equates to approximately 65 percent of the existing commercial zoning out here. The percentage itself is large. I apologize. But just as important is the loss of potential employment. The remaining smaller areas of commercial proposed will likely be, you know, strict commercial with a majority of minimum wage service jobs, instead of the higher wage job seen in larger buildings or those with complex uses that require more expertise. Staff does not believe the remaining 22 acres is enough. Hold on one second. Clearly I'm talking too much because it's telling him stuff. I apologize. Staff is amenable to additional residential on this site as noted in my staff report and as discussed with the applicant, but there is significant loss of commercial and potential employment with the applicant's request. Because of this staff recommended specific revisions to the development plan to retain more commercial zoning and include more integration within the development to be more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and the mixed use community designation. The main recommended revisions are as follows: Construct Gondola Street further west and deeper into the site, generally located where the existing North Calcutta Street is. Connect the easternmost stub street along the property's north boundary from Bainbridge directly to Gondola Street and still meet the ACHD offset requirements. With the movement of Gondola Street further west you would, then, be able to expand the commercial east of Gondola Street. I would recommend that that new area of commercial as noted on the right-hand side would be C-C or L-O, preferably C-C, and that is what the applicant did show on the left there and in addition I recommended depicting the existing R-15 piece, maintain the existing concept plan of assisted living and other specialized nursing, medical uses as discussed in the 2008 application and, then, shown on the subsequent existing concept plan. To go a little bit more into detail here, the applicant did --well, before-- before I do that I will finish the other part. This new area of commercial Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F50 Page 46 of 84 that I noted would allow buildings to front on Gondola Street and have shared plazas along that street within walking distance of the residential and the parking area between the sets of buildings, rather than parking and, then, Gondola Street and, then, homes. It would offer a better buffer and more integration of the uses and a better transition from the residential to the commercial and, then, subsequently the residential to Ten Mile Road. The main reason for this rezone request is for -- is to reduce the amount of commercial area due to market factors, as stated by the applicant. In line with this if the applicant chooses to zone this area C-C there is potential that the multi-family residential could be approved later on with a conditional use permit, which gives the applicant an opportunity to turn some of this commercial area into residential in the future, while also allowing the city to keep more commercial. Another option in the commercial zone could be vertically integrated as well, which includes residential and commercial in the same structure. Staff recommends -- well, as I noted, the applicant did submit a revised plan prior to the Commission meeting in response to my recommendations, as is shown on the left-hand side. It is not what I envisioned. It's more changed in that than I anticipated. There might be some just miscommunication between what I wrote and what the applicant saw. With that being said, what I tried to draw up on the right, so I apologize for my second grade art skills with computers, was just generally showing how this -- how this could work. What I -- what I -- as simple as it can be is just shift Gondola Street and the residential west and remove some of those lots, but still maintain the same format and the same design, just shift everything west and, then, that new space to the east of Gondola Street is now an area for more commercial. I don't find it necessary to shift the road north as shown in the new concept plan by the -- on the left or to change the internal circulation of the other side. I do appreciate that they showed the connection from the eastern most stub street for Bainbridge as well to help minimize any cut through traffic. But, again, I think that some of the revisions were just overly complicated and maybe not necessary. Obviously, the applicant will have their time to speak as well and maybe give some more insight into why that was changed the way it is. In addition, Commission has the opportunity to recommend that we continue the project to work together and kind of get our concept plans more aligned or recommend denial of the project, stating any number of reasons as known, or recommended approval of the existing plan as proposed. There were 15 pieces of testimony submitted as of about 5.30 this afternoon and this evening. Some are in favor and some are against the project. The main issues presented by the neighbors were as follows: First, of all, how the first neighborhood meeting occurred and its validity -- validity. This was the reason for the original continuance in December. We recommended highly and the applicant listened to us to hold another neighborhood meeting in November -- or in December in order to make sure that everybody had the opportunity to participate and it met code. In addition, there were concerns about the loss of acreage in the park. As noted they are still leaving more than what the required amount is for the park, so there should be no issue there. Concern with the addition of more homes and the increase in traffic. Utilization of the existing amenities and park space with more homes and, then, the lack of supportive commercial. On the second hand I did have other -- other pieces of testimony that -- that there wasn't enough residential and a preference for less commercial. The applicant did receive letters of support noting the overall quality of the existing community and its general upkeep. Those are generally the main comments from the estimate. Overall with my recommended Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F51 Page 47 of 84 revisions and conditions of approval outlined in my staff report, I do recommend approval of the subsequent applications and after that I will stand for questions. You are muted, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, do we have the applicant? Dodson: Should be in person. I will run their presentation. McCarvel: Do we have the applicant there, Commissioner Seal? Okay. Seal: Yes. She's preparing right now. Dodson: Can everybody see my screen? McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Okay. McCarvel: And so would the applicant state their name and record for the -- name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Layton: All right. Can you hear me? McCarvel: There we can. Yes. Layton: Thank you, Madam Chair Woman and Members of the Commission. I'm Bonnie Layton with NV5 at 690 South Industry Way, Meridian, Idaho. Suite 10. 83642. And I'm here tonight on behalf of our client to represent this project that Joseph has laid out for you. So, just to touch base quickly on the project, it has quite -- quite a history with it and we appreciate the work that we have been able to do with staff and the feedback that we have had from them. We have been working with staff since July on this. We have had two formal pre-application meetings, several conversations in between them and some other meetings to really look at how we can revise the site and -- okay. Thank you. So, what I did just for your reference was put together a bit of history of the site and so what you should see on the screen is this project was originally annexed in 2005 and at that time the project included 312, almost 313 acres and 44.23 acres of that was nonresidential. So, as you can see on the slide the prop -- property boundary is in yellow and, then, the nonresidential zoning is in blue. Joseph, if you can switch to the next slide. Thank you. And, then, in 2008 the previous owner applied for a rezone and a DA modification and so what I have done is tried to illustrate what that request actually was. So, it converted 93 acres of-- of residential from the original application into an additional 73.64 acres of nonresidential and 20 acres into the R-15. That was further broken down into -- and I have it on the slide here -- 37.84 acres of C-C zone, 25.10 acres of C-G zone, 10.7 acres of the L-O zone and 20 acres of the R-15 as I mentioned before. If you could go to the next slide, Joseph, please. So, effectively, what that did is the owner was specifically rezoning this property from primarily residential for the purpose of a hospital and surrounding facilities similar to a hospital facility located at Eagle Road and 1-84. So, this was something that was envisioned at the time and that was why this request was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F52 Page 48 of 84 brought forward. A revised concept plan was created with that to accommodate a main hospital building and ancillary support buildings. Various zoning designations were requested as well to support those ancillary uses and so -- oh. So, as this next slide identifies, the reason I have referenced in that site plan revision and how these zoning designations came about, it was very specific to this site plan. Again, that is -- that contemplated a hospital site and ancillary uses that would support and be complemented by each other. Let's see. In the C-C zoning there were some specific -- there was some specific language in the intent of the application, as well as in the L-O zoning and the R- 15 zoning and while this plan contemplated the -- the complementary uses to the main building, which would be the hospital, which is -- it's hard to see, but under the C-C designation kind of in the middle of the site, even though those uses were contemplated, the development agreement and the application at the time did leave room for any of the uses proposed would be part of the underlining zone. So, in the R-15 zone, for example, the resident down at the bottom that have underlined, the proposed R-15 residential area will help meet the city's objectives. The area also acts as a transition use for the proposed residential areas to the west and will be developed with uses listed in the city's Uniform Development Code. With that effort, the plan was changed in 2008. Unfortunately, that deal did not happen and the hospital did not locate in -- in this location. So, the plan that was envisioned, although it was a great idea at the time, did not come to fruition. Joseph, you could switch to the next slide. Thank you. So, then, in 2010 with the hospital concept gone away, the user finding another site, a portion of the project was sold --or the property was sold to Walmart. It was 21 .52 acres in the northwest corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. The remainder of the project at the time stayed the same, so -- and I have identified that in -- in the red box there. That was the remaining nonresidential from 2008 and, then, the zone changed to R-15 in 2008. That also stayed the same. The property was, then, purchased by the -- the current owner, our client Bridgetower Investments, in 2011 and the owner -- our owners kept that land as commercial, because they build commercial space. They prefer commercial space. From 2008, though, until now there has been essentially no demand for commercial users. There has been absolutely no demand for well paying employment jobs. There has been some interest in the R-15 zone. However, no senior housing or assisted living developers have expressed any interest in that site. Then in 2019, 1 think it should be noted, that there was another DA modification that supersedes all the other DAs that had come before, I believe there were four, and all of the designations remained for the project. However, all of the other details were stricken from that, leaving it fairly open with the underlying zoning designations. I should also note that during this time our client has widened McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. The right of way has already been dedicated, so ACHD has the ability to widen the road further and put a stoplight in at San Vito Road. They previously widened it to three lanes across the property frontage and reserved room for a signal. So, what you can see from this -- sorry. back and forth here. So, essentially, what we are doing is we are trying to revise -- revise our plan to revert some of the property back to residential as it was originally annexed and zoned in 2005. With that said, we are still at a net gain of -- Seal: Commissioner Cassinelli needs to go on mute. Cassinelli: Sorry about that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F53] Page 49 of 84 Layton: Back on here. So, in the -- in the original zoning we are still -- with the rezone -- I apologize. The rezone we will still have a net increase from the original zoning of the site. We are just reverting some of it back -- what we believe to be more appropriately the highest and best use of the land in this area. We have tried to lay it out mindfully with the line -- with the spine street in the purple dashed line being the buffer between the two uses and with our rezone will result -- it will still result in 54.77 total acres of the original project that had been annexed of nonresidential, which equates to 2.3 million square feet of commercial land available. Overall we believe that consistent with the other projects that our owner has done in this area as part of Bridgetower, we are delivering a quality project. We have, as I mentioned, had several meetings with staff. We appreciate their time and their help in developing this plan. Again, we intend to do brick paver roads, consistent with the other-- other portions and subdivisions that we have done in the area. It's our intent to have the same quality of builders continue on. This is really a continuation of the subdivision to the west. With that I think I have touched on everything and I know it's late for everyone, but I can stand for any questions that you may have. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Cassinelli? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: First of all, sorry about the interruption there. I didn't realize I wasn't muted and had a bit of an interruption. And, Bonnie, may have touched on it, but what is -- what's your plan for the -- I guess it's the southwest corner? And if you touched on that my apologies. Layton: Commissioner Cassinelli, the southwest corner -- do you mean the R-15 zoning district -- zoning designation? Cassinelli: No. I'm sorry. Isn't that -- because isn't that on the southwest corner of the intersection there isn't that part of your property? Is that part of it as well? Do you own that? Layton: Yes. That is correct. We -- our client does own the southwest corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. That zoning designation -- we are not requesting that as -- as a change as part of this application. In the previous slides I was trying to illustrate what the original nonresidential zoning area was of the overall property that was annexed. That corner is vacant and has sat vacant. Our owner has talked to a couple of different commercial users, but felt that they weren't the appropriate type for the area. One was a strip -- a strip retail type user, like a Dollar Store type tenant and there was a -- I believe one fast food operator that had looked at the area and not the --to staff's point, not the high paying jobs that they were looking for. Really, though, overall with the project -- and, Joseph, if you could, please, flip back to a couple of slides a little bit -- one more I think. Really, when you look at this, you know, the -- what was contemplated in this -- or this rezone Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F54 Page 50 of 84 that happened in 2008 was a pretty ambitious development that really centered around the hospital locating on this site and that just did not come to fruition and aside from the northwest corner of the intersection being sold off to Walmart and developed, the rest of the project has sat empty. It's, you know, planned this way and our--our client has strong relationships with a number of high tech companies looking in the area. This is not a site that they are interested in. We believe the highest and best use is to rezone some of this -- not all of it, but some of it back to residential. Joseph, if you could flip ahead one more slide. Another slide. Thank you. And, really, what we would be doing is -- you know, obviously, we have got residential to the north. We have residential to the west. If we look along the corridor of Ten Mile you have got Costco up there along Chinden. We are still retaining some of the commercial along Ten Mile. We think that's appropriate for some retail users and I believe in your packet there are some concepts of what that retail would look like. But until -- until we have a user the concept plan for the commercial was just that, a concept. And, then, using the R-15 as zoning designation, which would comply with the land use code. Dodson: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Sorry. I was hoping to clarify Commissioner Cassinelli's question. I wasn't sure if he was referring to this southwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile or the -- the C-C zoned piece that's shown as neighborhood commercial in this slide. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: I was curious about it, because in some -- in some of the illustrations there that southwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile was -- was brought into that and I -- it's -- I understand it's not part of this development, but I didn't know if they had an overall plan to tie that, because they do own -- this is an extension of the development to the south, so I didn't know if they had a -- kind of a master plan that tied in that corner as well, even though that's not part of the application we are looking at. So, I was just kind of curious on that, because some of the slides there showed that it tied that in with some of the -- some of the renderings. So, I was just curious if they had -- if that was -- if they had plans to tie that in to all that, if that makes sense. But I realized that's -- that's not part of the -- it's not really part of the discussion tonight, I just didn't know if they had some plans to tie that in eventually and what that might look like. Dodson: Understood. Thank you for clarifying, sir. Cassinelli: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F55 Page 51 of 84 Holland: Bonnie, I'm -- I'm curious on what efforts were made to try and market the property the way that it was established originally in the DA. I'm certainly not opposed to seeing, you know, another element of residential, but I really like the concept that was in the DA, because I think the one challenge we have in northwest Meridian is there is a lot of retail potential, but there is not a lot of those higher paying office jobs and there is not a lot of great places to put office projects or some of those higher employment centers and so my concern if we are changing this all back to residential as its proposed here, we are going to limit the type of users that come in in the future to retail and maybe some office or daycare centers or senior living complexes or have someone come back and say we want to see this be multi-family. But I'm just curious on what some of the marketing efforts were to try and find another anchor tenant besides the hospital. Layton: Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, thank you for that question. Our clients -- our clients are owners of multiple high tech professional campuses that encompass millions of square feet and have very strong relationships -- Dodson: We can barely hear you, Bonnie. Just to let you know. Layton: Can you hear me now? Dodson: Yes. Layton: Thank you. Our owners of this property are owners of multiple high tech professional campuses that encompass millions of square feet. They have strong relationships with various tenants that they lease to. These tenants include folks like Oracle, Intel, and Google and I can't speak specifically to some of those conversations, but in the conversations with folks and users like that that are their clients and their tenants and looking at the valley, I know that our owners also own another 80 acres out on Ten Mile and 1-84 and so when they have -- with their close personal relationships with these folks brought them out, this location is not where they are interested in locating. They have tried to shop this and work with people that they know to get this developed and it's just not a location where folks want to be. Does that answer your question, Commissioner Holland? Holland: It does. I still have the same concerns about rezoning it back to residential and, you know, the way that the site plan is presented it doesn't look like there is a lot of additional amenities that really make it that exciting of a new residential component to me either. It feels like it could be using something that would give it a little bit more flair to match Meridian's, you know, desire to be a premier community. It just feels like we have a lot of R-4 and I know I was reading the COMPASS report and, you know, I'm making these comments now, because I -- it's -- it's good to have this conversation, but reading the COMPASS report the jobs-to-housing ratio in this area is .3 and a good jobs-to- housing balance is a ratio between one and 1.5. So, I do have concerns that we have 2,860 homes already within a mile of the site, but only a thousand jobs within a mile and most of those jobs are related to retail uses, not high employment needs. So, that--that's one of my biggest concerns and I -- I would be interested to know what the Economic Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F56] Page 52 of 84 Development or Community Development Department thought about the economic development possibilities of this site as well. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I don't know if that was a question for me or not. The -- the economic development portion of Community Development does have major concerns with this loss of commercial, yes. I'm not a long range planner. I will note that as well. But with discussions with our long range planning team and it's been ongoing with multiple projects, there -- there is overall seams in the city that are very worrisome when it comes to applications just like this with -- with general loss of commercial. There is -- there is two facets to this. There is what we are seeing now, the existing zoning, where over the last seven, eight years we have -- we are -- there is a trend of losing C-G specifically, but also just all of the commercial zonings, except for maybe the C-N and C-C district. But both C-G and I-L have been consistently dropping and as a ratio of, you know, per one hundred acres of residential they are both lower than 20 per hundred, so -- and it's been consistently dropping over the last seven years, which is concerning, obviously, for that tax base that the city wants and needs to thrive. Second to that is the -- looking ahead in a very macro view, 75 percent of the remaining land to be annexed in the City of Meridian is residential, according to the future land use map. So, 75 percent of all this remaining land is very likely to be residential and, then, of the remaining 25 percent, a lot of that is mixed use, which, again, portions of the mixed use will very likely be residential as well. So, then, you have a very high chance that the remaining commercial zoning is probably going to be less than 15 percent of the remaining land. So, a lot of this land that we are rezoning we are not going to be able to get back for a very long time. I have heard multiple times from developers that the redevelopment cycle of scraping a building and starting over is somewhere in the 30 year range. So, if we have -- when we get to homes that's even longer. But that's for commercial. So, when we -- we are talking about losing this kind of commercial zoning, we are not just picking on this applicant and it's not just with this site, this is something that we are trying to become more and more aware of and bring up with every application that proposes these types of things in order to help plan for the future and not just the housing market demand that we have right now. So, I -- the Community Development Department seconds your concerns, Commissioner Holland. Holland: Thank you. I appreciate that, Joe. Dodson: You are welcome. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F57 Page 53 of 84 Grove: Yeah. I had a question that was brought up in a few of the public testimony pieces regarding amenities or-- and the perception of a lack of amenities or the use of amenities not being adequate for the combined uses of the different subdivisions. Can you address that concern? Layton: What we have done is we have looked at this -- this will all be managed under the same HOA and our owner has worked with the residents to address their concerns to make sure that there are adequate amenities. There was concern about the size of the pool, the existing pool not being large enough. Our owner has gone ahead and stated that he would be building an additional pool to that. We believe that the rest of the amenities throughout the project are in compliance and meet the -- meet the city's requirements. But there was some back and forth between the residents of the existing -- of the existing homes and so we worked through that with them to make sure that we addressed their concerns. Grove: Thanks. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Did that answer your question, Commissioner Grove? Grove: For now I guess. We will -- McCarvel: Okay. Grove: -- see what the public comment is and I'm guessing there is going to be some -- some feedback on -- on that that we will come back to this again. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, as a former Parks Commissioner, the loss of acreage of the -- the park really concerns me, especially with the size of the lots and the homes that are going to be put on there with -- with no really amenities. I think my -- my concern is -- I know overall for the site it's -- it meets the minimums, but given what we are asking, you know, to get rid of commercial and add more, in my opinion, high density housing, I have really concerns about limiting the --you know, cutting down the open space for--for parks. Can you -- can you talk to that? McCarvel: The floor is yours, Bonnie. Layton: What we did actually when the --when the subdivision to the west was built there was a line in the field that made sense to overseed that park, so it wasn't really part of the original of the subdivision to the west, but for the sake of maintenance and not being a weed patch, the owner went ahead and overseeded that and maintained that just -- just to keep that area clean. So, while that area shifts a little bit it really doesn't -- it's -- it's not necessarily a loss, it's just a reconfiguration of the park, but to make sure that both -- the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F58 Page 54 of 84 community to the -- to the west and, then, this new plat that we are proposing, that all of that open space meets the requirements, if that makes sense. Yearsley: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Bonnie. We will have -- we will have you come back up after the public testimony. Layton: All right. Thank you. McCarvel: Adrienne, do we have people signed up to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair. So, we have a situation where we did have two people that were in-house originally, Janice and Raymond Borchard. They both signed up to testify and, then, they subsequently left, but said they would be on Zoom. I'm thinking it's Mike Borchard here, so I'm going to transfer them over first to see if that's -- and I want to give them precedence. McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Borchard, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Borchard: Full name Raymond Michael Borchard. Address 5466 North Botticelli Avenue. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Borchard: Okay. Begin? We, along with a few of the other existing homeowners, are very very concerned about the intrusion into what has been used as the park area for quite a few years and with the -- as expressed by some of your Commissioners, the design of the very small lots of 50 by 110, the -- kind of a row housing effect, the long straight line streets and -- and no meandering curve, so that it's just -- it's almost like an apartment complex and the lack of any playing area for young children, we have a statement from Bonnie Layton that -- to address some concerns of overcrowding and the pool right now, that the developer is toying with the idea of putting in a pool. We have seen no substance to that conversation. We have no proposed location. Yeah. I contacted Matt Munger, both by phone, leaving a message and also a written letter requesting information about the impact on the park area and the lot placement. Got no response at all. So, we are just--we have got questions and they are not being answered. When I look at the -- the 109 lots, I ask where are people going to park? Okay. You got a 50 foot opening. If you put in a cut for a two car garage what's left? So, we have no -- a play area for children. Are they going to be playing in the street that's already been packed with some vehicles trying to park there? There are a lot of questions here. The -- the layout that John Dodson -- Joe Dotson, excuse me, proposed really looked a lot nicer in terms of the street layout and getting away from the row housing effect that I see in this proposed plat map. Then one other concern is to minimize the height to one story housing on the westerly edge where the houses come up to the existing development, so that the view shed that does exist can be preserved somewhat. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F59 Page 55 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Tammy Paxman. Tammy, one moment. McCarvel: Thank you. Hi, Tammy. If you would state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Paxman: I'm Tammy Paxman. I live at 3646 West Balducci Street in Meridian. 83646. And I just wanted to comment that I had been at other community meetings where our neighborhood was together and we asked about more park spaces and about -- the pool was addressed and things like the geese being a problem, things like that, and we had no response at all from the property owners, the development people. So, the things that Bonnie was saying I have seen none of that and my neighbors have -- my neighbors on my particular street were at that meeting, too, and they have seen none of that where there has been nothing -- when no one's talked to us about really going to do something to make more play areas or more grass or more -- a bigger pool. The pool is already very crowded and there is one little basketball thing. It's just -- I mean our neighborhood is a large neighborhood and to crowd in more homes without more facilities and to say they are talking to us when they aren't talking to us, they are not talking to all of us if she thinks they are talking to us. That's all. Thank you for listening. McCarvel: Thank you, Tammy. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Patricia Buckholtz. Patricia, one moment. McCarvel: Patricia, if you would like to unmute, the floor is -- and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Oh, did we lose -- did we lose Patricia? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm looking for her. Fitzgerald: She shows back up in the early attendees side. Weatherly: Commissioner Fitzgerald, do you see her? I can't see her. Oh, there she is. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Weatherly: Sorry. One moment, Patricia. Thanks, you guys. I'm scrolling up and down and could not see her. Fitzgerald: Patricia, you're on mute still, but we can see you. Buckholtz: Thank you for your time tonight and thank you for bringing me back in. I want to reiterate what some of the other residents have stated. There has not been any communication as far as the process has gone, as far as the meetings and everything. Bonnie literally filed a notice saying that the first neighborhood meeting was attended Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F60 Page 56 of 84 when nobody was able to actually attend and she canceled it and said that she was going to reset it and never did and, then, we received a city notice. So, there has been a lot of errors in the -- when the processes come down the line to begin with as far as the last time that the meeting was set for -- to be before you guys there was no proper public notice posted. We did receive, however, mailers from the city, which we did not receive this time, but a public notice was posted out on the one. So, I don't know exactly what city process is required to do. It's my understanding that public notice is required. As far as what Bonnie stated about communication, we have expressed concerns about the lack of our public area being reduced. The density of the population for what's used at the pool. We knew that this was going to be developed, but it was our understanding that this development was going to stay consistent with what we had. We purchased half million dollar homes -- in excess of a half million dollar homes with the idea that that development was going to be in continuation with what our current flow and vibe was. We never purchased this with the idea that we were going to be inundated with apartments behind us or row housing, patio homes, tiny homes, whatever you want to call them and so it's kind of disheartening to know that everything is being so misrepresented as far as what's being communicated to us, what was presented to us when we were purchasing this home. Some people paid additional money to ensure that that park stayed open and not reduced and I just would really like to hope that you guys are taking a step back and saying what -- how would I feel if this was my home. We understand that Idaho was going to grow and develop and this is actually the second time that I have moved to Idaho. I have lived here for 11 years between '94 and 2005 and recently moved back in 2018. 1 also understand that the density of this traffic is also based on a report that was generated in 2018 that has no bearing on today's population. The -- the growth that has incurred in the Meridian location between 2018 and today is 20 times fold. So, I don't think a traffic report -- and to talk about the density is accurate. I think when you stop and look at how you have travel down Meridian Road you are going to build that here on Ten Mile. You are going to build an hour commute -- it's already an hour commute. I had to travel from the intersection of Highway 16 -- is it Highway 16 and Chinden and go into downtown Boise and it took me over an hour and I had -- I thought I had appropriately timed myself to make that appointment and it took over an hour. Every place that you look on every street in Meridian currently is being developed to some level. There is so much growth and density going on in Idaho and I understand the shortage of homes and I understand the need for housing. People aren't moving here to be back in San Diego or San Francisco or these other dense areas where literally it takes an hour to travel seven miles on the freeway and in Meridian in Idaho you can't even get to the freeway. So, I just think as a whole the density that they are putting in this four mile block between Ten Mile and Black Cat and McMillan and Chinden is just insane. It's absolutely over densified. You are still planning to put into different apartment buildings and from tonight -- McCarvel: Patricia, if you could wrap up your thoughts. You have gone over the three minutes. Buckholtz: Yes. I'm sorry. Just one second. There is two more developments -- apartment complexes that are going to be put in this area. I think -- I just think the density Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F61 Page 57 of 84 is just too much and thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Carrie. Carrie, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Carrie, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Zummersch: Yes. Okay. So, I'm Carrie Zummersch. I live at 3924 West Wapoot Street. And just to tag on to what everybody has said, I wasn't even invited to the neighborhood meeting that Bonnie had discussed. I found out for one specific kind of meeting from Joseph Dodson that I was out of range. I'm in the first loop right across from that basketball court. Very close to the pool house. So, I just want to -- want to express that I was not invited to any kind of community meeting to discuss this by Bridgetower West, nor MGM Management Company, and I just wanted to confirm a couple of things for later. Seeing Joseph's two maps and, then, Bonnie's map that we are looking at right now, I just want to confirm that this is the current proposal or is it the line drawing on Joseph's, which is much different. That one on the left. So, I think we should just confirm that, because the lot sizes look to be a lot different. The residential density seems to be a lot different. I think when we have a final proposal it would be very important to take a look at the actual comparative lot sizes and the number of units with the larger lots and kind of like the range of the current -- the current lots on the current homes as compared to this new development. It seems to be quite different. But I think we should take a look at ratio and also numbers. I love everybody else's concerns. Let's see. Regarding the pool. Yes, I agree. I -- per Bonnie's concern that -- Bonnie's -- how do you say -- contention or claim that they worked through the concerns and have promised to build another pool, there is nothing -- there is no communication, there is no -- it's not in this plan. That sort of thing needs to be in writing. I know a lot of my neighbors that have lived here longer have expected a lot of things and I'm wondering if it's from this kind of communication potentially that says one thing or hints at something, but doesn't actually do it or I don't know that, I'm relatively new from 2018. 1 know that you are still interested in -- you know, very concerned about the commercial element here as a group and that's great. Unfortunately, I just can only focus on the residential and I think that was about it. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you, Carrie. And I think, you know, we are definitely hearing a trend that the people testifying this evening are talking about some frustration with communication with the developer and the second meeting was not held. Definitely frustration with the amount of open space and the pool and the area and the lack of the commercial. So, if we have new comments that would be great. So, if you still wish -- Zummersch: I'm not-- I don't have any new, but I wasn't even invited to your first meeting. I'm just saying that -- like others were invited to a meeting, I had received zero invite -- invite to meetings and I was in communication with Joseph Dodson trying to figure out if I would be and I never received anything for one of those and I can't technically tell you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F62 Page 58 of 84 the term of the meeting or what the name of it was, I was considered out of range and I live across from the basketball court. McCarvel: Yeah. Thank you, Carrie. Zummersch: Yeah. Thank you. McCarvel: So, Adrienne, do we have other people wishing to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Chris Williams. One moment. McCarvel: Hi, Chris. If you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Williams: Yes. Good evening. Can you guys hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Williams: Chris Williams. 4476 North Girasolo Avenue. 83646. A couple things I just wanted to clear up as I have been hearing a little bit there -- not that I think that the communication was done very well, if I'm being honest, but there was a second meeting that I did attend. Neighborhood meeting. I was not invited to it, much like everyone else. I saw it on social media and did dive in. One of the things, though, that Bonnie mentioned earlier when she was speaking is that, you know, the -- they relayed a lot of the neighborhood concerns. I was part of that meeting as I said and, you know, talked about those concerns. The only thing from her e-mail as of December 31 st that she e-mailed us that was in attendance in that meeting was the developer says that they would consider a second pool and that was it. All the other concerns about greenspace, you know, additional kids playgrounds, et cetera, was not addressed. They said that they did address with the developer the small lot sizes, the 50 foot lot sizes, but that's it. They addressed -- you know, spoke to the developer. We didn't hear anything else on that. So, yeah, I would like to echo that the communication has been poor. On that, though, a couple other things that a Commissioner-- I believe it was Holland said -- I agree with the fact of losing our commercial space. I do. You know, it's unfortunate there, you know, hasn't been much interest in there. I think as time goes on hopefully there will be, maybe if they continue to market it a little bit better. If something does have to go into there, though, and if it's not going to stay commercial, you know, at least the staff concept that we are looking at on the screen on the left here, a little bit better. Definitely way better, will say, than what they are proposing. To echo -- again, small lot sizes, 50 foot lot sizes, row housing, traffic with all the extra cars. That just doesn't make sense. Again, with the -- you know, I understand the developer as far as the Bridgetower West communities, that the developer did do amenities, but they have done very minimal amenities in that and with such a large community it would be nice to have more amenities if they want to add more homes. From there everything else has already been discussed. I'm not going to go into that. But, definitely, would highly suggest that this application be recommended for denial. Maybe go back, redo, hold some neighborhood meetings and figure out a way to maybe expand the invite list than just a small little area. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F63 Page 59 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Chris. Williams: Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I apologize. I wanted to wait until everybody was -- all the public was done, but this has come up a few times and I just want to clarify for the public's benefit and ours that the -- on the screen right now -- if you don't mind, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Yeah. Go ahead. Thanks, Joe. Dodson: The screen right now -- the plan on the left is not mine. That is not a staff plan. That is from the applicant in response to my recommended changes. The one on the right is a very poor rendering that I came up with of what I was -- more in line with what I was proposing as the changes. The -- how do I put this? The inclusion of the 55 foot wide lots -- I mean 5,500 square foot lots are not that small in general and, then, the inclusion of the other lots -- I guess I will show the other open space image. These -- the change in lot sizes were done because of staff's recommendation. The applicant originally wanted to have all of these -- the, you know, 7,000 or more, but because of the future land use designation, mixed use community, you know, we want transitional lot sizes. We don't want two -- you know, 2,500 square foot homes abutting C-G. It's usually not a good -- good mix and there is not a transition and there is no shared space between those types of uses. So, that -- that is not on the applicant's fault there, that is staff. Staff wants that and that meets a lot of Comprehensive Plan policies. Other than that, the -- the park portion that keeps coming up -- and, again, I'm not speaking on behalf of the applicant. This is just Planning's perspective of what can and cannot occur here. The park -- the existing park, whether -- whatever is seen visually now is more than what's supposed to be there. So, it can be reduced to 10.2 acres at anytime by the applicant regardless of any additional development going on over here, because that is what was originally approved. So, the fact that the applicant is only requesting to take 1.6 of the 13 acres out and keep 11.4, which is -- again, is a whole acre more than what should be there -- is a blessing and do understand the concerns regarding the amenities and I noted that in my staff report there needs to be some more thoughtful explanation of that and inclusion of additional amenities, either within this plat and/or in the shared park, but wanted to clarify some of those points as they keep coming up and make sure that residents understand that the plan on the left is not mine, I didn't draw that, but the plan on the right is more in line with what we were referring to and the transition of lot sizes is a staff recommendation for the past six months and not the applicant. McCarvel: Thanks, Joe. Yeah. I think as the Commission we are probably very ready to discuss, you know, the open space in the area and the commercial uses and the layout, you know, the differences here. So -- and it looks like we have several more people who would like to add their comments. So, if we have new ideas it would be great. I think we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F64 Page 60 of 84 are getting to a point if we are going to -- if the same comments that are coming. I think we understand the comments that have already been brought up. So, if you have something new I will turn it back to the clerk. Weatherly? Madam Chair, next is Dan Buffum -- Buff ham. One moment. Buff ham: Hi. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Buff ham: Thank you very much. My name is Dan Buffam. I live at 3554 West Balducci Street, which is actually the south side of the northern of where this development -- or the west side -- or the opposite side of where this development is being put. I have several concerns. One I want to start with -- I recently moved here approximately was -- in July 2019. The reasons I chose this space is I'm a CEO of a global software consulting firm. I have offices all over the world and one of them we just announced in 2021 that we are going to be opening in the Boise-Meridian area. We have to choose Boise, because when you say the word Boise, because it's known, you know, as a more sense area. Nobody knows where Meridian is. But I chose this area for two purposes -- well, three -- many purposes, actually. One, there was -- we were told that it was going to be, you know, quote, unquote, the next Eagle. Everybody told us this. It wasn't just coming from my -- my salesperson, it was coming from everything I read on Facebook, everything I read from the management, the developer. I did a lot of research on this area. This specific area I saw that it was going to be built for commercial purposes and -- which is great for somebody like me who wants to be within a one mile working area of his office and I don't have to commute all the way down to Boise or even to those up by the freeway or anything like that. But there is nothing that exists for -- you know, or very few things are not -- that I find appealing, you know, for a 75 to one hundred employed company full of consultants, that I could rent here or -- you know. Or lease. It's not going to happen. If this doesn't happen I don't see where it could go. The other part is is right across the street -- if you guys are going to rezone this -- this smaller 50 to 110 space, which, you know, to me it -- and I agree with all of my neighbors on every single point. I won't reiterate them and waste your time on that. But if you make it that dense and, then, you take that R-15 over here and you turn that, because what's going to stop them saying, oh, well, you know, we are not getting any bites on the senior living either, so we are going to turn those into apartments. You just killed this entire area and you made it one giant living space, which is cool, but there is no workspace. There is no community. There is no money coming in here, because there is no place to work and doing something like that would destroy it. I think--you know, I agree with, you know, everything that everybody said. Commissioner Grove said that, you know, he was curious about, you know, the HOA. None of that. I'm not going to reiterate it, but it hasn't happened. And to put these 2,000 square foot homes and a house that, you know, I paid a half a million dollars for that's now appreciated up to a hundred -- or 650,000 dollars and you are going to go put a smaller home in there, you are -- there is no place to, you know, grow for these guys. I'm older. My fiancee. We -- our kids are grown. Everything's like that. I don't have it, but I see kids out here, they are playing in the streets. That's cool. But we are having to put signs everywhere. There is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F65 Page 61 of 84 not enough places for people to go do things. They need -- we need more amenities. We need more open spaces. We need green space. We need commercial space. We need businesses. We don't need a thousand more homes or 169 more homes that they are going to take the R-15 and two years from now -- well, that didn't work out. We are going to rezone that, too. I don't think it's right. I -- that's -- that's pretty much it. I -- you know, I think -- you know, we already have a lot of traffic. You know, my house -- I don't -- you can't really see it on this plot map, but my house is the keystone map on the corner of Vicenza and McMillan. It's the largest lot on this side of the fence or it was until they built the new -- new stuff. I already see all night long trucks coming out of Walmart. Invested 6,000 dollars in trees in my backyard to try-- hopefully they will grow big enough and fast enough that I won't have to see these trucks literally driving down my residential street. If you guys keep doing stuff like this, it's just going to make it more dense, more loud, more annoying and I will move it, you know, and that's not why I moved. I didn't come here to--you know, to pick up and go someplace else, because somebody changed their mind, because somebody is not buying their property based on their plan from whatever. Doesn't work that way. Thank you for your time. Appreciate you listening to me and that's all I got to say. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Buffham. Who do we have next, Adrienne? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Christian Jensen. Christian, one moment. Jensen: Good evening. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Jensen: Hi. Christian Jensen. I'm at 3833 West Daphne Street. I'm one of the -- the loops that would be -- that would abut the R-15 area that is dedicated. So, I appreciate all the comments my neighbors made and I would reiterate them. My house is one of the smaller houses in the neighborhood and my lot is 9,700 square feet. So, to go to 5,500 square feet, with all due respect to Joe Dodson, I don't agree with and I think that that would be a radical departure from the quality of our neighborhood. But I -- my real comments are asking for two bits of clarity. One, as I looked at the R-15 notes in -- on your website, that is -- as I understood those -- and I'm looking for clarification. That's not an apartment building, those are 2,500 square foot or larger and not more than 40 feet tall and so could I get some clarity on --on what that is? And I know we are not necessarily questioning that piece. And, then, secondly, there is -- at the top of the R-15 space is an area called neighborhood commercial I believe it was designated as and I'm not familiar with what that is and what would we expect there. That would seem a good place for greenspace, another pool, kids amenities, etcetera. But what exactly would neighborhood commercial be? Those are my questions. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Curtis Dabb. Curtis, one moment. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F66 Page 62 of 84 McCarvel: Curtis, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Dabb: Thanks. My name is Curtis Dabb. I'm at 4335 West Philomena Drive, Meridian. will be very brief. I am extremely concerned, as well as my wife, of having these smaller lots, specifically around the density and the population in our schools. We have three children that are currently attending Pleasantview Elementary, which was brand new this past year and my understanding is that they are already at capacity and -- or very near. I know at Ponderosa previously they were very much over capacity and we were excited about the new school, but as we continue to grow in this area, just shoving more and more -- whether it's apartment complexes or high density home areas, we are just very concerned about the strain that that's putting on already highly populated classroom sizes and, essentially, over -- reaching over capacity in our schools. So -- McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Curtis. Dabb: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have John Wycoff. John, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. John, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. John, if you are talking we are not hearing you. You need to unmute on your side. There you go. Then can give your name and address for the record. Mr. Wycoff, I'm sorry, we are still not hearing you. I know you are unmuted, but I wonder if your microphone is working. Oh. There we go. Mr. Wycoff, we are not hearing you. Yep. Okay. Sorry. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Brian Lenz. Brian, one moment. McCarvel: Mr. Lenz, if you would like to unmute your mic -- there we go. And give your name and address for the record. Lenz: Brian Lenz. 5362 North Schio Way. I'm kind of learning on the fly a little bit tonight, because I wasn't privy to some of the previous meetings either, but I would just like to echo some of the sentiments of the previous neighbors. Largely agree with them. One extra thing I wanted to add about the -- the green space, the park. A lot of the space that's being encroached upon is the usable space of the park. Much of the park is hilly and sloped down to the pond. The area up there is where, you know, we go to play whiffle ball and my son will hit golf balls around where it's actually flat and that's what will be encroached upon. So, that's a consideration anyway, that like, yes, it's acreage and understand they can claim it, but it would be unfortunate that it is the most usable space that would be lost. I'm also a little bit concerned about drainage and runoff and the impacts that the new houses might have on that. The area is already very marshy. I don't know if it's due to overwatering or what it is, but that's something I would definitely want people to take a look at. The -- another concern is the traffic volume and just safety on San Vito. I would be curious about the --what types of intersections they are going to put Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F67 Page 63 of 84 in, particularly with Gondola. A light at McMillan would definitely help, but there is already a lot of speeding on that road and the volume is going to be over doubling. So, I -- that's a concern that I would want to make sure is considered and mitigated. And, then, just the general density and the character of the neighborhood is -- it matters; right? This is an extension of our current neighborhood and the HOA and I feel like this doesn't really fit what's proposed due to the density and the rural housing. The lack of amenities, like the lack of green space and parks and just overall busyness and traffic. So, that is my thoughts. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Richard and Chris Boyle. One moment. McCarvel: Richard and Chris, the floor is yours. It looks like you are unmuted, but if you are speaking we can't hear you. Boyle: Thank you. My name is Richard Boyle. We are 5430 North Botticelli Avenue. 83646. We would backup or do backup to what is the park currently. One of the -- one of the issues I have with reducing the size of the park -- when we purchased our block that we have built our custom home on, we paid an extra considerable amount in the neighborhood, probably 20,000 additional, to be backed up to the park area, which now they are trying to reduce in size. So, a little -- a little unhappy that that happened or that they are considering reducing it. As the gentlemen prior to me had said, it's really the only area that I see anybody use in the park is the corner that they are considering taking out. I would be -- yeah, plus the trees and -- and the fact that we have -- as homeowners we have all paid to maintain the whole park, not less one acre of it, however they want to slice it up. We do approve of the residential area behind us versus commercial. I would far rather have residential and assume that we would have residential behind us. That was what we were told, which is neither here nor there. The concern, as everyone else, is the density of it. I would like to see the larger block sizes, so the home values are maintained and, then, the rest of it has been covered pretty much by everybody else. will jump on the wagon that there has been very little communication, other than one e- mail and one meeting -- well, a meeting that went array and a second meeting and a single e-mail and no -- no real idea of where this pool might end up being. It's got to service an awful lot of homes and there is very little land left in this development to add a pool outside of this park. So, I would be very curious where they plan on adding this -- this pool in this extended area for open areas. C.Boyle: And we are very much opposed to commercial backing up to our home, because that's not what we purchased here for. Boyle: That is all I have. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F68 Page 64 of 84 Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Jeff Deforest. Jeff, one moment. Deforest: Hello. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. If you would like to give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Deforest: Perfect. Jeff Deforest. I'm at 3821 West Riva Capri Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Yeah. I appreciate your guys'time here. I know there is a lot of discussion around a lot of common themes. I do second all those. I'm in the first phase of Vicenza here. It's that first loop and the entrance to my neighborhood would look east to the R-15 development. Now, some of the plot maps I have seen indicate that there is going to be a turn into that R-15 off of San Vito Way. I have an issue with that, just because of already the amount of cut-through traffic that we encounter on San Vito, we are only going to be adding to that traffic and, quite frankly, I think a lot of that cut-through through traffic is folks making their way to the south in the Bainbridge neighborhood where they do connect. So, I do take a lot of issue with where the -- how that R-15 is proposed with the -- and this one I don't know if it's showing it or not, the one looked at previously looked like there was a turn in off of San Vito Way there, so I apologize if I'm not up to date here, but the previous one I looked at was. Again, I think there just needs to be a lot of focus on the density. I know that's been said a few times here, but I think the thing I want to just, you know, communicate here the most is these drawings -- I know there has been amendments to them over the last, you know, 11, 12 years here since this land has been purchased, but it really feels like this new section of the neighborhood is taking a step back from what Bridgetower West looks like and feels like; right? It feels like the developer is trying to backpedal a bit and cover up selling that property to Walmart. I don't think the residents of Bridgetower West should pay for the developer selling that. Now, I do appreciate commercial businesses needing to have a home and having a place in our -- in our community. I understand that. But, you know, these layouts -- they don't go with the flow that Bridgetower West currently has and it just feels really poorly put together trying to just hide the commercial development that's on the other side. I don't know what the right answer is, to be honest with you, but I just want to keep that in mind -- have you guys keep that in mind that there is just no flow there compared to the rest of the subdivision and we shouldn't have to pay because there is a Walmart, you know, 300 yards away or across the field, so -- and, then, my last point here is because I'm right there at the corner of San Vito and McMillan, basically, I am very concerned about a light being put in at San Vito. That would shine directly into my master bedroom, into my dining room. The trees around this area there is -- there is plenty. We do appreciate the developer putting the amount of trees they did. However, they are not mature and that -- those lights are going to shine straight through my windows day and night. That's all I have got. Thank you so much for your time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, Robin Moore. Robin, one moment. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F69 Page 65 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you. Robin, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Moore: Hello. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes, we can hear you. Please -- Moore: My name is -- McCarvel: Okay. Moore: My name is Robin Moore and I live at 3604 West Balducci. I have never seen an HOA have a separate apartment complex in small housing. I don't understand why they are being included with the HOA, unless they are just trying to lump it all together. We don't have enough amenities as it is. The pool is already an issue. Communication is an issue. For an HOA this size there should be a monthly newsletter. Right now we don't have anything -- or any communication. The other thing about amenities and upkeep is there is not a single trash can anywhere. There is not a dog poop station. There is a lot of feces all over. There is a lot of trash all over from the construction. And the gardeners -- I don't know if they are responsible for it, but they just run the trash over. We are not getting what we have here maintained and I imagine it will be cheapened with the apartments. The traffic is out of control as it is and the schools. So, I don't think this seems well thought out. I think it needs to go back to the planning phase. McCarvel: Okay. Moore: But I thank you for your consideration. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, Shillington is next. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Shillington, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Shillington, your mic is still muted. I'm sorry, but we can't hear or see you. Adrienne, do we have everything done on our side? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I did ask Shillington to unmute. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: And that seems not to behaving an effect. I can transfer them back over and try again after we give -- McCarvel: Yes, please. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F70 Page 66 of 84 Weatherly: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Mr. Grove. Grove: Could we remind the participants -- the attendees that if they have spoken once that they can't -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. We are -- yeah. Attendees, if you have your hand raised and you have already spoken, that is your one time to speak. It's just one three minute shot here. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm going to try John Wycoff again. He did have technical difficulties earlier. McCarvel: Yes. Hi, Mr. Wycoff -- oh. No, we cannot hear you. So, your -- your mic is muted now. One more? No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next would be an unidentified caller. McCarvel: Yeah. One moment. McCarvel: Let's try the number. Okay. 862-467-8784, if you could give your name and address for the record and I see your mic is unmuted, but we do not hear you. Guyer: Hello. McCarvel: There you go. Okay. My name is Bob Guyer. 4066 Philomena. And listening to the presentations here this evening, I wish there had been more of a participation provided to the community. Commissioner Holland brought up the point about the -- the large parcel behind the Walmart that in a perfect world it would have been a hospital or some sort of professional arts structure in there. I think that would be a great buffer in that area there, as opposed to going in that area. One of the neighbors commented about the marshiness coming from that downslope area down to the existing pool structure and it does get very very marshy in that area and as far as the school, just hearing from the neighbors and talking to grandkids and whatnot, it's getting pretty packed over there when you check the density in the classroom and that -- next to that -- or the access off of McMillan into the neighborhood, there should have been a light in there, because the -- the speed coming out of there -- somebody is going to get hit and there is just some very fast traffic coming through there. So, there is some things that don't need more density at this time, because there is some concerns and there is some improvements that just haven't been met yet and I have heard so many times from neighbors in the area about the lack of trash cans and whatnot in the area and so that neighbor lady, she hit the nail right on the head as far as that. So, there is things that have not been taken care of or ignored and to put more density in there right now is not headed in the right direction. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F71 Page 67 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you. And it looks like we have one more. Weatherly: Yes. We will give Shillington one more try. One moment. Shillington: Can you guys hear me? McCarvel: There we go. Shillington: All right. McCarvel: State your name and address for the record. Shillington: Yep. Scott Shillington. 4174 West Mazzeo Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. So, I would like to backup what all my neighbors have already said, with the kind of going in the wrong direction and not being heard. Real quick, though, for my contribution I would just like to add a sample of what -- why I bought in the Bridgetower and it kind of goes with their mission statement and so I will just kind of share that with you now. Surrounding and contribute enormously to the lives of those who reside in a chosen place. Bridgetower West is a place of classic timelessness, reminiscent of Old World countryside living, bridged with the latest in smart home design, planned convenience and community connectivity, emphasizing the idea of a place to live, shop, and play. Bridgetower West is designed for you. To me we are not hitting the amenities or living up to this mission statement. That's personally why I bought here. The current model I bought under met those needs. After hearing they are going to start taking away from the park, bringing the potential apartment complexes and those kind of things don't mix -- meet the standard of what they are advertising online. I just want to add my input on that. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Adrienne, it looks like we have one more. Weatherly: Madam Chair, that would be Matthew Maschler. McCarvel: Yes. Weatherly: One moment. Maschler: Hi, there. Can you guys hear me? McCarvel: Yes, Matthew. Go ahead. Maschler: I just want to say thank you to all the neighbors that have stepped up and I agree with every single one of them, what they had said. It's all very true. For me my family and I moved here to escape overcrowded cities. We bought here just based on the space of the subdivision. If all this stuff happens there is going to be way too much noise, way too much disturbance. The roads, like everybody said, are not prepared for the traffic. This will cause -- it's just very unfortunate. I hope you guys have listened to everybody, what they have said, and taken it into account. A couple more things, though, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F72 Page 68 of 84 1 want to add is -- is the R-15 going to be a part of our HOA? Is one question. And, then, also I think there was a mention of two other apartment complexes. Just curious to know why -- there is so much development here, why is it -- why is it so -- why do you have to make it so dense. And the last thing in closing about the park is that's where a lot of the kids -- we have three kids ourselves and that's where the kids go to unwind, go to play. You take that away from them, it's going to be really hurtful and, anyway, it's pretty emotional, but that's all I have for you guys. I want to thank you again, Madam Chair and the Commission, and thank you to all the neighbors for stepping up and being here tonight. I know it's late. So, thank you again. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And it looks like we have no one left in the audience who is eligible to speak. Dodson: Applicant does -- just from the city side of things there were some questions there. McCarvel: You bet. Dodson: Thank you. Just to clarify for the public, the R-15 piece on this is -- well, first of all, this area's already zoned, so any proposed use that is allowed in those zones could be applied for without a public hearing and part of that would be a -- the multi-family, which is conceptually proposed on this R-15 piece, but there -- it is not part of this application. So, I just want to clarify that for the neighborhood. That would have to go through a conditional use permit and that is not part of this application. Secondly, with the McMillan Road, ACHD representatives did not -- they do not attend the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, but they will be at the City Council and before the City Council I can ask to clarify if there is a planned light there. I don't know that for sure. At least that -- in regards to the road width of McMillan the applicant mentioned and other neighbors have mentioned -- McMillan is, from my understanding, is never going to be widened to be more than what it is because of the constraints of the canal and ditch and the power lines. So, that's a constrained corridor because of the increased density and increased number of homes in general out here. So, that's just unfortunately what is there. It just would be very very costly in order to widen that. In addition, the -- I guess I already touched on that. Yeah. Again, just want to reiterate that I understand the neighbors don't want commercial behind their homes, but the commercial zoning already exists and, therefore, with the certificate of zoning compliance, if it's allowed to use, it could already be built here. So, I just wanted to reiterate that. After that I -- the applicant should answer all the rest of the questions. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Bonnie, do you want to -- the floor is yours to answer -- respond to the public testimony. Layton: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Commission. Appreciate your time again this evening. I think there were a number of comments that we would like to touch on and I will just go through my list here, try to make it as quick as possible, so we can all get home here. First and foremost, the neighborhood meeting, yes, we did hold Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F73 Page 69 of 84 actually two neighborhood meetings. The first one we did have some technical difficulties. We -- we did notice that, a 500 foot radius, that was prior to the zone -- the ordinance changing from a 300 to a 500. So, we knew that the ordinance was changing. We sent out mailings to -- to that increased radius to try to capture people. We did have some technical difficulties. There were a handful of people that were on the call at that time. There was a lot of talking over each other and a lot of comments that were raised that were really HOA related issues and maybe frustrations with their HOA that didn't -- that weren't part of what we were holding the meeting for, which was to discuss this application, and so I had suggested that they reach out to their HOA. So, it was unfortunate. We submitted the information. Staff came back to us. I think it was in December and -- or November -- Joseph, I don't have the date right in front of me. We went ahead and we held this second neighborhood meeting. That lasted for over two hours. Both myself and Matt Munger were on that call with a number of the residents. So, we tried to our best to communicate that. Again, there were some issues and frustrations that were brought to light just as we have heard tonight from the neighbors that are HOA related issues that we suggested that they follow up with the HOA president and that we would do our best to pass those concerns on to the developer, which we have. In terms of the concerns about the park intrusion and the size of the pool and some of those amenities, we did address that with the owner and the developer. I would like to say that the pool is under contract to be constructed. The initial plan was to have it in the south side of the development. Staff has requested that we consider putting that in the north side of the development, which we are happy to do. The park intrusion -- and, again, I guess no good deed goes unpunished sometimes. When you are sold your home you are sold a copy of the plat. The park was over developed to try to maintain some of those weeds. We are not taking park space away. As Joseph mentioned in his report we are actually increasing the -- the park space, just going to be reconfigured a little bit. And, Joseph, I don't know if you could put that slide up on -- where we can see the line, if maybe you could bring that slide back up if you are there. Dodson: Sorry. Trying to. Give me a second. I don't know why it's not working. Layton: Joseph, if you can move the cursor to sort of where that line -- where that ground was over built initially. Dodson: Can everybody see this? Layton: Yeah. That exceeded the actual required area of the plat. So, we have heard those concerns. We are -- we are including the amenities in the open space. We are exceeding what we are required to do and doing our best to work with -- with the existing residents. I know that the owner has been in touch with -- there was one of the neighbors had started a petition about the pool and he had been -- he has been in direct contact with her and, again, as I mentioned, the pool is under contract to be constructed. So, hopefully -- hopefully that addresses that issue. I do want to also clarify -- there were some comments that we shouldn't have to pay for the developer selling property to Walmart. I do want to be very clear, in the history that I presented previously the Walmart property was sold long before -- it was sold in 2010. From the previous owner. Our client Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F74] Page 70 of 84 and the owner and developer of this project did not own the ground, did not sell it to Walmart. That had been purchased prior to him purchasing the rest of the property. So, just wanted to be clear on that. And, then, in terms of the rezone and the loss of commercial and, Commissioner Holland, to -- to your point -- and I know this is sort of your area of focus professionally. We did receive comments from staff about their concerns. We -- we looked at the staff report. Joseph did forward to me in an e-mail that ratio that you mentioned that -- I wasn't sure where the source came from, but it looks like you were referencing -- it's the same one, the nonresidential zoning for every hundred acres. So, we looked at that and, you know, from our client's standpoint this property was zoned commercial since 2008. So, that's been for 13 years and nothing has come and he likes commercial, he likes to own commercial and lease it out. That's -- that's what he does. But in this location it seems that there is -- there is no takers and so really what are we losing, but vacant ground that has not -- not had the demand of the market and so I looked at that and I said, well, you know, I want to understand this a little bit better. So, I pulled the 2017 existing conditions report from the City of Meridian and on page 2-18 it went through different square footages and vacancies and back in 2017 there was 3.2 million square feet of office available, according to the report that was information from Colliers. In 2019 in 2Q I found a Colliers report that had office at three point -- almost 3.6 million and, then, in Q4 now they have started splitting it out between south and north Meridian, but the total is right at about six million square feet. So, just from 2017 to Q4 of last year there has been a significant increase and yet this property has remained vacant and not for the lack of our client touring and vetting very competent high paying job type employers, but this is not where they want to locate. So, with that request we are saying it's -- it's vacant land, how much longer should he wait? It's been 13 years of trying to get somebody in place. That hospital went away. I think we saw earlier this evening some discussion on some commercial locating two mile radius from this site. One point three miles as the bird -- as the crow flies and so just really want to put that in -- into perspective. We still have the corner -- the southwest corner of the intersection that's open and our client is -- it's his goal to bring high paying, good quality jobs, not just develop a bunch of strip retail that's going to have a couple of tenants in it until they decide they need to move on or they move out of state and, then, it's -- then it's vacant space. He's incentivized to bring high quality tenants to those commercial properties as well. But that's just -- that just hasn't come to fruition. So, there is a demand for some residential. I appreciate Joseph clarifying for folks and for the Commission that the density of lots -- initially we had planned those to be 70 and 80 foot wide lots. Joseph, I think you have that original plan. And, then, upon feedback from staff is when we went to the plan that you see before you that has some 50 and 60 foot wide lots to increase the variety of -- of lots in the area and housing options for folks. I did want to touch on the schools. I think the Commission -- and I'm not sure folks on the call, but in this staff report it would appear that the school capacities are addressed on page three in the West Ada School District in terms of Pleasantview Elementary and currently the capacity of that school is 650 students and the number of students enrolled is 368. 1 can go down the list, but it's in your report to save time. The light at San Vito and McMillan, I just want to clarify -- I think Joseph touched on that as well. That was something our client initially had wanted to put an entry monument at that location and what he was told by ACHD was, well, that's great, you can build it, but when we want to put a light in there we will tear it out and so that area Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F75] Page 71 of 84 is reserved for a light, but that's per ACHD requirements. It's not something that our clients had intended on -- on having there and that was something that was part of ACHD's purview. And, then, also to clarify for folks that the R-15 is separate. It's not part of the HOA for this subdivision. It would have its own -- set up an HOA. It would have its own amenities that would be run save and separate from the rest of the community, as Joseph mentioned. Currently it's zoned R-15. Any type of use that would want to go in there would have -- depending on if it's approved or conditionally permitted would have to go through that approval process. At this time we are not requesting any change to that zoning and that's to remain as it was, as it has been rezoned that zoning designation since 2008. McCarvel: Okay. Layton: I think I have touched on most of the questions that folks had. If there is something that I have left out, I would stand for any last questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant? Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. One more -- my last interruption. I promise. I just wanted -- there was one last question that a resident asked regarding the neighborhood commercial and what that means. I didn't touch on it in my presentation either. So, I thank him for that question. I just want to clarify that that's intended to be a very walkable, pedestrian friendly type of commercial area with maybe food trucks here and there, some -- some plaza space, things like that that is very neighborhood friendly, not intended for a big box commercial or retail like that, just something smaller, more local kind of neighborhood. More of a Hyde Park feel, but, obviously, not on that scale. Just a condensed version of that with just pedestrian friendly, bicycle friendly. That's what that's intended to be. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Layton: If I may, Madam Chair, a couple things. Joseph, thank you for mentioning that. On page 52 of the staff report -- I don't know if you have that slide, that conceptual exhibit that we had put together in our presentation. It's -- it's the one that's got the elevations. It's in the staff report on page 52. And, really, again, that neighborhood commercial -- we understand that times are changing. There is a lot of folks that are working from home -- home offices. I think we had a gentleman testify, Mr. -- Mr. Buffham tonight, talking about owning a global company and working from his home in Meridian. Our owner and the builders -- the builder team in this community has seen the request for home offices even before the pandemic really be a strong -- strong desire of residents. We have a lot of folks who work from home. And so the neighborhood commercial was really envisioned to be a place that would be walkable, that would have outdoor plazas. Again, in your staff report we have got some examples of what that was envisioned and we really worked Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F76 Page 72 of 84 with staff to say how can we develop this to be kind of a center node for folks that they can go get an ice cream, it's close to the park, you know, maybe stop there on their way back from getting groceries or whatever other retail that might occur in the commercial zone that's adjacent to Ten Mile. So, it is intended to be that. It would complement both the single family residential, as well as the R-15 residential and really provide a good community hub and gathering place. Thank you all for your -- McCarvel: Bonnie, we lost you. Layton: Sorry about that. With that I just want to thank you all for your -- the time this evening. I know that the -- that our client is really -- really a desire to continue the quality development, the brick paver streets, and continue to add to the City of Meridian quality community for residents and for businesses in the area. So, thank you, again, for your time this evening. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't know if this is -- if we can ask this now or not, but I'm just kind of getting a sense that we could be headed towards a continuance, so before we close the public piece and, then, have to open it back up, can we ask if she's open to that as an option or is that -- McCarvel: Yes, I -- Grove: -- that time ask her or should I wait to do that? McCarvel: Yeah. I think there is just a lot here. I don't think we would send this -- just my feeling we wouldn't send this on to Council without having some definite drawings come back. I think it's a matter of how much time do we feel that staff and the applicant are going to need. If -- if it's the Commission's direction to continue this how much time would you like? Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Thank you for wondering and thinking of my busy schedule, but before we get to the continuance I just wanted to note that it -- me and -- well, staff and the applicant in general are -- don't agree on the amount of commercial. I think that's pretty clear. I don't know if having an extra two weeks or a month or six weeks to hash that out is really going to net anything. I don't know that for sure, but I definitely cannot guarantee that. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F77] Page 73 of 84 Dodson: Second to that, I think that some of the other issues brought up by the neighbors and everything else involving the overall DA, those aren't really on the table between the applicant and I, unless the Commission wants it to be so. So, if there is a continuance I would just ask that it be very precise and to what -- what needs to be revised and then -- just to give me some direction of where -- what parts of the project you do support or don't support, just to make sure that if it is continued I have that guidance with the applicant. McCarvel: Sure. Dodson: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I could save my comments towards when we close the -- the public hearing for comments, but I think it's -- it's worth having this discussion here. The way I see it where it sits right now -- I understand where the applicant's coming from and I understand some of what they are -- they are trying to propose here. But to me it -- I don't think it's the highest and best use of what we could do for this site and so at a minimum I don't think we could approve this tonight and I'm at the point where I would -- I would almost prefer recommending denial for what Joe just shared, that the applicant and staff don't agree on the amount of commercial needed here and I -- while I don't want to tell them that they need to stick with the original DA and try to come up with another site plan that -- that works better, I do think that going back to the drawing board at some level needs to happen for this project. I think that -- you know, I would encourage the applicant to reach out to the economic development staff at the city, if they haven't done so already, to try and market this property. But I'm really really concerned that -- if you look at the comprehensive plan for the city, this is really an area that we have planned for that -- higher occupations to go into and I know that they haven't had success selling that yet, but the Comprehensive Plan is a 20 year vision and so if we eliminate some of those opportunities now, we don't -- you don't get to remove houses later and the same thing with park space, it's -- it's almost a challenge and a detriment to them that they over built the park, because once you build a park and green space, if you try to take any of that back residents will always panic and not be content about losing some of the open space that was there, even if it was overbuilt from what was promised. It's -- it's hard to take away greenspace from people. So, I -- I'm really struggling with this, because I -- I would like to see it stay. I really like the original DA plan and would love to see if there is a way to help them accomplish the original intent of how that was designed, because I think all of the residential that came in around it was planned for the purpose of knowing that this had a significant portion of commercial plans that they did need it in other areas. So, I have some high concerns about the way this came forward and I -- looking at the way this residential is laid out, too, there is not a lot of special traits to it that made me look at it and say this is a desirable community to move into and I hate to say that to the applicant, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F78 Page 74 of 84 but there is not a -- while they have got walkways and pathways and they are connecting to an existing development that has open space, there is not anything additional that they are really adding to create a desirable community within this area in my perspective and I know that might sound harsh. I will leave it at that for now. McCarvel: Okay. If there is -- I think that kind of gives us a direction as far as comments from the applicant and staff on continuance versus other options. So, I think if we are ready we can close the public testimony if someone would like to make a motion for H- 2020-0108 and move on to deliberation. Holland: I move we close public hearing -- Layton: Before you close the public hearing -- McCarvel: Oh, who is that? Layton: It's Bonnie. I'm sorry, Madam Chairperson. Before you close the public hearing I do want to say, you know, we -- we have worked with staff, we have been working back and forth. When we received the staff report just on -- on Friday, you know, we worked to revise the plan to try to address staff's comments and to come up with something that was more consistent with what those comments were -- trying to reflect what those comments were and I think we could get there with a little bit more time to fine tune the plan that you see on the left on the screen and, you know, work with Joseph and the rest of the staff to -- to -- to fine tune that. McCarvel: Okay. So, you would prefer a continuance over-- and some more time, rather than denial and move on to Council? Okay. Layton: Yeah. If -- yeah, if we -- if we can get some direction on that, yes. McCarvel: Okay. All right. We will take that under advisement. Commissioner Holland, did you want to continue with your motion? Holland: Well, that's a question for the Commission, if they want to continue the application. I -- McCarvel: No. I thought we were -- the motion to close the public hearing. Sorry. Holland: I would still be inclined to close the public hearing, because I -- I'm still leaning towards recommending denial at this point. I -- while I understand what Joe is trying to propose here and adding a little bit more commercial, I -- I still have challenges with the way that this -- this new concept looks. I don't think it solves some of the issues that we are looking at. So, in my mind I don't know that time is going to fix those challenges for me, but if others feel that no one has to second my motion. I'm still going to make the motion to close the public hearing. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F79 Page 75 of 84 Grove: I will second that motion. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0108. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Comments? Holland: I have made mine known. I'm going to be quiet, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah, I'm right there with Commissioner Holland. I mean -- you know, I mean kind of had me at 65 percent reduction in commercial space. So, I mean if -- and if that's a sticking point to the whole thing, I just don't know that more time is going to overcome that. So, I mean this corridor right here is prime space for that. There are businesses popping up all over the place. So, I mean the notion that one big provider is going to come in here and buy this up and -- and make it viable is maybe not going to happen, but I think that there is plenty of space for other things to come in here that we are -- you know, will be good for our community as far as commercial use. So, I just -- I -- I can't get behind the overall reduction in commercial space. I just -- I mean I see where Joe's going with it to try and accommodate what they are trying to -- you know, what their vision of it is, but I just think the overall reduction in commercial space is way too much for this corridor that it's on. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Grove. Grove: All right. I won't belabor the points too much, but we definitely have a -- on the same page as everyone in terms of lack of commercial. We have to maintain that. We don't -- we don't get -- we don't get another shot at this and there is not a lot of other opportunities. It's already in place with the comp plan for a reason, so -- and just looking at the -- if we even take it -- I have problems with it just looking at it from a residential layout standpoint. Even -- you know, if the commercial piece was taken out and we -- we left, you know, as is or whatever, which I don't agree with, obviously, but there is just a lack of open space, there is a lack of identity, kind of like as Commissioner Holland was saying in terms of the layout, it doesn't feel connected with the rest of the subdivision that it's, you know, supposed to be connecting to. It feels disjointed in that aspect and I think that is also kind of -- you know, I don't know. I have some other concerns that probably don't meet the standards of what we can discuss and not discuss, but I have a lot of concerns with this. I will say, though, that I -- I like the -- what they briefly touched on with Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F80] Page 76 of 84 the neighborhood commercial. It sounds like a great concept of integrating some commercial aspects into the fabric of the neighborhood. So, that -- that seemed great. But there is -- there is a lot of things that need to be addressed and some of them, you know, I think could be done with just some better communication and -- and having -- but for us we -- we need to have the long-term success of the community in mind and not the short-term success of the project I guess. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, the -- the nice thing about annexations and rezones is it kind of gives us an ability to ask for what we want and my opinion, listening to the -- the homeowners, I think, you know, keeping the -- the park the way it is and size it is is something that we can ask for as part of the rezone. I do agree with Commissioner Holland that this -- this layout is not -- it doesn't fit and -- and I would -- I would actually be more inclined to continue this, because more than likely Council is going to remand it back down to us any wise is my guess and so why not give the developer -- give them some ideas of what we would like to see and the staff and see if they could come up with something that we can support. My personal opinion is I would like to see a little bit more open space, maybe remove some of those lots that are in the -- the current park zone right now and keep a portion of that park that's still there. Come up with a mix that we feel good for commercial and -- and I think -- I understand staff wanting to have a transition close to the general commercial, but I think we can actually just leave it as the exterior perimeter with the smaller lots and have the interior and adjacent to the bigger lots be bigger and have a shorter transition, instead of having just a row of -- or a sea of homes. So, that would be my recommendation to just continue this to allow them some opportunities to try to work together a little bit more and come up with something that -- that both of us -- that all of us could support. McCarvel: Yeah. I think we are -- you know, I think the general theme has definitely been consistent and if -- to continue the applicant needs to understand that we will stand firm on not having such a reduction in the commercial. Otherwise, we would recommend denial, so they need to work with that and, you know, I agree as the -- even the residential part of it that they have proposed in that original one it's not anything I'm excited about and it needs definitely its own open space and I would almost recommend, you know, some of that open space be in the form of the existing park and not taking the -- the existing area away and maybe expanding on it and creating, you know, what's left in the residential, something that we can support. Commissioner Fitzgerald or -- did we lose Commissioner Cassinelli? Fitzgerald: I'm here. I -- I think you want to -- I think I echo a lot of the -- the comments that -- I think you nailed it on the head. I think the theme is we are taking way too much commercial out of the -- out of the mix. That -- that reduction that Commissioner Seal mentioned is just huge and, you know, we -- this is a zoned property. It's already set up --this is what they thought was going to be there. The neighbors that built around it, that's -- we talked a lot about certainty in what they expected to be there and they are shifting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F81 Page 77 of 84 gears significantly and I know that Bonnie's comment about no good deed goes unpunished, but when you build a park and people are using it and, then, they go and turn it into homes, they -- that is a bait and switch. I mean it is -- whether it's on a plat or not, the neighborhood feels like they got something taken away from them. So, unfortunately, that's the situation we are dealing with now and I think that's -- it's a rough gig. I understand it. But I do agree with the majority of your comments. I -- Commissioner Yearsley and I kind of-- we are on the same page. I think we have an opportunity to say exactly what we want and if they don't get that, then, I think the denial comes quickly following afterwards. It doesn't have very far leave to get there. But knowing that -- the feeling of the Commission probably would give them an impetus to try to work out the -- the balance that Joe is looking for. So, that would be my only comment. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Yeah. For me if we were going to continue it I would have to see a radically redesigned site plan and I don't know if it's better for them to just come back with a new application in that case or whether it's better to keep this moving forward and seeing if they could come back with something different for us, but I would agree that -- I think at a minimum they would need to keep the open space that was there, even though, again, their-- they over built the park, it's for the same reason that Commissioner Fitzgerald just explained. I think you can't really take that amenity away and I think you have got a great opportunity with where the commercial integrates with that open space that exists right now. You could do a really cool neighborhood commercial that would tie in with the open space. So, if you want to be a premier living community that does attract that other commercial user, have some really cool plaza spaces that open up into that open park and, then, you have got the walkability and the neighborhood connections that -- I mean I would be excited to live next to that if I could go play with my kids in the park and walk next door and have a cup of coffee and still be really close to my kids and be able to have that work-life integration. Or, you know, if they want to add some residential that's a great spot for that live-work unit where if they want to do a couple stories and have some apartments on top and have the -- the cool frontage. I know that that's a trendy thing and it's maybe a little more expensive to do, but I think they have a lot of opportunities still for this site. So, I'm still leaning towards denial a little bit, because I'm afraid that we are going to get back a rendition of what's in front of us right here and it's not going to be much better than what we are looking at and that's what I'm concerned about if we continue it. Grove: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Okay. I'm kind of leaning towards what Commissioner Holland said. I feel like Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F82 Page 78 of 84 they have had really good resident feedback through this process, you know, tonight and with written comments, that they have an engaged group next to them and I feel like they could really harness some of that to --to build out like -- especially some of the, you know, neighborhood commercial pieces of this or the mixed use pieces that could potentially go in and make it into something that more people could get behind. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yes, I guess I was -- I was muted. I am -- I definitely want to see a continuance or-- or a denial, which I don't know which one is going to be the best, but just my thoughts and comments. I think this was -- I think this parcel was -- was -- was changed on the -- or updated on what I want to say on the future land use map based on the previous development agreement and plans that were submitted back in 2008 1 think was the date there. Prior to that it was -- it was leaning more towards residential, but so -- I don't want to penalize him for that necessarily, even though it is what it is. But in all actuality it's -- it's a mixed use community and I don't think that necessarily means that they have got to bring in a -- you know, some high tech employer, make this a tech center or something, I think we have got the Ten Mile interchange, we have got what we discussed earlier tonight of two medical centers across the highway from each other just a mile and a half away. But I do think they are missing the mark on -- on that -- the concept of mixed use community and I don't necessarily think that we have to tie them to a number of how much commercial we are losing or something, I just want to see -- I want to see something that's -- that with all that acreage that they have got there, something that will blow us away in terms of putting together a real neat concept. I don't want to say it has to look like El Dorado or -- or Silverwood -- I think it was Silverwood -- Silver whatever. It doesn't have to look like that, but it's got to be something that ties in the -- the components of a mixed use community, which is what it is. It does not have to -- I'm not -- I don't want a hard defined commercial area necessarily that says, okay, this is -- you know, we got a little tech center over here and we got -- got some retail here, whatever it is, but I just don't see it. And, then, I have an issue, too, with the -- that all the streets are -- they are parallel and perpendicular streets there. I want to see some like through Bridgetower and in the homes in the areas around it, I want to see some curvature in the streets and I want to see something a little -- a little different than just -- you will look at it and -- and it's kind of blah, especially when compared to what's next to it. And, then, the other comment -- and this has been brought up -- is definitely open space. I mean they are hitting it right now at ten percent and, you know, this many acres and I realized it's part of other developments, too, but I want to see more -- more open space in there, too. I mean -- I think I'm speaking for all of us here and several of you have made the comment, when you come in at the minimum we are not impressed. You know, give us more. Give us 12 percent, 14 percent, whatever it is. I guess the -- I guess the -- the minimum is ten percent, but, you know, let's have something more. I just -- with the acreage that's in there there is really I think some cool things that can be done with this --with this property. I don't necessarily share the same thoughts as far as having a hard line number with -- that X amount has to be commercial or something, but I do think that -- oh, you know, a lot of -- you got -- you got Walmart on one end and you got Costco on the other, let's -- there is just some -- I think there is some really neat things you could do that would make Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F83] Page 79 of 84 it a vibrant little center up there and it's -- this isn't it, so -- but I don't -- I don't have the answer. If it's -- I think Commissioner Yearsley said if we -- if we deny it Council is just going to remand it back to us and we are going to be in the same spot in -- in four months. So, I don't know what the answer is on that one, if it's continue or deny. But I -- it needs a lot of work. Holland: I think if we recommend denial and it goes to Council and Council thinks there is some saving grace with it and do remand it back to us, it's almost about the same as continuing it regardless. But it might give them more time to get some extra feedback from Council and direction. So, I'm going to throw out a motion and see if it goes somewhere. Madam Chair, I -- I -- after hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of the Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, for the reason that it doesn't comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in reducing the commercial, that there were concerns from the Commission about the integration of the residential and compatibility with the neighboring structures, that there was a loss in some of the existing open space and that the Commission would have liked to have seen better mixed use development in the plan and -- I think that's what I -- all I need to say. We will see if there was other things I needed to include in my reasoning. Cassinelli: I will second that. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of H-2020-0108. All those in favor of denial say aye. All those against denial say nay. Yearsley: Nay. Sorry. McCarvel: Motion to recommend denial is approved. Holland: Madam Chair, do we need to do roll call on that one? Pogue: Yeah. Just for the record was that Commissioner Fitzgerald? McCarvel: No. I believe it was Commissioner Yearsley that had the nay. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yearsley: That's correct. Pogue: That was Commissioner Yearsley? McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- Fitzgerald: I voted yes. McCarvel: So, one nay, the rest affirmative. Fitzgerald: I'm not going to be here to watch you guys deal either way. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F84] Page 80 of 84 Holland: Thanks, short timer. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Just -- I know we have got one more on the docket. I need to -- I need to take care of something and probably will need to just mute my phone and walk away here for about ten minutes. McCarvel: Okay. I think at the minimum we are going to probably need to take a break, but I know there has been support of staff and this Commission to have an end time. So, do we want to take a break or do I have a motion to continue the next item to the next meeting? Holland: Madam Chair? Always my biggest concern whenever we get to 11 :00 o'clock is that if there were people who wanted to share public testimony by 11 :00 o'clock they stayed out and so I feel like we are not being as transparent if we start an application at 11:00 p.m. I would be in favor of continuing the application, but I know that the applicant's also hung with us probably through this point in time, too. So, I -- I sympathize with that as well. But I will do whatever the Commission wants and I will rally on if we decide to stay with it. Seal: Madam Chair? The question I would have to that, too, is when -- when is the next available if we do continue it, because it is late. McCarvel: Yeah. Joe, do you have -- I think the next -- is the next one pretty full? What have we got? Weatherly: Madam Chair, there are currently five hearings scheduled for February 4th. There are currently two hearings scheduled for February 18th. Dodson: Both those are mine already. McCarvel: Okay. So, Joe, are you comfortable with moving this one to the next meeting and, then if we have to bump whatever is last on that one to the following -- I mean I know it gets to be a vicious cycle, but -- Dodson: Madam Chair, I -- on that question I will default to my -- my boss man Bill. Mr. Parsons. I will say that the next application is not nearly as contentious. There was only one piece of public testimony provided. So, if we do move forward -- I don't-- I understand Commissioner Holland's point a hundred percent. I don't know if that would apply in this case, but, you know, I could be very wrong. Maybe there is a hundred people that want to testify. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F85 Page 81 of 84 Holland: Madam Chair, I just see 22 participants still in the attendee panel. That's what I worry about. Dodson: Yeah. I can't see that panel. That's not fair. McCarvel: Yeah. There is still quite a list and they -- a lot of them look like new names -- Dodson: Understood. McCarvel: -- from the last one. So, I would think it would be most fair -- I mean to -- if they -- if we did continue it to move it to the next meeting at the top of the agenda. So, I'm open to motions or suggestions on a five minute break or a motion. Holland: I think Commissioner Fitzgerald needs some practice making motions. Fitzgerald: I made a motion earlier. Holland: I'm just giving you your last opportunity. We are going to miss you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I -- this one -- it's always hard, because I don't want to have people who have hung with us for a long time, but I don't think this one's going to be as cut and dry as it may appear. So, I think we may be here until 1:00. Just -- and that's my concern for you guys and your families and everybody involved. We get a little punchy at -- when we hit about midnight and I'm not sure we make good decisions then or not. So, I would be -- I mean not because I'm not going to be here the next meeting, but I'm okay if we want to continue it, you put it at the top of the list the next meeting. I mean it makes sense. But it's completely up to the team that has to take it on, because I don't want to be the person who is deciding that. But I think long days start getting difficult. McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: We have had a lot of support from staff to end them at a reasonable hour. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to jump in and make a motion. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F86] Page 82 of 84 Holland: I move to continue the public hearing for Aviator Subdivision, H-2020-0111, by The Land Group, to the hearing date of February 4th for the reason that the hearing ran long and we want to make sure we get adequate opportunity to public to participate and make sound decisions and that we would put it as the first agenda item of that meeting. Grove: Second. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Do we need to just get the applicant up and check and confirm that that date will work with them before we -- McCarvel: Andrea, do we need to do that or move forward? Pogue: You could do it if you would like. I don't know if the applicant is remote or in person. Dodson: Should be remote. Weatherly: Madam Chair, one moment. Brady, I'm going to transfer you over. Madam Chair, I'm transferring -- excuse me -- Brady Lasher and Kristen McNeill of The Land Group. McCarvel: We appreciate you guys hanging in with us, but we definitely want to give you the attention you are due and we hate to start this and have it need an hour or two. Our --the motion has been made and we would prefer to continue this to the top of the agenda on February 4th. McNeill: Madam Commissioner and staff and Members of the Commission, this is Kristen McNeill with The Land Group and, yes, of course we would love to present tonight, but we understand and we are available for the next date and appreciate being offered the opportunity to be the first on the agenda item -- first agenda item there. So, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to continue Item H-2020-0111 to the hearing date of February 4th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: I believe before we have our last motion, Bill, did you have some announcements and things you want to say? Parsons: Well, I'm always willing to talk to all of you, but I did want to extend my appreciation to you, Ryan. Unfortunately, due to these -- this -- this COVID situation that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F87 Page 83 of 84 we are all dealing with we couldn't have a formal -- a proper send off for you, but I did want to send my appreciation to you. I -- it just -- it seemed like yesterday you and I were in that conference room and I was there training -- Caleb and I were training you on your duties as a Commissioner and here we are several years later and it's time for you to retire as chairman and as a commissioner, but I want you to know that the team really appreciated your insight throughout the years and you are going to be sorely missed and I hope when we are done and past this I have your e-mail address, I will look you up and we will get caught up and send you off in a proper format. Fitzgerald: We will go have a beer at that time. Parsons: Yes. Dodson: I completely -- completely second that, Bill. Thank you again. Parsons: Yeah. We appreciate your service, sir. Fitzgerald: Well, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for everything. We greatly appreciate the opportunity and I will miss all of you. I will definitely come say hi. Dodson: Thank you, sir. Pogue: Is Adrienne on? Weatherly: I am. Pogue: Adrienne, do you wish to discuss the certificate of service for Ryan? Weatherly: Ryan, because of your years of service that you have given to the City of Meridian, the Mayor's office has prepared a certificate of service for you that we would like to give you. If you prefer that I mail it to you I'm happy to do that, along with your -- have your nameplate here, too. So, you might want to keep that for memory purposes. But I will have it in the City Clerk's Office, too. But if you prefer I mail it I'm happy to do that as well. Fitzgerald: I appreciate it. I can come by and grab it. Weatherly: That sounds good. We will have it for you in the clerk's office whenever you are ready to pick it up. Fitzgerald: Thank you. And thanks for all -- the team has been amazing. I can't tell you how much it's been a pleasure to work with everybody. So, Bill, Joe, Sonya, Andrea, Adrienne, thank you guys for everything. It's been a blast and, Chris, I know you are not on here, right? But you are probably somewhere. And tell Caleb we appreciate everything. So, thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F88] Page 84 of 84 Pogue: Thank you, Ryan. Fitzgerald: The honor of the final motion goes to -- Parsons: Ryan. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Pogue: I like the fireworks. Cassinelli: I will second that. Fitzgerald: To my fellow Commissioners I love you all. Thanks for all the fun. It's been a blast. Carry on and do good work. McCarvel: All right. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED 11:17 AT P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 2 I 4 12021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 4 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the January 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting 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 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings Changes to Agenda: th  Item #2: TM Center (H-2020-0074) – Applicant requests continuance to February 18. Item #3: Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of an acre of land, zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada County, located at 2972 E. Leslie Dr (south and west of the E. Ustick Rd / N. Eagle Rd. intersection). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Property is bordered by the City Limits on two sides. To the north is R-15 zoning, to the east is R-2, unincorporated Ada County at the south and west. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential Summary of Request: This is a proposal to annex and rezone 1 acre of property to R-2 to obtain City services. The property is in unincorporated Ada County, and is served by individual well and septic. The Applicant desires to construct a detached accessory building for an approximately 1,750 sq. ft. shop, RV garage and upstairs living area. The applicant has been unable to obtain a new septic permit from the County due to the location and limitations of the existing system to accommodate an additional bathroom. The Applicant has determined it would be cheaper to annex into the City and connect to City water and sewer than to upgrade the septic system. If the applicant chooses to use the upstairs living area as a secondary dwelling unit it is subject to specific use standards. This includes the living area being less than 700 sq. ft., at least one additional parking space required, and the property must be occupied by the property owner at least 6 months out of the year. The Comprehensive Plan is supportive of secondary dwelling units. There are recommendations to support the construction of accessory dwelling units and increase the diversity of housing options. Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0119, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 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- 0119, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0119 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.63-acre of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 2690 E. Franklin Rd. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex 0.75-acre of land with an R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district. The reason for annexation is the existing septic system on the SFR property failed late last year and the Applicant had to hook-up to City water & sewer service. No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. As a provision of hook-up to City services, annexation into the City is required. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation for this property is Commercial. Because there is an existing home on this property and the use is proposed to remain residential, an R-2 zoning district is requested (as recommended by Staff) as a “placeholder” zoning district until the property redevelops or a change of use is proposed in the future. At such time, the property should be rezoned and the use/development should be consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a DA is required as a provision of annexation that requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the Commercial designation prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the property. This would not prevent the Applicant from selling the property for continued residential use but would preclude it from being subdivided to increase the density on the property and further the residential use of the property. Written Testimony: Brad Miller, Adler Industrial – concerns pertaining to compatibility of R-2 zoning of the property with adjacent industrial uses to the north – suggests commercial zoning might be more compatible and a better option. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement of a DA as previously mentioned. 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- 2020-0115, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 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- 0115, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0115 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: Village at Meridian Café Rio Drive-Through (H-2020-0116) Application(s):  Conditional use permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.97-acre of land, zoned C-G, located at 3243 E. Village Dr. History: This property was annexed in 2007 as part of the larger Village at Meridian project; a DA was required as a provision of annexation which has been amended twice. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: A CUP is requested for a drive-thru establishment for Café Rio within 300’ of another drive-through (i.e. Chick- fil-a to the north) as required by the UDC. Café Rio is proposed to occupy the southern tenant space of a 10,000+/- square foot multi- tenant building. The existing drive-through is separated from the drive-through to the north by a public street (i.e. E. Village Dr.); therefore, no traffic conflicts exist between the two sites. The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment. Staff has reviewed the proposed site design and found it to be consistent with these standards. Access is proposed via a driveway from a right turn lane from Eagle Rd. on E. Village Dr., along the northern boundary of this site across the abutting lot; direct lot access via N. Eagle Rd. is prohibited. ACHD’s traffic engineers have reviewed and approved the proposed turn lane configuration. A reciprocal cross-access easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress/egress exists between the lots in this subdivision. A cross-parking agreement also exists for shared parking between businesses/lots Parking lot landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Street buffer landscaping was installed with development of the subdivision along N. Eagle Rd. and E. Village Dr. Because the drive-through lane and back of the building (with mechanical equipment) will be highly visible from N. Eagle Rd., Staff recommends additional landscaping (i.e. coniferous trees/bushes) is provided within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd. to screen this area and these functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that incorporate materials consisting of EIFS in two different colors, tile, metal and concrete trim/accents and standing seam metal roofing. Final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: John Davis, Layton-Davis Architects, Applicant’s Representative – In agreement w/staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0116, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 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-2020-0116, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0116 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: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Private Street – approved by the Director Note: This project was previously heard by the Commission in September of last year. The Council heard the application and was not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without inclusion of the 1.27-acre out-parcel at the NEC of the site. They remanded the project back to the Commission for inclusion of the out-parcel in the annexation application. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 124.07 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located on the south side of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 & on the east side of N. McDermott Rd. History: A portion of this site consists of Lot 18, Block 1, Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space – non-farm that has since expired). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R (10.27 acres) along Chinden Blvd. & MDR (113.5 acres) to the south (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: Annexation of a total of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts is requested for the development of a mix of residential & medical office uses, including a hospital with emergency care. WASD plans to develop a school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. A Master Plan for the residential portion & concept plan for the medical campus portion of the site is proposed. The residential portion will include a mix of SFR attached & detached homes, townhomes & MFR apartments; the commercial portion will include a 3-story 181,000 s.f. hospital with 60+/- in-patient beds & a 4-story 80,000 s.f. medical office building proposed to include 20,000 s.f. of retail and restaurant uses on the entire first floor to serve the employment area and adjacent neighborhood. The medical campus is proposed to include medical services geared toward women’s health & pediatrics. A concept plan was submitted for the medical campus that depicts the hospital centrally located in the southern portion of the site and the medical office building at the NEC of the site. The SFR uses are principally permitted in the R-8 & R-15 districts; the school, MFR development & hospital will require CUP approval of the uses prior to development & are subject to specific use standards. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care is that the location has a direct access on an arterial street; however, because the UDC prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway, no other access is available except for N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, along the east boundary of the site which connects to the highway. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement; if so, it should be memorialized in the DA; if not, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD has denied the Applicant’s request for a direct access to the SH 20-26 for the medical campus. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 371 buildable lots \[317 SFR ( 102 attached & 215 detached units), 38 townhome, 14 MFR, 1 commercial & 1 school\], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 124.81 acres of land in the proposed R-8, R-15 & C-G zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed in the SFR portion of the development is 4,000 s.f. with an average lot size of 6,028 s.f.; the average townhome lot size is 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 2.96 units/acre with a net density of 7.68 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 portion is 3.07 units/acre with a net density of 7.07 units/acre & the gross density of the R-15 portion is 7.57 units/acre with a net density of 13.8 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR & MU-R designated areas. The subdivision is proposed to develop in 9 phases as depicted on the phasing plan over a time period of 4 to 5 years. The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd. in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north & extend to the southern boundary with the 1st phase. The commercial & SFR portion of the site will develop first, followed by the townhomes and then the MFR apartments. The school property is not included in the phasing plan as it is under separate ownership & will develop separately from the residential portion. Access is proposed in the residential portion of the development via (1) collector street (Rustic Oak Way) from Chinden, which extends through the site to the south boundary & will eventually extend to McMillan Rd.; access via McMillan Rd. is proposed at the west boundary. A collector street is proposed from Rustic Oak to the east for access to the school site. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension; an additional stub street is recommended by Staff to be provided to the out-parcel at the SWC of the site. Access is proposed to the commercial portion of the development from Rustic Oak with a frontage road running through the site parallel to Chinden, which will provide access to the traffic signal at the Rustic Oak/Chinden intersection when the property to the west of Peregrine Heights redevelops. This is proposed instead of a backage road for consideration by Council since a public street isn’t desirable in this area. The Director has approved private streets in the townhome portion of the development with a mew in accord with UDC standards. The ACHD 5-Year Work Plan shows no road improvements in this area; Chinden was recently widened to 4 travel lanes adjacent to the site. Preliminary plat lines are shown in red that are either in process or have been approved. A parking plan was submitted for the overall development that depicts a total of 497 on-street parking spaces available for guest parking in the SFR portion of the development. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 8.04 acres (or 10%) is required based on the residential area of the subdivision (i.e. 80.42 acres); a total of 12.41 acres (or 15.41%) is proposed – consisting of the street buffer along collector streets (McDermott & Rustic Oak), open space areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area & linear open space. A minimum of 4 qualified site amenities are required – a 3,750 s.f. clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office & meeting room with an outdoor patio & a swimming pool, one large tot lot and 2 smaller tot lots with play equipment, an enclosed dog park (although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired for future residents), segments of the City’s multi-use pathway system, additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 s.f. a pavilion, BBQ’s and seating area with a fire pit in accord with UDC standards. Sample photo elevations and renderings were submitted for the different home types planned in this development as shown; homes depicted are a mix of 1- & 2-story attached & detached units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone/brick veneer accents. Staff is recommending articulation & other architectural elements are provided on elevations facing collector streets for 2-story homes. Elevations for the MFR structures will be submitted with the CUP application. Conceptual renderings were submitted for the hospital & medical office building as shown; final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Stephanie Hopkins, KM Engineering, Applicant’s Representative (requests slight modification to data in report based on revised plans/calculations – staff will update this information in the Commission recommendation to Council document). Staff Recommendation: Approval 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- 2020-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 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- 0047, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0047 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #7: Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) Application(s):  DA Mod, Preliminary Plat, and Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: MDA consists of approx. 76 acres; Plat and Rezone consists of 63.5 acres of land, zoned C-C, C-G, and L-O, located behind the Wal-Mart near the northwest corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – R-8 and residential  West – R-4 and residential  South – R-8 and residential (Volterra South); C-G and commercial (Wal-Mart and other commercial uses, mostly restaurant)  East, across Ten Mile Road – R-8 and residential; small area of L-O that is partially developed; C-G zoning at the northeast corner of Ten Mile/McMillan that is mostly undeveloped (new gas station w/store and largest lot is approved with large 55+ multi-family community. History: CPA-08-003 (Comp Plan Map Amendment to change property to Mixed-Use Community); H-2019-0001 (Summerwood MDA, DA Inst. # 2019-055407); A-2020-0162 (PBA). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Community and very small area of Medium Density Residential along western boundary. Summary of 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; Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single- family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land; and Modification to the existing development agreement (Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of developing the site with detached single-family residences and general commercial, consistent with the new development plan. This subdivision is intended to be an extension of the existing Bridgetower Subdivision to the west. Applicant is proposing to construct the project with 6 acres of qualified open space which amounts to approximately 10%, meeting the minimum requirement. The qualified open space consists of Ten Mile street buffer, the collector street buffers, pathways, and other, smaller, landscaped end-caps. The Applicant is not including any of the open space from the existing development but is removing some of the existing park area for some lots within this plat. The Applicant has submitted a master open space plan showing compliance with the overall required minimums and approved amounts for Volterra North and South. Specifically, the existing park is over 13 acres in size but must be a minimum of 10.2 acres according to the existing approvals. With this plat, the Applicant is leaving 11.4 acres of the park untouched therefore exceeding the approved park size. One (1) qualified site amenity is proposed in this development consisting of a segment of multi-use pathway, as required by the Master Pathways Plan. The proposed plat of 40 acres requires a minimum of two amenities—Staff has recommended a condition of approval requiring the Applicant add an additional amenity within the proposed subdivision or within the shared park. Access is proposed via new local street connections to an extension of a collector street through the site (shown as W. Gondola St.). The commercial portion of the site has driveway accesses to this collector street as well but only on the East side of this street. W. Gondola will be extended from the center of the development where existing N. San Vito Way and N. Vicenza Way intersect; Gondola will connect to N. Ten Mile Road. Applicant is proposing to construct all internal local streets as brick pavers and extend the two local street connections from the north (San Vito Avenue and Fairborn Avenue) into this site from the Bainbridge Subdivision. Through the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), the Applicant is required to construct dedicated westbound right-turn lanes on McMillan Road at both existing streets, San Vito Way and Vicenza Way. The TIS provided by the Applicant did not incorporate any of the future commercial traffic because no end users are currently known and the Applicant does not intend on constructing the commercial until at least phase 5 of the development. Because of this exclusion, ACHD is requiring that an updated TIS be submitted prior to the first application for any use within the commercial portion of the development—Staff fully supports this condition by ACHD. The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 169 detached single-family lots and 8 common lots on 41 acres of the 63 acre rezone request with 6 commercial building lots in the remaining commercial area. According to the submitted phasing plan, the residential and commercial is to be constructed over 7 phases with residential occurring in the first 4 phases; the Applicant is also proposing to fully construct the collector street extension in Phase 5 which Staff does not support and has recommended it is constructed with Phase 1 for added connectivity and circulation. Applicant is requesting to modify the existing DA by updating the concept plan in this area of approx.. 76 acres to include detached single-family dwellings, general commercial, a small area of office, and conceptual multi-family along McMillan. The existing DA includes a concept plan for this mixed-use area from 2008 when the property received a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the property from Medium Density Residential to Mixed-Use Community. The current concept plan depicts a large-scale business park consisting of a private hospital or other large employer, large- and small-scale commercial, and a large area of assisted living facilities with supportive medical offices in the area now zoned R-15. This 2008 map amendment and concept plan were intended to create an employment center in northwest Meridian. The Applicant believes the existing concept plan depicting a large office and medical campus is no longer attainable on this site because of various market factors and the fact that no hospital or large employer has requested approval on this site. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a new concept plan and plat with a significant reduction in the existing commercial in order for single-family residential to be developed instead. As part of the rezone request, the Applicant is reducing the overall commercial zoning from approximately 63 acres down to approximately 22 acres. The loss of 41 acres equates to approximately a 65% loss of commercial zoning to residential. The percentage itself is large but just as important is the loss of potential employment. The remaining smaller areas of commercial proposed will likely contain strip commercial with majority minimum wage service jobs instead of the higher wage jobs seen in larger commercial buildings or with more complex uses that require more expertise. Staff does not believe the remaining 22 acres of commercial zoning is enough. Staff is amenable to some additional residential on this site but there is significant loss of commercial and potential employment with the Applicant’s request. Because of this, Staff is recommending specific revisions to the development plan to retain more commercial zoning and include more integration within the development to be more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. These recommended revisions are as follows:  Construct N. Gondola Street further west and deeper into the site, generally located where the local street N. Calcutta Avenue is currently shown;  Connect the easternmost stub street along the property’s northern boundary from Bainbridge Subdivision directly to Gondola Street and still meet ACHD offset requirements;  Expand the commercial area east of Gondola Street – this area shall be zoned either L-O or C-C;  Depict the existing R-15 property with the existing concept plan for this area depicting assisted living and ancillary medical uses as discussed in the 2008 application and subsequent DA concept plan. The new area of commercial would allow buildings to front on Gondola street, have shared plazas along the street within walking distance of the residential, and place the parking area between sets of buildings therefore offering a better buffer, more integration of uses, and transition from the residential to the commercial and from the residential to the busy arterial, Ten Mile Road. The main reason for this rezone request is to reduce the amount of commercial area due to market factors, as stated by the Applicant. In line with this, if the Applicant chooses to zone this area C-C, multi-family residential is allowed within this zone through a conditional use permit which gives the Applicant an opportunity to turn some of this commercial area into residential in the future while also allowing the City to keep more commercial zoning in the interim. The Applicant submitted a revised plan prior to the meeting in response to these recommended revisions. Staff recommends the application is continued to a future date so that Staff can work with the Applicant to revise this new plan more as it does not emulate what Staff envisioned with the recommendations. Written Testimony: 15 pieces of testimony submitted – some are in favor and some are against project. Main issues presented by neighbors are as follows:  How the first neighborhood meeting occurred and its validity (the reason for the original continuance was to correct this and ensure neighbors had adequate opportunity to participate);  Loss of some acreage of the park in Bridgetower;  Addition of more homes and the increase in traffic, utilization of amenities and park space, and lack of supportive commercial;  Not enough residential – preference for less commercial Applicant also received some letters of support noting the overall quality of the existing community and upkeep. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the recommended revisions and conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0108, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 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- 0108, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0108 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #8: Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) Application(s):  Comp Plan Map Amendment (CPAM), Rezone, and DA Mod. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.8 acres of land, zoned M-E, located at near the northeast corner of Black Cat and Franklin (Directly north of Compass Charter school and east of Hensley Station along the railroad corridor in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – Railroad; north of that is County residential;  East – County residential;  South – Compass Charter School on M-E and R-15 zoning;  West – R-15 zoning and approved attached single-family residential History: H-2018-0048 (Compass Charter School AZ, CPAM; DA Inst. #2018-079763). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Employment (TMISAP) Summary of Request: 1. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved; 2. Rezone a total of 9.8 acres of land from the M-E zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment; and 3. Modification to the existing development agreement (Inst. #2018-079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. In short, if the CPAM is not approved, the associated Rezone and MDA are not applicable because they are contingent upon the future land use changing back to a residential designation. The Applicant is requesting to modify the comprehensive plan map for the subject parcel in order to allow for residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other industrial uses. The current future land use is Mixed Employment which encourage research and development, office, light-industrial, information, and other ancillary commercial uses. Instead, the applicant is requesting to return the property to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR). This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School application and received CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from medium-high density residential to mixed employment. The 2018 request and subsequent approval to change the future land use was so the new school could be constructed and an adjacent county landscaping business could be annexed into the City and still comply with code. At the time, it was determined that the map change was applicable because the subject parcel was conceptually shown with a sports field, track, and stadium and was the school’s avenue for annexation into the City of Meridian in 2018. However, in 2020, Compass Charter received approval to modify their concept plan and Development Agreement to move their sports field to a more adjacent parcel to the new school. Therefore, this 9.8 acre parcel is no longer part of the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold to its current owners. Because the Applicant is proposing to return the parcel back to its original future land use designation and become a more compatible land use to its neighbors, Staff supports the requested map amendment. Thus, the subsequent MDA is to modify the concept plan and incorporate new provisions based on the new plan. The same can be said for the Rezone request of R-15 zoning which would allow future development of the property with a residential use in line with the proposed concept plan. To be clear, the Applicant is not proposing a plat with these applications and future development will be driven by the DA and its provisions and associated concept plan. Specifically, it is important to discuss access for this project in a separate section within this staff report regardless of the fact no preliminary plat is currently being proposed. Access is proposed via extension of a collector street (W. Aviator Street) and a subsequent local street off of said collector. W. Aviator currently provides one of the accesses to the Compass Charter School and will provide access to Hensley Station Subdivision, directly west of the subject site. Due to the pattern of development, Aviator will only be extended to the east boundary of the subject site and not connect to any other road until such time that more parcels develop to the south and east of the subject site. This is one more reason why the Applicant is not choosing to submit a preliminary plat at this time. Because of this, it is imperative that the conceptual layout of Aviator is well thought out and shown in a position that allows for fair and convenient extension in the future. Staff shared these concerns with the Applicant and they revised the concept plan to show a more appropriate extension of Aviator. Staff is appreciative of the Applicant’s ability to work with Staff and revise the layout for the above reasons. The revised concept plans now show Aviator heading northeast into the parcel from its terminus in front of the Compass Charter expansion, crossing the drain once, and then stubbing to the east property line north of the irrigation pump station in the southeast corner of the subject site. This new configuration allows for future extension of Aviator to occur without a need to cross the drain again and not require this Applicant to acquire land from the two county parcels to its south. This new layout generally depicts the same internal layout with some shifting of the site to the east to accommodate easements and some loss of the internal green space that is replaced with other green space. With a future preliminary plat, Staff will analyze the open space for the property. Written Testimony: Linda Bowery (neighbor to the south) – Clarification of road extension and irrigation ditch along shared property line. Applicant reached out to resident and clarified all questions—Mrs. Bowery is satisfied with the answers. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject applications. 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- 0111, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21, 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- 0111, as presented during the hearing on January 21, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0111 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 21, 2021 FLUM FLUM FLUM FLUM Conceptual Elevations for 4- FLUM FLUMPLANNED DEV. Item 2. 43 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from December 3, 2020 for TM Center (H-2020- 0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. Applicant Requests Continuance to February 18, 2021 A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. Item 2. F44 (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from December 3, 2020 for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. Applicant Requests Continuance to February 18, 2021 A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40,TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Item 3. 45 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) by Mark Enos, Located at 2972 E. Leslie Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 1.05 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. Item 3. F46 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: January 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) by Mark Enos, Located at 2972 E. Leslie Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 1.05 acres of land with the R-2 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 21, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) PRINTED FULL, NAME For Against Neutral want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 3. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 1/21/2021 Le gervd �� [- DATE: f TO: Planning&Zoning Commission lei� lL�fl�n E'US I-CK Z FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner --- E PFrC4 0?0 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager I 208-887-2211 � � - W� SUBJECT: H-2020-0119 r z Mark Enos Annexation - L9 I I I LOCATION: 2972 E. Leslie Dr. ----`----- I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a proposal to annex and rezone 1 acre of property to R-2 to obtain City services. The property contains an approximately 2,450 sq. ft. house, is presently zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada County, and is served by individual well and septic. The Applicant desires to construct a detached accessory building for an approximately 1,750 sq. ft. shop,RV garage and upstairs living area. The applicant has been unable to obtain a new septic permit from the County due to the location and limitations of the existing system to accommodate an additional bathroom. The Applicant has determined it would be cheaper to annex into the City and connect to City water and sewer than to upgrade the septic system. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.0 acre Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 1 house,possibly 1 secondary dwelling unit of units) Density(gross&net) 1 du/acre Open Space(acres,total N/A [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities N/A Pagel Item 3. F48 Description Details Page Physical Features(waterways, Finch lateral parallels the northern property line hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of November 13,2020,2 attendees. attendees: History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District No comments Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Property is accessed from N.Eagle Dr to E.Leslie Dr. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) (local). Traffic Level of Service N/A Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross N/A Access Existing Road Network E.Leslie Dr Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No buffer—E.Leslie Dr. is an existing local street.There Buffers is a sidewalk on the south side. Proposed Road Improvements E.Leslie Dr is an existing road with sidewalk Distance to nearest City Park(+ 0.75 mile to Julius M.Kleiner Park size) Distance to other key services Fire Service No site-specific comments on this proposal. Police Service No comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.06 • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Comments • Flow has been committed • No proposed changes to Public Sewer Infrastructure within Record.Any changes or modifications,to the Public Sewer Infrastructure, shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. Water • Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 1 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • No proposed water infrastructure is shown in the application but the narrative stated this property needs to connect to City water and sewer. Page 2 Item 3. 49 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend i -' Pra}eol LacaTi�n E U [I Q4"R 1 f -``- - 0-v' �E USTI CK-RD- _ � E�JC��� :�: � ' ' rF • w y� PICA,Rd IL , W .J -f GLI C I• �, 2 {C 1 N W L- W i . Z Lo en�� h Reside�ltidI OffiC E? Zoning Map Planned Development Map Le geed N Legend a 10P.L6jec!Lc�cfl fk:rti E U II C RD Prngect Lcoaixin E-USTI WRQ= — R-.2 COY Limas _ E — _ EAI — Planned Parcels €P PICARD PI)4 . _ DR R1 t4 -'+. ��- .. '. S W,E I GLIB`] W— LN R-8 RUT R- . R-15 41 LLJ� R1 R1 R-2 R-, 7 I - R1 R-2 R1 R- - ---- ----- Page 3 Item 3. 50 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Owner/Applicant/Representative: Mark Enos—2972 E. Leslie Dr. Meridian, ID 83646 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification published in newspaper 1/1/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 1/1/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/8/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 12/29/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. Staff typically requires a development agreement as part of the annexation approval to ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant. As the intent of this annexation and rezoning is to connect to city water and sewer for an existing house and new accessory building, staff does not find a development agreement necessary. B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or lccoompplan) The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the property for Low Density Residential(LDR). This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. With one existing home on one acre,the proposed rezoning is consistent with the FLUM. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): (Staff analysis is in italics after the cited policy) • Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels,household sizes, and lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01) The property contains an existing single-family residence. The applicant intends to construct an accessory building which includes an approximately 650 sq.ft. "bonus"room with a bathroom. This could be used as a secondary dwelling unit which increases the diversity of housing options. • Remove regulatory barriers and develop design criteria that support the construction of accessory dwelling units and micro homes where appropriate. (2.01.01K). As mentioned, the bonus room in the accessory building contains a bathroom, a wet bar, and is within the 700 sq.ft. requirement to allow it to be used as a secondary unit in accordance with the specific use standards per UDC 11-4-3-12. Page 4 Item 3. 51 • 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) The subject property is located directly adjacent and west of the City Limits. Water and sewer mains are located in front of the property along E. Leslie Dr. Fire service can be provided to the property in less than 4 minutes. Meridian Police and Fire expressed no concerns with this request. Ensure that new development is connected to the City's sanitary sewer system(no septic systems). (4.09.01A) The impetus for this annexation and rezoning is for the applicant to obtain City water and sewer service in order to construct an accessory building with an additional bathroom. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing 2,450 sq. ft. house on the property,which was constructed in 1976. This house will remain. An approximately 1,760 sq. ft. detached accessory building is proposed to be constructed at the rear of the lot. Based on the site plan submitted by the applicant, all existing and proposed structures meet the minimum 20' front setbacks, 7.5' rear setbacks and 15' rear setback. E. Proposed Use Analysis: Single family residences and detached accessory structures with a secondary dwelling unit are allowed and accessory uses in the R-2 zone district. F. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): If the upstairs"bonus room"of the detached accessory structure is used as a secondary dwelling, it would be required to meet specific standards in accord with UDC 11-4-3-12. This includes owner occupancy of the main structure,maximum size limited to 700 sq. ft. (650 sq. ft. proposed),located to the side or rear of the principle structure, and provided with at least one parking space(ample parking is available in the rear yard). G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): As mentioned above,both existing and proposed structures meet all required setbacks. The height of the accessory structure is indicated to be 23',well within the maximum allowed height of 35' in the R-2 zoning district. H. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Existing access occurs from E. Leslie Dr. The applicant has been informed that the driveway to access the new accessory structure will be required to be paved per UDC 11-3C-5-B1. 1. Parking(UDC 11-3C): At least four parking spaces exist for the present structure(two driveways,two garage). If the applicant intends to use the accessory structure as a secondary dwelling unit, an additional parking space will be required per UDC 11-3C-6. Page 5 Item 3. ■ J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There is existing sidewalk on the south side of E. Leslie Dr. There is no sidewalk on the north side of E. Leslie Dr.No additional sidewalk is required with this proposal to annex and zone to obtain city water and sewer service. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): No additional landscaping is required with this proposal to annex and zone to obtain city water and sewer service. L. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Finch Lateral, a seasonal ditch,parallels the property along the northern property line. The applicant does intend to pipe this lateral as part of the annexation and rezoning for the existing single-family residence. Given the nature of this application request, staff does not believe requiring the applicant to tile the ditch is warranted. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Any new fencing will be required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-7. N. Utilities(UDC I1-3A-21): Water and sewer is available at E. Leslie Dr in front of the property. The applicant should be required to abandon the existing well and septic system and connect to city services as a condition of the annexation. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted concept elevations of the proposed accessory structure. The structure meets the height requirements of the dimensional standards per UDC 11-4-3-12 and reflects a pitched roof and dormers comparable to the character of the primary structure. Once the property is annexed into the City no other approvals are required from the Planning Division. The applicant is required to submit plans to the building division for review and approval prior to commencing with construction of the detached accessory structure. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the comments noted in Section VIIl. and per the Findings in Section IX. A development agreement is not being recommended with the subject annexation request. Page 6 Item 3. 53 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 7/20/2012) L L 4 Ohl y 6 i � I I ,a 1L ti '-0 VAOP I L � 1 L L i L L - IL =r. rr-- L �.�. L �iy L G6liTT�IT 3^` y L�� ,s O y ti w 1 L {} i ,L Ly s II L i o I L l L y1 L , y 1 1y y � L 1 y L 1 L 1 L I 14 y L y L y L � L � y y y � I w-ALE Page 7 F54 B. Elevations(date: 7/20/2012) El =� _ Item 3. 55 C. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit(date: 9/14/2020) &am .yr 5epternbEf 14,7.= Rr4JEct No.20-143 EMhRA A Leal 13MCrlp101x frif Annex fflor%mnd Rerom ixr R,2 i aQt5,block t of CwuPS-%bdM5alon A pamal of land being all of Ent S,Black 1 of Carol's SuhdivWan yDook 38 of Plats at Pages 5164 through 3i55,records of Ada cauntYr Idaho)and the nartberly 25M fret of East Leslie OrNe adjacent to saW Lot 5,Block 1,situated in the Northeast 1/4 el Sestlor.5, r wnship 3 North,flange 1 East, SM.,Ada County, Idaho and bung more particvlarly described as follows Beginning at the Nor:hwe5t miner of said W1 S,thence foRovr;ng the northerly boundary arsaid Lot 5r N77'2b•3G"E a distance of 182.50 ftet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 5, Theflce leaving said northerly[Eno and Fallowing the east,ey line of said Lot Sr S02'01'47"E a distance of 247.90 feet projected to the centerflne of fast Les Ile Drive; 'thence 1`cIWwiN said ceriterHne,581'58'i3•'W a distance of 181.93 feet, Thence IeavIng 5aid centerlintz and foEln+uing the projected westerly lfne of said Lot 51 NOP01r4TW a distance of 233.49 fee`to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Sala parceii cantalns a total of 1.1X5 acres,more or less_ Attached hereto is Exhibit R and by this reiererroa Es hereby made a part of. 1459 Q S Pr Ja SZ33 Weit State Straet + Haire,Idaho 83714 . 24E.639,6934 itmenllip,com Page 9 Item 3. F 6 RJerivili s$Guars �ubdfvi5ion �2e3o e POINT 4F SEG111NING Lot 5,block X Lot 4 a Carol's5ubdivision t R129454WSC �► Anri8mtion Area; 1.005 f AC- Lot # Curram Zaning,R-1 Fro�psed ZOTClTFg:R-2 O r-} ww 181,9r RA si! � LEGEND L '" °s ANNEXATION & REZONE ODUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT—OF—WAY UNI= 12459 � ROAD CENITERLJNE # ADJACENT LOT LINE l ' ,00iY 0 50 120 x80 Plan Scale: I"=60' ENGINEERIhI �Q �'3 K�S'�ST�4iE5TAE�T ��,�44H4 R371� Exhibit B kniepEk� Annexation and Rezone to R-2 DATE- Sepetmbhanw NQE T: - SHEETr lot 5, Black I of Carol's Subdivision -2972 E. Leslie Dr. 1 OF I NE 1/4 Set. S, T3N., RIF,, R.M.,Ada County, Idaho Page 10 Item 3. 57 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Existing well and septic system shall be abandoned and the applicant shall connect to City water and sewer service. 2. All driveways shall be paved in accordance with UDC 11-3C-5-B1. 3. If the accessory building is used as a secondary dwelling unit,the applicant shall be required to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-12. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-4. 5. 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, as applicable. 6. 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. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Sanitary sewer and water services were extended into this subject property at the time mains were installed in E.Leslie Drive. Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of water and sewer assessment and meter fees. 2. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at(208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services.Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 3. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8.Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. IX. FINDINGS A.Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds annexation of the subject site with an R-2 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan LDR FL UM designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the size of the existing house and lot will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and if the accessory building is used as a secondary dwelling unit, would Page 11 Item 3. 58 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with City/Agency comments in Section VIII. Page 12 Item 4. 59 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) by Richard Schnebly, Located at 2690 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.75 of an acre of land with an R-2 zoning district. Item 4. F60 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) by Richard Schnebly, Located at 2690 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.75 of an acre of land with an R-2 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 21, 2021 ITEM #ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 1/21/2021 Legend DATE: Iff Prdject Lflcfl�ian TO: Planning&Zoning Commission , 4 FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ST SUBJECT: H-2020-0115 - Schnebly Annexation =FRA ftLIN=RD LOCATION: 2690 E. Franklin Rd., in the SE 1/4 of 1 Section 8,Township 3N.,Range IE ----' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 0.75-acre of land with an R-2 (Low-Density Residential)zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.75-acre,including adjacent right-of-way to section line of E.Franklin Rd.; 0.63-acre,exclusive of right-of-way Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Rural residential(one single-family home) Proposed Land Use(s) No change(continue existing residential use) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-2 Lots(#and type;bldg/common) NA Amenities NA Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 11/21/20; 1 person called,no one attended meeting attendees: History(previous approvals) None Page 1 Item 4. F62 B. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legends, f 10 Pro}ect Lacafmn I Project Lflc7-or I T ,� J I pp " 6. 2 76_ s E LANARK ST ` E LANARK Civic I F ST O ram.._ L . 1 ' 2-73 FRA fcLIN RD ensih� E'FRAN KL'IN'RD Lo - R sie nt aI . o Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend let Project Laca-Ror _ �- I Pro4ect Lflcafian 0 I-L — Plarred Parcels JST STCIRUT21 KLIN'RD =FRA fcL IN'- C72� L-O R1 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Richard Schnebly—4050 E. Hubbard Rd.,Kuna, ID 83634 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Contact: Same as Applicant Page 2 Item 4. 63 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published 1/1/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/29/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/9/2021 Nextdoor posting 12/29/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to annex 0.75-acre of land, including adjacent right-of-way to the section line of E.Franklin Rd.,with an R-2(Low-Density Residential)zoning district. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A.,which depicts the area within the Area of City Impact boundary. The reason for annexation is the existing septic system on the single-family residential property failed late last year and the Applicant had to hook-up to City water and sewer service.No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property(Inst. #2020-151430). This agreement allowed the property to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer service with disconnection from the private well and septic system. A provision of the agreement requires the property owner to apply for annexation of the property into the City as proposed with this application. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for this property is Commercial. Because there is an existing home on this property and the use is proposed to remain residential,an R-2 zoning district is requested as a"placeholder"zoning district until the property redevelops in the future.A commercial zoning district would create a non-conforming use (i.e. a single-family residential dwelling is not a permitted use in a commercial zoning district),which is not preferred. Prior to re-development, a rezone should be requested and development proposed consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land use desired for this property,Staff recommends a Development Agreement as a provision of annexation pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6511A,that requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan prior to any change in use and/or development of the property. With future redevelopment of the property, access via E. Franklin Rd. and access and interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accord with the provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-3. An attached sidewalk exists along E. Franklin Rd.; a detached sidewalk may be required as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17C. A street buffer will be required along Ustick Rd. as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-4 with landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for annexation&zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the Findings in Section IX. Page 3 Item 4. 64 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map SURYETINS L RIPPIBO � 'k 4L $FRV1C1 Anncxaton Land Description A parcel of lamtl being a portion of the southwest quarts of 1ha aautheast quarter of Seuiort S, Township 3 North.Range 1 EW of the Boise MuAan,Ada County,Idaho,being mare- pw[cuiarly described as follows= Commcncing at the brass cap Manu4trerlt U the earner common to Sectiam$,9, 16 and 17,T3N, R1 E as shnum on Recwd of Sun-e+r N.D.7711.Records of Ada{'witty.Idaho from which the found ka m cap monnmmt at the quarter comer commcm iD vud Sectians l£and 17 bexe,S SW 32'00'W a Aistunoc of 2571.02 fiat as shown on said Rcurd of Suacy rasp:thttx S 8913�1' W'W along the section line for a dMance of l571.18 feet to the REAL POINT OR BF:GENNING;. Theace continuing S SW 32'Or W for a distance-of 100.00 feet: Thew,e lei 00'29'W'yr for a dirmwe of 342.11 feet; 'nccnec S 72"37'WE far a distance or 105-23 fcvt; Tl --wc S 00'26' 11"E fvr a distance of300.95 feet to the lRRAr. PONT OF BEGINNING; Psrc,�-1 8Mt4ns 0_749 ages or 32,626 squme feet,morc ar Icsg_ The Wx"description is written from r=oni data shown on R$eord ofSurvey No-7711,records of Ad%C ,Idaho. L 1 46 A4. 0 . 1 tM W.FWS$I..Sulks 306` Bch,ID n7U2 °Phone:309-0154221 WWW-aoCUr urMY0t5-Qr,M Page 4 Item 4. F65 -EXHIBITMA -- - A RM ICV OF Nt SW T 4 OF THE SE P 4 If >P ADA COUNTY PDAM0 ti fia SCALE "=50' � 2690 E FRANKLfN sc AAWFX4 TION AREA 4.1 4 0.74!9 Acrew i M,626 -qquure Feed 4 s � 11463 OF 4 I � . L4 pj% I -- $W— I t`d' E Fi?Al1 UOV ROAD LEGEND BASIS OF aCAWC +t+i'NEXA TlF BotlrrAfi7 * r PARCEL LWE �. � 1t�W-}I0p�:rert kIN —WM —FA —R'w —W—R�'— RIGKT—OF—IAA Y �bt,Idaho B3702 tto www.8ct„retesurvey�1mffl A GAE ,A T€O PONT ROS No. 7711 y SATE NOV,.MM JOB 20-3[10 Page 5 Item 4. F 6 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS 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 and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. 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. Prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the subject property, a rezone to a commercial zoning district and a modification to this agreement shall be requested to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the Commercial Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation and guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Future development of this site shall be consistent with the applicable standards in the City of Meridian's Unified Development Code. B. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217667&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds annexation of the subject property with an R-2 zoning district and requirement for the property to redevelop in the future consistent with the Commercial future land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate for this property(see Section V for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to the R-2 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts in UDC 11-2B-1 in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. Page 6 Item 4. 67 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 7 Item 5. 68 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive-Through (H-2020-0116) by Layton Davis Architects, Located at 3243 E. Village Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment in the C-G zoning district. Item 5. F69 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive-Through (H-2020-0116) by Layton Davis Architects, Located at 3243 E.Village Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment in the C-G 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 21, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive-Through (H-2020-0116) 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. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 1/21/2021 Legend DATE: ff It Lc=fl-Ron 4 r TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ® FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner � �00 - 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0116 Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive- Through-CUP LOCATION: 3243 E.Village Dr. (Lot 1,Block 2, CenterCal Subdivision), in the SW 1/4 of Section 4,Township 3N.,Range IE. F I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 0.97-acre of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.97-acre Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped I Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant with a drive-through in a multi-tenant building Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Proposed Zoning NA Lots(#and type;bldg/common) NA Amenities NA Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 11/11/20;no one from the public attended the meeting attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-07-012(DA Inst.#108131103);MDA-11-012(1 Addendum Inst.#111056292 and 2nd Addendum Inst. #112025435) Page 1 Item 5. F71 A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend (fLegend =+- ;r, = ' Project Lcca-fior I Project Lcco-o EE 1 °+ ® ReJ�id i - Q J iVlirvi �si�fi, I Hig sift'- Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend RU 0 Legend 0 ( Project Laca-hor R- 'R Iff � Project Location R= R1 ��' '_� Iffy Lin � 1 R-4 RUT R. — Planned Parcels R RU rM Cs- C-C - ID R-4 rr d IF o n Page 2 Item 5. F72 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: John Davis, Layton Davis Architects—2005 E. 2700 S., Ste. 200, Salt Lake City,UT 84109 B. Owner: Meridian Centercal, LLC 7455 SW Bridgeport Rd., Ste. 205, Tigard, OR 97224 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. STAFF ANALYSIS A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment for Caf6 Rio in a 10,000+/- square foot multi-tenant building on 0.97-acre of land in the C-G zoning district. Caf6 Rio will occupy the southern tenant space in the building. The proposed drive-through is within 300-feet of another drive-through(i.e. Chick-fil-a to the north),which requires conditional use approval per UDC Table 11-2B-2. The existing drive-through is separated from the drive-through to the north by a public street(i.e. E.Village Dr.);therefore,no traffic conflicts exist between the two sites. The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. Staff has reviewed the proposed site design as shown on the site plan in Section V.A for consistency with the specific use standards and determines the following: 1) the stacking lane has sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; 2)the stacking lanes are separate lanes from those needed for access and parking; 3)no residential district or existing residence abuts the site; 4)an escape lane is proposed because the stacking lane is greater than 100' in length; and 5)the drive-through is visible from N. Eagle Rd. for surveillance purposes. Therefore, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required. Access is proposed via a driveway from a right turn lane from Eagle Rd. on E. Village Dr., along the northern boundary of this site across the abutting lot; direct lot access via N. Eagle Rd. is prohibited. ACHD's traffic engineers have reviewed and approved the proposed turn lane configuration. A reciprocal cross-access easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress/egress to the public right-of- way is depicted on the plat for this subdivision and included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC&R's)(Inst. #112048054). A minimum of one(1)parking space is required to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area for restaurant uses; a minimum of one(1)parking space is required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area for other non-residential commercial uses in the multi-tenant building. A 10,000 square foot multi-tenant building is proposed;no calculations on the square footage of the proposed restaurant were submitted. Based on the area of overall building, a minimum of 20 parking spaces would be required with more for the restaurant use. Only 12 spaces are depicted on the site plan on this property/lot—additional spaces are depicted off-site adjacent to this property. A non- exclusive easement exists in the CC&R's for the Centercal development that allows cross- access/parking(Inst. 112048054). Bicycle parking is proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G. A landscape plan was submitted, included in Section VII.B,that depicts parking lot landscaping for the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Street buffer landscaping was installed with development of the subdivision along N. Eagle Rd. and E.Village Dr. Because the drive- through lane and back of the building(with mechanical equipment)will be highly visible from N.Eagle Rd., Staff recommends additional landscaping(i.e.coniferous trees/bushes)is provided Page 3 Item 5. 73 within the street buffer along N.Eagle Rd.to screen this area and these functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes.Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,the walkways should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. There are a couple of existing trees on this site in planter islands in the parking area around the existing pad site.They should be relocated elsewhere on the site if possible. If removed,they will require mitigation per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-19C.5. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VI.0 that incorporate materials consisting of EIFS in two different colors,tile,metal and concrete trim/accents and standing seam metal roofing. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12.Final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with UDC standards and design standards. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section V11 per the Findings in Section V111. Page 4 Item 5. F74 VI. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 10/9/2020) &Conceptual Engineering Plan(dated: 12/10/20) Pmject mfomerion: THE ND o�mxe --R� wre« h _ � c Y- / 0 / . i 4 ,�oam� 11 - T nuunr�vsmu unowo•�v„ra.n If 4� """""""" a Mates al legeM: � Losing Regulation IC-GI: LU a fXe}notes• H O] LU 1 •� €�4 s /'y Vidni4 Mao 34 i . 13 wmw.on � ��_ •r 11 i�e'le` MC-Site Plan - r-. C1.00 Page 5 Item 5. F75] LAND 6RQUP nnW nani arxr.r LD uu r a p J Trash Enclosure Er OS ncnr�neev � i cz G / LJJ cm c4 J U g LL, e Bollard at Trash Enclosure 1psicaI Bollard J Lu a �.�_.. •�. aa_._ .yes _ e.._c�_. xaaac._mar•^. ��C3C r s--o-il, ��Bi�le Rack " C1.50 Page 6 Item 5. F76 Sheel No.: THE LAND GROUP PROGRESS ! SET . I s Mracs o�rve(rcauc) - € Praxrmmr zlawm --------r ---$------------ - I `4 l`1 Se Fl re}no- G s�E ❑ II - a w ..w.,..w�,...�... ....,.� I3� FF..25212� Wmer NeYn etea: --El Lu co NZ Sea iTy Oryfrwll,,,,- iI'Gj 3jI1 e<Ye.w.mnot UP-TCeptaal Engineeing PlanLl Page 7 - Item 5. F77 B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 10/9/2020) Lao* T—T,..N..l Nob- ftmwol.wmm L.i.wM N.b.: _ b..f..b d..mt- THE IN GROUP ��� e.PILLScd'l�1WC fA�HU[I —+�iovnraa.:xw _________________________________________________ •vur wnmursic,xrr as owe er.mvvwr �+� r rwumwvv euumm e.nxs.arxima-,wn u w:at_______ EMTSMEDULF LU Lb Ci LLJ i u �,1 ,btonallacentlarywE Imp%.W.. ..oe...��,w••� 4CU G. uj Zoom 5 W LtLandscape Plan ® L1.00 LANK RRRUP 7. 2 4 U G� �w U s u.ea Page 8 Item 5. 78 C. Proposed Building Elevations,Rendering and Floor Plan i w 6� k � 5 in o rr - A201 In IM I �mid P QQ �is �oQ evreaceaevnra�-msn.xacz annrts � �- m c-Y o c I p� n�w.rrrx.www�.am� �-.:a9 6�0.0� Q z ❑ W m❑ i ` 1 A02 Page 9 Item 5. 79 tF Ln 7 7 _....m..a..----- m z t tE z u. b a, L,I%J w--,Hip e XNMI I !l RWRPL0.N t �'� j RSWJI�� r A102 Page 10 Item 5. 80 VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #108131103,AZ-07-012)as amended with MDA-11-012 (1st Addendum Inst. #111052692 and 2"d Addendum Inst. #112025435). 2. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. The stacking lane, menu and speaker location, and window location shall be depicted in accord with UDC 11-4-3-IIB. b. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces, the walkways should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. c. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. d. Include additional landscaping(i.e. coniferous treesibushes)within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd.to screen the back side of the building and mechanical equipment while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. e. Include mitigation information for any existing trees that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-19C.5. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 — Drive-Through Establishment is required. 4. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant is required. 5. A non-exclusive easement exists in the Covenants, Conditions & Restriction's for the CenterCal development that allows cross-access/parking between lots in the subdivision(Inst. 112048054). 6. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 7. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianci y.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219002&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty Page 11 Item 5. ■ C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) h yps://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219011&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCit Y VIII. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed restaurant with a drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VII of this report. 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 by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. Page 12 Item 5. 82 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 ,finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 13 Item 6. 83 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-81 R-15 and C- G zoning districts. Item 6. F84 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached),townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 21, 2021 ITEM #ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) 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 6. F85 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN:�--- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING January 21,2021 Legend DATE: , Project Lccafbn TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -- - ----- FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0047 Prescott Ridge-AZ,PP,PS-,AL'F LOCATION: South of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. McDermott Rd., in the North %2 of Section 28,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. - (Parcels: 50428233640, R6991222210, _ 50428120950, SO428131315, ----- - _ 50428131200, SO428211102) NOTE: This project was previously heard by the Commission on October 22"d of last year; a recommendation of approval was forwarded on to the Council.At the December Ist hearing, the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission for the out- parcel at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the commercial development to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Since that time, the Applicant has acquired the out parcel and submitted updated plans that include the parcel in the development area. The staff report has been updated accordingly. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of 126.53 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres),R-15 (8.82 acres)and C-G (19.17 19.85 acres)zoning districts; and, Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 377 371 buildable lots [34-6 32-3 single-family residential(14 102 attached-8-2-22 215/detached),6-3,38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school],3243 42 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway) lots on 423.26 42-345-3 124.81acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Private streets are proposed within the townhome portion of the development for internal access and circulation. Aftemative Complianee to UDG 11 3F 4A.4, when*,,...nh,mes are pfoposed, is also requested.Alternative Compliance is no longer required based on the revised plan which includes a mew. Page 1 Item 6. 86 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 122.8 124.07 Existing/Proposed Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County(existing)/R-8,R-15 and C-G(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)(3-8 units/acre)(113.5+/-acres) with Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)(-9 10.27+/-acres)along W. Chinden Blvd. Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural with 1 existing single-family home Proposed Land Use(s) Residential(single-family attached/detached,townhomes&multi- family)&commercial(medical campus with a hospital and medical offices and retail/restaurant uses) _ Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 395 377 371 buildable lots(316 323 317single-family residential,6-3 38 townhome, 14 multi-family, 1 commercial and 1 school)/32 39 42common lots/6 other(common driveway)lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases wF Number of Residential Units(type 2'�317 single-family(94 102 attached/ 215 detached),(63 38) of units) townhome and(56)multi-family units Density(gross&net) Overall-3-63 3.17 units/acre(gross);7-. 6 7.95 units/acre(net) R-8 area:4-87-3.13 units/acre(gross);749 7_2 units/acre(net) R-15 area: 12.97 7.79 units/acre(gross);21.39 10.95 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 1 1.�4r 12.43 acres(or 11.80%) [%]/buffer/qualified) (10.51 acres required based on 105.08 acres of residential area) Amenities Swimming pool,clubhouse,large and small children's play structures, a dog park,multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space beyond the minimum standards Physical Features(waterways, Two(2)segments of the West Tap Sublateral cross this site hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/18/19- 11 attendees;and 4/l/20- 13 attendees, 12/16/20 7 attendees: attendees History(previous approvals) A portion of the site is Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space—non-farm that has since expired). B. Community Metrics Description Details Pag e Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access A collector street access(W.Rustic Oak Way)is proposed via W. Chinden (Arterial/Collectors/State Blvd./SH 2O-26 at the half mile which runs through the site and connects to Hwy/Local)(Existing and a future collector street(N.Rustic Way)in the Oaks North development Proposed) from McMillan Rd.An access is proposed via N.McDermott Rd.,a collector street. Traffic Level of Service McDermott Rd.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) W.Rustic Oak Way/Levi Ln.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) Page 2 Item 6. 87 Description Details Pag e Stub Two local stub streets are planned to be constructed with the Oaks North Street/Interconnectivity/Gros development at the southern boundary of the site and extended with this s Access development. Two stub streets(N. Serenity Ave.&W.Fireline Ct.)are proposed to the north for future extension. A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the MU-R designated property to the west. Existing Road Network No public streets exist within the site;N. Levi Ln.,a private lane,exists on the northern portion of the site via W.Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing buffers or sidewalks along N.McDermott Rd. or W. Buffers Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 Proposed Road Improvements Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Chinden Boulevard to McMillan Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Black Cat Road and Chinden Boulevard is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,5-lanes on the south leg,6-lanes on the east leg and 6-lanes on the south leg between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of McMillan Road and Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2 lanes on the northbound and souhbound legs and 1 lane on the westbound and eastbound legs. • The intersection of McMillan Road and McDermott Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg,4-laes on the south leg,3-lanes on the east leg and 3-lanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3 miles from Station#5 to Serenity Ln.on Chinden&4.4 miles to the McDermott side of the project(Station#7 once constructed,will serve this development) • Fire Response Time Some of this development falls within the 5 minute response time area as shown on the priority growth map;the McDermott side is 8 minutes away and does not meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 80%from Station#5—meets response time goal • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service(open waterway) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds as long as phasing plan is followed. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device for the multi-family development— cannot meet this need in the required timeframe.Eagle Station#1 is the closest truck company at approximately 8.4 miles away. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour for the single-family homes; the multi-family areas will require additional water(may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered) • Other Resources NA Police Service No comments submitted • Distance to Police 9 miles Station • Police Response Time No emergency response data can be provided because this development is near the edge of City limits • Calls for Service 156(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Accessibility No concerns • Specialty/resource needs None • Crimes 5 (within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Crashes 4(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits,service can be provided if this development is approved. Page 3 Item 6. F88 West Ada School District Enrollment Capacitymiles • Distance(elem, 0ev.wschool mS hS) Pleasant View Elementary Opening 20121 650 2.4 f School Y ear Star Middle School 704 1000 6.9 Meridian High School 1965 2400 6.1 Due to the abundant amount of growth in the area,West Ada is actively building new schools,and boundaries are always changing,These future students could potentially attend Owyhee High School. • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer This proposed development is not currently serviceable by Meridian Services Sanitary Sewer service. The sewer trunk line designed to service this development is within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.92 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 4,662 gpd has been committed •Sewer mains are not allowed in common driveways.Please remove. •The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way •Sewer line in N.Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd •This development is subject to paying sanitary sewer reimbursement fees (see Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval for detail). Reimbursement fees for the entire subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. Water • Distance to Water This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian Services City water system. Water mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Page 4 Item 6. 89 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend tsi8enfial Legend f 0 Project Laca-fion I ProjEOf Lacaion t MU- ® Y a 4 3i k MU-R7 JEW � •., f. ,Y )en s fird EEE� . Zoning Map Planned Development Map f (Legend 0 (fLegend 01 Pra}ect Laca-fion 1 I Protect Lacation _-- t City Limit � f C-G ® — Pion ned F o v-_ r RUT r � S � R-8 T III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Providence Properties,LLC—701 South Allen Street, Ste. 104,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: Joseph Hon— 16790 Rose Park Dr.,Nampa, ID 83687 Raymond Roark—5952 N. Serenity Ln.,Meridian,ID 83646 Page 5 Item 6. 90 Lonnie Kuenzli—6210 N. Levi Ln.,Meridian,ID 83646 West Ada School District— 1303 E. Central Dr.,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering—9233 W. State St.,Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 6/26/2020, 8/28/2020, newspaper l/l/21 11/13/2020 Notification mailed to property 6/23/2020, 8/26/2020, owners within 300 feet 12/29/20 11/10/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/2/2020, 8/27/2020, 1/5/21 11/10/2020 Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020, 8/27/2020, 11/10/2020 12/29/20 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates 9 10.27+/-acres along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R); and the 113.5+/-acres to the south as Medium Density Residential(MDR). The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D(pg. 3-17). The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow small lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MU-R designated area is located adjacent to a major intersection,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd. (future SH-16). The MU-R area is proposed to develop with a medical campus, including a regional hospital, and multi-family apartments.A larger MU-R area than currently designated on the FLUM is proposed which incorporates an additional 9.5+/- acres to the south and east of the current designated area.Because FLUM designations are not parcel specific and the proposed development provides needed services,employment opportunities and housing consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas, Staff is supportive of the expanded MU-R area provided that a retail component is also included and integrated as part of the development. The MDR designated area is proposed to develop with a mix of single-family attached, detached and townhome units at a gross density of 3-46 3.13 units/acre,which although at the low end of the desired density range, is consistent with that of the MDR designation. Page 6 Item 6. F-91 The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences,and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family attached, detached, townhomes and multi family apartments will provide a variety of housing types for future residents in the northwest portion of the City in close proximity to the proposed employment uses on this site and across Chinden Blvd. to the north. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are not currently available to the subject development, however the main/trunk lines intended to provide service are currently being developed in The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. This development is dependent on the development timing of the phase(s) within The Oaks North for services to be readily available for extension. This developer is attempting to work with The Oaks developer to hasten the timing of utility expansion. • "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) Four(4)different housing types are proposed in this development(i.e. single-family attached/detached, townhomes and multi family apartments) along with a wide range of lot sizes for diversity in housing types in this area. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family residential development should be compatible with existing single- family homes to the west in Peregrine Heights and in the development process to the south in The Oaks North and the future school to the east. Larger lot sizes are proposed as a transition to the I-acre lots in Peregrine Heights. Higher density residential uses are planned adjacent to the proposed medical campus at the north boundary and the future school site at the east boundary.A 30 foot wide landscaped buffer with a pedestrian pathway and 8'tall CMU wall is also proposed adjacent to residential uses along the southern and western boundaries of the proposed medical campus to reduce conflicts. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10'wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and the north/south collector street(Levi Ln./Rustic Oak), and to the east to the future school site for safe pedestrian access to the school. A large central common area is proposed along the collector street with quality amenities. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Page 7 Item 6. 92 Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems when available; services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit, Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers."(2.01.01H) The proposed townhomes and multi family apartments in close proximity to the regional hospital and medical campus will provide higher density housing options in close proximity to the employment center and major transportation corridor(i.e. Chinden Blvd/SH2O-26&future SH 16). • "Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed use areas near in and around Downtown,near employment,large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map."(2.02.01E) Townhomes and a multi family development are proposed in close proximity to the mixed use area along Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, a major transportation corridor, where employment uses are proposed. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The proposed project is located on the fringe of the northwest corner of the City. However, because the land to the north and south has been annexed into the City as well as land located a half mile to the east, services will be extended in this area. Therefore,public services will be maximized by the development of this property. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure, when available, and curb, gutter and sidewalks is proposed to be provided as required. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's vision in that a mix of uses are proposed including a regional hospital and medical offices in the MU-R designated area adjacent to a major transportation corridor. Residential uses are proposed at densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Public services can be provided and public infrastructure will be extended when available to this site. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.0313) The MSM depicts a collector street at the half mile between Black Cat and McDermott Roads in the current location of N. Levi Ln. at the northeast corner of the site from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to the south to McMillan Rd. A collector street is proposed in accord with the MSM which will connect to N. Rustic Oak Way to the south in The Oaks North subdivision. Page 8 Item 6. F93 In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The proposed development includes#we-at least three (JJ different land use types—residential aft office and commercial(retail/restaurant) uses. , to serve the employment area and nearby residents.A public school(i.e. civic use) is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area; however, it's outside the mixed use designated area and not a part of the proposed development. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." Multi family apartments and townhomes are proposed adjacent to the Mixed Use designated area to provide a higher density in close proximity to the employment center located adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed Use designation." A Master Plan is proposed with the annexation request which will be incorporated into a Development Agreement to ensure future development is consistent with the Mixed Use designation. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space." The Master Plan depicts shaded ;u;,� . area three(3) outdoor courtyard areas ;, Q around the medical office building a large outdoor plaza/ rg een space area in front of the hospital with a shaded seatingarea,rea, and a pedestrian pathway within a 30'wide landscaped common area along the southern and western boundaries of the commercial portion of the development abutting residential uses with two (2) shaded areas of respite. hearing to rej7eet e9mmon usable area smeh as a plaza or green spaee more eentm!to the development with bugd&p anwnged oround the eommon area in aeeord WM this pre+ision. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." There are existing low density homes on 1-acre lots along the west boundary of this site in Peregrine Heights Subdivision adjacent to the area proposed to be zoned C-G and developed with a medical campus.A 30'wide densely landscaped buffer is proposed along the west and south boundaries of the C-G zoned property adjacent to existing and proposed abutting residential uses along with an 8'tall CMU wall as a buffer to future commercial uses. Parking is proposed along these boundaries southeast eorner of the eontmereial development-, whieh Staff reeonintends is shifted to residenees to the south • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares,civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." Page 9 Item 6. 94 A future school site is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area but it is outside the Mixed Use designated area and not a part of this development.A hospital is proposed in the medical campus on the northern portion of the site adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 which will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries,and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count." A school is planned to develop on the eastern portion of the annexation area but is outside the Mixed-Use designated area and not being developed with this project. Te ..n ui-.sueh spaees- andplaees —sh aa a Three (3) outdoor courtyard areas are is-proposed jra e L2e around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • "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 placemaking opportunities considered." Xe sueh&paees or design elenten"menities are proposed, To ensureAtuie development in the MUR designated area is eonsiqten t with this guideline, Sktff reeommends the eoneept plan " shaded ** - Three (3) outdoor courtyards are proposed around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed mixed use development is directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by a collector street(W. Rustic Oak Way) that runs along the project's east boundary at the half mile between McDermott and Black Cat Roads; a multi-use pathway is planned along the collector street for pedestrian connectivity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." There are no roadways separating the commercial/mixed use area from the single-family detached homes and townhomes proposed at the south boundary of the area proposed to be zoned C-G. However, there is a 30-foot wide densely landscaped buffer proposed between the commercial and residential uses. Staff reeemmends as a provision of Me A! that a stmet is • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town, therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas, per the Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): Page 10 Item 6. 95 • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. these guideu4es-. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non- retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. Multi family uses are proposed at a density of 16.6 units/acre for approximately 27%of the mixed use development area. Non-retail medical office/hospital uses are proposed on the remainder of the mixed use development. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. #e�Retail/restaurant commercial uses (10,000+/-square feet) are proposed on the entire first floor of the medical office building. Because this site is proposed to develop with a medical campus including a regional hospital, retail uses will be minimal but should be provided as a third land use type as desired in mixed use designated areas as discussed above to serve patrons and residents. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say,if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed in the MU-R designated area. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan if a commercial(i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) component is included in the mixed use designated portion of the development as discussed above. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDC) A. Annexation & Zoning: The proposed annexation area consists of si-x-ten(6 10)parcels of land totaling 122.8 128.21 acres designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(FLUM) as Medium Density Residential(MDR) and Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). Per the proposed conceptual Master Plans included in Section VIII.A, single-family residential attached and detached homes,townhomes, multi-family apartments and a medical campus featuring a regional hospital and medical office Page I I Item 6. F96 building with retail and restaurant uses is proposed to develop on this site. As dise ss a .,L.oy Staff recommends commereial •Fetftil, FeStftWant, ete.) uses are also provided as p in the C G zoned area as desired in Mixed Use and speeifleally A4:U R designated areas to serve the employment area and adjaeent neighbWhOod. The medical campus is proposed to include"boutique"medical services geared toward women's health and pediatrics. Two buildings are proposed—a 4 3-story 220,000 181,000+/-square foot (s.f.)hospital with approximately 90 60 in-patient beds and a 44 4-story 90,000 80,000+/- s.f. medical office building which is proposed to include 10,000+/-square feet of retail uses and 10,000+/- square feet of restaurant uses on the entire first floor. Most services anticipated to be performed in the hospital will be out-patient procedures. Areas not used for inpatient beds will be used for surgery,radiology, an emergency department, labor rooms,physical plant and a cafeteria. The hospital is proposed to be similar in scope and size to the St. Luke's and St. Al's campuses in Nampa. West Ada School District plans to develop a public school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. The parcel was included in the subject AZ and PP applications because it was created outside of the process required by Ada County to create a buildable parcel. Including it in the proposed plat will allow building permits to be obtained for future development. The single-family attached/detached portion of the development is proposed to be annexed with R-8 zoning(99.53 acres),the townhome and multi-family portions are proposed to be zoned R-15 (8.82 acres)and the medical campus is proposed to be zoned C-G(18.1:7 19.85 acres, including adjacent right-of-way to the section line of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26),which is generally consistent with the associated MDR and MU-R FLUM designations for the site as discussed above in Section V (see zoning exhibit in Section VIII.B). Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached homes and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts;multi-family developments are listed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; and public education institutions are listed as a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district per the Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts table in UDC Table 11-2A-2, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14. A hospital is listed as a conditional use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-22;and healthcare and social services is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district;retail uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district; and restaurant uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 per the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts table in UDC 11-2B-2. Evaluation of the multi-family development for consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 and the hospital's consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 22 will occur with the conditional use permit applications for such uses. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care requires that the location shall have direct access on an arterial street; the proposed hospital is planned to provide emergency care.Because UDC 11- 3H-4B.2 prohibits new approaches directly accessing a State Highway,access is proposed via N.Rustic Oak Way, a collector street,at the project's east boundary located at the half mile mark between section line roads. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement,if so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If Ifet-, Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Note:ITD denied the Applicant's request for access via SH 2O-26/Chinden Blvd. for the medical campus. Page 12 Item 6. 97 The property is within the Area of City Impact Boundary(AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.B. 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 and future development meets the Mixed Use and specifically the MU-R guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a DA as a requirement of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.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. The Applicant requests three(3)separate DA's are required—one for the R-8 and R-15 residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Staff is amenable to this request as there are three(3) distinct components of the project. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 433 422 lots—3953777 371 buildable lots [316 single-family residential(94-102 attached 215/detached),6-3,38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school],3-2 39 42 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway)lots on "�423-54 124.81 acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. A portion of the proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision, a formerly deed restricted agricultural lot that was only to be used for open space(i.e. non-farm)— this restriction has since expired. The minimum lot size proposed in the single-family residential portion of the development is 4,000 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 6-,060 5,982 s.£; the average townhome lot size is 2-,037 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 3-6-3 3.17 units/acre with a net density of 7.M 7.95 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 zoned portion is 4.P 3.13 units/acre with a net density of 7417.2 units/acre and the gross density of the R-15 zoned portion is 12.97 7.79 units/acre with a net density of 21.39 10.95 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR&MU-R FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this site. Phasing: The residential portion of the subdivision is proposed to develop in nine(9)phases as depicted on the phasing exhibit in Section VIII.0 over a time period of 4 to 5 years. The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north and extend to the southern boundary with the first phase of development. The single family portion of the site will develop first,followed by the townhomes and then the multi-family apartments. The school property(Lot 84, Block 12)are is not included in the phasing plan as they are it is under separate ownership and will develop separately from the residential and commercial portions of the development. The Applicant estimates development of the hospital and medical campus will commence in 2021 at the earliest; and the school in 2023 at the earliest, assuming services are available. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home on the Kuenzli property and some old accessory structures on the Roark property that are proposed to be removed with development. All existing structures should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Page 13 Item 6. F98 Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the subject property is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district, 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-213-3 for the C-G district as applicable. Lot Layout: The lot layout/development plan for the townhome portion of the development on Lots 16-7-9-, common driveway may only serve a maximum of(6) dwelling units per UDC 11 66C 33—D -9 units are proposed off each . Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those than create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated development-neither a mews nor is proposed but no gates are proposed(alter-native compliance i thiss standard see analysis below in Section 3*71•r hearing.AlteFnaflve Complianee may be requested to these standaFds and apffOved upon recommendation of the City Engineer-,Fire Marshal and the Direetor when the Applicant can demonstrate than the proposed over-ail design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards and shall not be detrimental to the publie health, safety and welf-AFe and where private streets are determined to enhance the safety of the development by establishing a clear emergency vehiele travel lane. However,the Fire Dept. and Staff would not be in suppo sueh a request as Staff is of the opinioll M. - . - Meh at the number- of units and density PFOPosed would result in a neighbor-hood that is seveFely undeF par-lied,whieh eould be detrimental to the publie health, safety and welfare if emerge ' ver-e not able aeeess homes within the development due to parking issues on the private street. Staff r-eeommends this portion of the development is redesigned with publie stFeets (alleys and/or common driveways may be incorporated), or if private streets are proposed, eaeh unit should&ont on and be aeeessed via the private street(s) and the design should inelude a mew or-gated entr-y in aeeoM with UDC 11 3F I however-,publie streets are preferred. Alter-natively, a multi family development(i.e. one structure on one property with 3 or-more dwelling units)with townhome style units might be a development option for-this area.A r-evised par-king plan should be submitted for-this area as well that pr-ovides for adequate guest par-king above the minimum UDC standards (Table 11 3C- 6)to serwe this portion of the development.A revised eoneept plan and par-king plan should be submitted prior-to or-a Commission hearing for-review and a revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days p to the City Couneil hearing that r-efleets this modifleation. The lot layout/development plan for-the multi family development on Lots 70 83,Bloek 12 depiets parking and aeeess dr-iveways on buildable iots the number of par! with eaeh lot and are not eommensur-ate with the paFking required-fftmr-eaeh Therefore, Staff r-eeommends the aeeess dAveways and par-king are plaeed in a common lo with an ingress egress/par-king easement for-eaeh buildable lot.A Fevised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior-to the City Coune 1 A revised plat was submitted that depicts the private street in the townhome portion of the development within a common lot as requested, see Section VIIL C. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. Page 14 Item 6. 99 1 Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Block faces should not exceed 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided,then the block face may be extended up to 1,000' in length. The face of Block 7 on the south side of W. Smokejumper St. exceeds 750' at approximately 900'+/-;because the preliminary plat for the abutting property to the south did not include a pathway to this site in this location, Staff does not recommend a pathway is required for connectivity as it would dead-end at the subdivision boundary. Other block faces comply with the standard. Common driveways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 6C-3D.A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks,fencing,building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway.Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via one(1) collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way)from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20- 26,which extends through the site to the south boundary and will eventually extend to McMillan Rd.with development of The Oaks North subdivision to the south.A local street access (W. Sturgill Peak St.)is proposed via N.McDermott Rd., a collector street, at the project's west boundary. A stub street(N. Jumpspot Ave.) is proposed to the out-parcel at the southwest corner of the site— Staff recommends W. Smokejumber St. is also stubbed to this property from the east;two (2) stub streets(N. Trident Ave. and N. Rustic Oak Way) are proposed to the south for future extension with The Oaks North subdivision; and two(2) stub streets(N. Serenity Ave. &W. Fireline Ct.) are proposed to the north for future extension—the stub street to Serenity Ln.will serve as an emergency access only to Peregrine Heights Subdivision and will have bollards preventing public access.A collector street(W. Ramblin St.)is proposed for access to the school site. A stub street (Sunfield Way)was approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat to Lot 37,Block 12,proposed as a common lot;this street is not proposed to be extended. The ACHD report states Sunfield Way cannot be extended into the site at this time as the stub street is aligned with the parcel line between this site and the school parcel. ACHD has required a permanent right-of-way easement to be provided and a road trust for the future extension of Sunfield Way with development of the school parcel. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west(Parcels#R6991221700&R6991221600) and east(Parcel# R6991222101)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. As discussed above,a private street loop(N.Highfire Loop)is proposed for access to the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development(see analysis below under Private Streets). Staff is not supportive of the proposed revised design and r-eeommends revisions to the plan as stated above and in 8 e re t-*aq INI EX.A. The Applicant's proposal to curve McDermott Rd. north of Sturgill Peak St.to the east at the project's west boundary does not meet ACHD policy and is not approved; the ACHD report states construction of this portion of McDermott will be completed in conjunction with ITD's SH-16 extension. Page 15 Item 6. Fool Developments along SH 2O-26 are required to construct a street generally paralleling the state highway that is no closer than 660 linear feet(measured from centerline to centerline)from the intersection(i.e.Rustic Oak)with the state highway.The purpose of which is to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the subject property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road.The street shall be designed in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3H-4B.3 and shall collect and distribute traffic.Frontage streets or private streets may be considered by the council at the time of property annexation or through the conditional use process.Frontage streets and private streets shall be limited to areas where there is sufficient access to surrounding properties and a public street is not desirable in that location. A frontage road is proposed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Chinden Blvd. with an access on Rustic Oak approximately 660' south of Chinden as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A.Because residential homes exist to the west that are not likely to redevelop in the near future,a future interchange for SH-16 is planned east of the McDermott/Chinden intersection, and a north/south collector street(Rustic Oak) exists along the east boundary of this site, Staff believes there is sufficient access to surrounding properties as proposed without the provision of a public street. Emergency access:In response to the Fire Department's estimated response time to the development, which are below the target goal on the McDermott side of the subdivision, the Applicant plans to include an AED(Automated External Defibrillator) device in the clubhouse and provide education related to the use of the device to ensure residents are aware of the benefits and function if the device is needed. Additionally, a connection is proposed from Chinden through the project to the southern boundary of the subdivision with the first phase of development to aid in emergency response times to the site; this should also benefit response times to The Oaks North to the south. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6; and for non-residential uses in accord with the standards listed in 11-3C- 613.1. Future development should comply with these standards. A parking exhibit(and details in the narrative)was submitted with this application, included in Section VIILF that depicts 46 15 extra off-street parking spaces in the townhome portion of the development and a total of 505 497 on- street parking spaces available for guest parking. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces are proposed for the 3,750+/-square foot clubhouse and swimming pool facility. Staff is of the opinion the proposed parking in the single-family and townhomes portions of the development should meet the parking needs. Off-street parking in the multi-family portion of the development will be evaluated with the conditional use permit application. Off-street parkin is s required to be provided for the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for commercial uses with the exception of restaurant uses; off-street parking for restaurant uses is required per the standards listed in UDC II- 4-3-49. Off-street parkin is s depicted on the conceptual Master Plan in accord with these standards and will reviewed again with the final design of the site to ensure consistency with these standards. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system across this site. In accord with the Plan,the Park's Dept. recommends detached 10' wide multi-use pathways are provided within the street buffers in the following locations: along N. McDermott Rd.,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26,the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way from Chinden to the southern boundary of the site, and along W. Ramblin St. from Rustic Oak to the school site. These pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement. Page 16 Item 6. 1o1 1 Other pathways and micro-paths through common areas are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access within the development. Two(2)micro-path connections to the school site are proposed in addition to the multi-use pathway connection from Rustic Oak that extends along the northern boundary of the multi-family development. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaping shall be provided on either side of the pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Detached sidewalks are required to be provided along all arterial and collector streets; attached(or detached) sidewalks may be provided along internal local streets. Sidewalks are proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17, ept for along the east side of R—ust e Oak north o W. Lost Rapids St.,where an attaehed 7' wide sidewalk is pfopesed. This sidewalk should be detac-hCd from the in aeeor-i-"with iTcir v C 11 3A -7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed adjacent to the north/south collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way) and are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. AWe. The Alaster Plan inelud a Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided within the development as follows: a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd., an entryway corridor; and a 20' wide buffer is required along N. Rustic Oak Way,'`T N Pef ffw t D a. and W. Ramblin St., collector streets, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25' wide buffer is required on the C-G zoned property to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The buffer area should be comprised of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in a barrier that allowed trees to touch at the time of maturity. A 30-foot wide buffer is proposed with dense landscaping along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as required. Parkways where provided are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The total linear feet of parkways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the required standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with UDC 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 with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the UDC standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. If any existing trees on the site are proposed to be removed,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins, Page 17 Item 6. F102 the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements if any existing trees are not proposed to be retained on site. Noise abatement is required to be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A detail/cross-section of the proposed noise abatement should be submitted with the final plat application for the commercial portion of the development that demonstrates compliance with the required standards. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for the residential portion of the development. Based on 105.08 acres, a minimum of 10.51 acres of qualified open space should be provided. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted, included in Section VIII.E,that depicts 11.56 12.4 acres(or 11.8%) of open space consisting of the entire buffer along collector streets (McDermott& Rustic Oak),open space areas of at least 50' x 100' in area and linear open space in accord with UDC standards.Note:Although a couple of the lots (i.e. Lot 30, Block I and Lot 29, Block 9) counted toward qualified open space don't meet the minimum dimensional standards of 50'x 100', the rest of the area does qualify which still exceeds the minimum standards. Because the multi-family portion of the development is proposed to be subdivided with each 4- plex on its own individual lot for the option of separate ownership of the 4-plex buildings, Staff recommends a provision is included in the DA that requires one management company handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire project to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G� A minimum of(1)site amenity is required for every 20 acres of development area. Based on the residential area of the proposed plat(105.08 acres),a minimum of five(5) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.A site amenity exhibit and renderings are included in Section VIII.E. A 3,750+/- square foot clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office and meeting room with an outdoor patio and a 54' x 30'+/-swimming pool, one large tot lot on Lot 1,Block 9 and(2) smaller tot lots on Lot 1,Block 13 and Lot 12,Block 6 with children's play equipment, an enclosed 5,500+/- s.f. dog park(although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired by future residents), segments of the City's multi-use regional pathway system, and additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 square feet are proposed as amenities in excess of UDC standards. Amenities are proposed from the following categories listed in UDC 11- 3G-3C: quality of life,recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system, in accord with UDC standards. Details of these amenities should be submitted with the final plat applications for the phases in which they are located. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-IS): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. Sub-surface drainage is proposed but swales could be incorporated if needed. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. This property is within the Settler's Irrigation District and the Nampa& Meridian Irrigation District's boundaries. Page 18 Item 6. ■ Waterways(UDC 11-3A-�: The West Tap Sublateral runs east/west across the southern portion of this site within a 20' wide drainage district easement;and a 15' wide irrigation easement runs east/west across the northern portion of the site as depicted on the Peregrine Heights subdivision plat. This waterway is planned to be relocated and piped. If the easement(s)for the waterway is greater than 10' in width,it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20' in width and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-6E. All waterways are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity of linear open space as defined in UDC 11-IA-I in accord with UDC I I-3A-6B. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. Fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. Fences abutting pathways and common open space lots not entirely visible from a public street is required to be an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6' in height as it provides visibility from adjacent homes or buildings per UDC I I-3A-7A.7. Staff is concerned there is not enough visibility from the street of the common area on Lot 1,Block 2 located behind building lots and around Lot 37,Block 12 and recommends the fencing type is revised on the perimeter of these lots to comply with this standard. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations and renderings of the different home types planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.G.Homes depicted are a mix of 1-and 2-story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stoneibrick veneer accents. Because the side and/or rear of 2-story homes that face collector streets (i.e.N.McDermott Rd.,N.Rustic Oak Way and W.Ramblin St.)will be highly visible,these elevations,should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses,step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Conceptual renderings of the hospital and medical office buildings were submitted as shown in Section VIII.G. The hospital is proposed to be a 3-story building and the medical office building_a 4-story building. The elevations for the medical office building incorrectly depict a 3-story building; these elevations should be revised prior to the City Council hearing to reflect the correct number of stories. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the medical office building, hospital, clubhouse, swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome and multi-family structures. The design of such is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.Design review is not required for single-family detached homes. C. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F� A private street loop(N. Highfire Loop)is proposed for access within the portion of the development where townhomes are proposed on Lots 17 70 17-44 and 54-67,Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development. The Applicant believes a private street in this area will enhance safety and vehicular circulation by creating a clear path of travel for emergency vehicles and residential traffic. Mews nor-a gated development A mew is proposed but Page 19 Item 6. F104 no gates are proposed as the Applicant believes a gate would detract from site circulation and would physically and figuratively disjoint the townhomes from the rest of the community. Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development per UDC 1I- 3F-1. The applicability may be extended where the Director or Fire Marshall determines that private streets will enhance the safety of the development. The Appheafft r-eqt+ests alternative eomphaffee to .Alternative Compliance is no longer necessary as a mew is proposed on the revised plan. As noted above in Seetion AILB,hot Layout, Stfiff Feeommends ehanges to the layout of the P0Fd0H of the plat where the private street is proposed. Staff and the Fire Dept. does nof believe safety is enhaneed by the PFOViSiOH Of a pFivate street in this aFea with the density and likelihood of vehieles PaF!iiHg iH fiFe lanes due to inadequaey of paFldng for-guests and over-flow par-ldng.TheFefor-e, Staff does not r-eeommend approval of the private street as proposed; a subsequent request foF private stFeets may be eonsideFed if warranted by the Fedesig} D. AIIeMable Complianee (UDC- Hprovided when townhomes are proposed,is also requested. The , s request is based en thei belief that the townhome peFtion of the development will better-integrate with the rest of the Pr-eseet4 Ridge eowA*uaity and will be easily aeeessible and tisable withotit a gated efftfy and will Beeause Staff is not supportive of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development with the pr-ilvate street, Staff iS iH tUFH not suppoFflve of the FequeSt foF ehanges to the layout of this portion of the plat.A subsequent request may be eonsider-ed if warranted by the .Because a mew is now proposed on the revised plans, alternative compliance is no longer necessary. VIh DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A and denial of the request for a private street and alternative compliance per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on(continued from July 16'1i and August 20'i') September 17,2020. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to a subsequent Commission hearing in order for the Applicant to revise the concept plan for the commercial/medical campus and plat for the townhome portion of the development. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering&Patrick Connor(Applicant's Representative); Betsy Huntsin.eg r,representing the proposed hospital; Randall Peterman(adjacent property owner); Mitch Armuth,Providence Properties b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Val Stack and Paul Hoyer; Sue Ropski; Cory Coltrin; Randall Peterman d. Written testimony: Josh Femreite, Chief of New Schools for Gem Innovation Schools Page 20 Item 6. Fl 05 e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Joe Bon ig orno 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Gem Innovation School is in strong support of the project as their future campus lies approximately 300 yards to the south and will be able to provide K-12 public education options for future residents; b. Would like 30' buffer extended along entire east and south boundaries of Pere rg ine Heights Subdivision for a buffer to higher density residential uses; would like more of a transition to the lots at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights Subdivision either with larger lots or common area instead of 5 building lots; not in favor of proposed access via Serenity Ln.; concern pertaining to future access for Serenity Ln. residents via Chinden; concern pertaining to obstruction of view sheds with proposed 4-story structures on commercial portion of development. C. Ms. Ropski's concern with location of trash dumpsters and parking adjacent to their ro e d. Preference for the hospital to be located closer to the Chinden/Rustic Oak intersection away from low density residential lots at west boundary e. Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Preference for owner-occupied townhomes rather than rental or more multi-family units in the portion currently proposed for townhomes; b. Preference for the Applicant to obtain the out-parcel at northeast corner of site in order to develop commercial(retail,restaurant, etc.)uses on the site; C. In favor of the variety in housing types and lot sizes proposed; d. Not in favor of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development and the private streets—needs to be redesigned; led; e. The Fire Dept.'s preference for a direct unhindered access to the site via Serenity (i.e.not obstructed by a gate,bollards or a chain) opposed to right-in/right-out at Serenity Ln./Chinden Blvd. as a fire engine will not be able to access the site from the east via Chinden. f. Conceptual development plan for the commerciaUmedical campus portion of the site needs to be revised as discussed. 4. Commission changes)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items again on October 22"d. At the public hearing on October 22',the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties(Applicant's Representative);Betsy Huntsin eg r,representing the proposed hospital b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Cary Pitman; Sue Ropski;Val Stack; Doug Haneborg; Heidi Wilson; Charles Hay; Bonnie Layton,WH Pacific(representing property owner to the west of Peregrine Hei hts d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons Page 21 Item 6. ■ 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Preference for the parking on the east side of the 3-story medical office buildingto o be relocated to the west side of the building and the building shifted further to the east so that the building is further away from adjacent residential properties; b. Concern pertaining to traffic on Serenity Ln. if it were to be open to the south and the safety of children as there are no sidewalks along the private street; C. Concern pertaining to future restriction of right-in/right-out access to Serenity Ln. from Chinden Blvd. and resulting delays for emergency services to Peregrine Heights; C. Request for provision of a fence or a gate at the south end of the Serenity Ln. cul-de-sac to keep it private, d. Request for the larger estate lots that abut the south end of Peregrine Heights to be carried over to the south side of W. Tanker Dr., e. Property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights is in favor of the proposed frontage road along Chinden Blvd. for access to the collector street. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The provision of an electronic gate at the south end of Serenity Ln. for emergency access to Peregrine Heights and to keep the lane private; b. Impacts to the design of the site if the outparcel at the northeast corner of the site isn't purchased by the Developer and developed as part of this site; C. Trash enclosures should be located away from adjacent residential properties; d. In support of the reduction in height from 4-to 3-stories for the hospital and medical office building; e. Preference for the medical office building to be shifted further to the east and/or rotated; f. The provision of only one(1)mew in the townhome portion of the development. f. In general support of the revisions made to the concept plan for the commercial portion of the development. h. Would like the Applicant to work with ITD on noise abatement along the west boundary adjacent to SH-16; i. In favor of the walkability of the development and especially the medical campus; In support of the changes to the townhome portion of the development and the additional open space; k. Would like the Applicant to work with Staff to reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary of the subdivision to provide a better transition to planned R-4 zoned lots in The Oaks subdivision. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Requirement for noise abatement to be provided along the project's west boundary along N. McDermott Rd. adjacent to the future extension of SH-16 (see Section IX.A.1a.7 and A.3a), b. Relocate the parking on the east side of the medical office building to the west side of the building and shift the building further to the east away from the adjacent residential properties(see revised concept plans in Section VIII.A); C. The Applicant shall work with Staff to provide an electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Dept. for access to Serenity Ln. from the south(see DA provision#A.Ia.6 in Section IX); and, d. Reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary to provide better transition to the R- 4 properties planned to the south in The Oaks subdivision(lots were reduced by 5 along the south and southeast boundaries, see revised plat in Section VIII.C). 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, meets the intent of the UDC 01-4-3-22),which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street.ITD denied a request for Page 22 Item 6. Fl 07 direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5. 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively. Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. D. The Meridian City Council heard these items on December 1,2020. At the public hearing the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission in order for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties and Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering(Applicant's Representatives) b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Cary Pitman:Doug Haneborg: Cory Coltrin d. Written testimony: Randall Peterman(in favor) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Clint Dolsby,Joe Bongiorno, Steve Sjddoway 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to the width of the frontage road and access to site from Serenity b. Preference for the hospital to be shifted as far east as possible away from adjacent residents—concern that the 3-story building will overlook the rear yard of adjacent residential properties: c. Desire for a gated entrance to the medical campus portion of the site from Serenity Ln. to prohibit public access/traffic on Serenity Ln. d. Concerns pertaining to lightpass on adjacent residential properties from the medical campus:noise: odors:need for more of a transition in lot sizes to lot at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights where there are 4:1 lots proposed: concern pertaining to Fire Dept.response time: location of water& sewer stubs to Peregrine Heights: location of fire hydrants in relation to Peregrine Heights. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Fire response time to the site: b. Subdivision of the multi-family portion of the site allowingfor or separate ownership of individual apartment structures and concern pertaining to consistent exterior maintenance—should maintenance be governed by the HOA instead of a property management company to ensure consistent and timely pkeep of the development? C. Preference for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Council is not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without the out-parcel:remand back to the Commission for inclusion of the out-parcel in the annexation application. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 23 Item 6. 108 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Master Plan Conceptual Rendering&Medical Campus Conceptual Development Plan-REVISED y US-HIGHWAY 251CHINDEN BLVD i171 � 1K it -- PROPOSED , PRESCOTT -- MEDICAL CAMPUS RIDGE MERIDIAN,IDA140 CONCEPRfA4 suaie.�rrocMAM�e �.._ .,'�--- r --- - FUTURE SCHOOL SITE f I a - o C _ FUTURE OAKS NORTH SUBDIVISION A Page 24 Item 6. F-log] Concept Plan#2 (ifieltidi g a..t par-eel) (dated: 1/19/21): SITE INFORMATION W.CHINOEN BLvI). vrE�Ep_ 1e s.�++Es p+a.laa sF1 �rxaw�o mnxc. c c rcuecFxr zohxc. RUT MF 7.xEsr,SDU>H /M.e.c-c(. H) u wiwaa mimTT.w - e�lu xcs: uoa(<s*aR•I � UrFM I17 aF�siw--+°ab000oo sF � flU_F . oN�xrv� neaNl,C aEauIPED- WIIDINGS-261.000 SF d p r jI/5w SF) 52i svxEs H z P x d1llI�llL� I� @ W I1111fAlllllllllll — _ y,Re" PRm.min « Z ItMRY CORp 2Y MQM2 Z TJi PESICErvTI^L ]5'PEOUREU 4 �SED xG xo es 0 E6 BUIUINa nn:HEI=H1 w �uoocnG Cll �airtu - e. .��. — `-JTTPITLI111 LI1Li UIIIIIII I I I� ��'l l l l l I l l�I .� _ �ot�o..amanRo I -llllllllL�L-1LW1 .�p.xo�. e �m EX.2.0 �o�tp�fx I � 150 3(NI 450 `r� I101 AS Page 25 Item 6. 1 10 B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps C-G ZONING LEGEND - - - -- - n Er �rs k-I5 I I RUT o °ma m R-15 o� I � � a I ER RUT }+ I I �• lam R-8 I E� 1 OF I �® R-4 J RUT R-8 R-4 �Y Plans�ole:P'=mud Page 26 Item 6. 111 1 km E N G I N E E R I N G December 17,2020 ProjKl:No.18.140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Annexation Rresratt Ridge Subdiv Mon A perreI of land situated I n a por tiorr of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 and a pgil lark of the West 112 of Section 29,Township 4 North,Range 1 West, Doise Merldlan,Ada County,ldaha and heing mare particularly described as follows: Con rnerticing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89'22'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from irrl alurnlrtum cap marking the North 1/4 cornerof said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, 589'27'17"E A distance of 1,484-69 feet to tha POINT OF BEGINNING, Thence following said northerly liner 589'27'12"E a distance of 1,124.74 feet to said alurninurn tap marking the North 1/4 corner, Thence leaving said northerly line of said Northwest 114 and fellowirr�the northerly Ilne of the Northeast 1{4 of said Section 213,5&9'25'25"E a distance of 60-00 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said northerly Ilne•SO0"43'55"W a distarkre of 558.89 feet to a point; 7herlce S89`24'23"E a distance of 1,24E.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly We of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence fol lowia8 said easterly liner SW 6'13'W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence Ieaving said easterly line, N77-58'17"W a distance of 1,338-.I2 feet to a 5I8-inch rebaran the easterPy line of the Northwest V4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly 114% S0O"43'55'W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch pipe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; 7hente Ieavl[Rg said easterly line,SGO'43'S1"W a distance of U-35 feet to a 5/8-i neh re ba r, Thence S53'05'530W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar, Thence N78'07'38"U4r a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/9--inch rebar; 7hence 589%8'46"W a distance of45.49 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 7hen N$6°14'4! Ord a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/Sinch rebar; Thencia N88'50'0eW a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/34rich rehsr; Thence N80'59'54'VV a distance of 36.99 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N70`27'41"VV a distance of 25.64 feet to a 5J8-inch rebar; Thence S89'15'0O"W a distance of 20,04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'53'3VW a distance of 189.53 feet to a 5f94ch rebar; Thence 564-04'03"W a distance of 27-64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N89`14'25 UV a distance of 784.53 feet to a point; -thence M0X5Z'21"E a distance of 16-96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 2$; 7hence-folbwing the southerly Ilne of:he Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89'21'12"W a dworrce of 686,O3 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said southerly line,N01'QO'37"E a distance of 400.00 feet to a paint; 9233 West Sta#s Stroet & l3olse,W0110 83714 * 208.538,5939 + kmvngllp.wrn Page 27 Item 6. 112 Thence N89'21'12"W a dl5tance of 625.00 feet to a paint on the westerly line of the Northwest 1{4 of sold Section 28; Thence following said westerly line,NOVOO'37"E a dlstaoco of 690,74 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said westerly line,S73'33'16"E a dlstance of 483.50 feet to a paint; Thence 578'OB'16"E a distance of WE feet to a point; Thence S46'W01"E a distance of 299,29 feet to a point;; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 48.11 Feet to a point; Thence NOO'52'17"E a distance of 215-98 feet to a 1/2 inch rebar, Thence N7S'32'13'E a distwe of 272.40 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 34-59 feet along the arc of a Jrcular curve to the left,se id Curve having a radius of 45.O0 feet,a delta angle of 38'56'33",a chard bea-iri8 of N75'32'13"E and a Chord JFsta of 3Q_00 fleet to a 112-inch rebar; The nce N7532'13'E d distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence NOX32'13"E a distance of 1,497,29 feet to a V2-inch rebar, Thence 569'19'13"W a distance a#270.56 feet to a 1/2-Inch rebar; Thence N3VW35"W d distance of 8'-73 feet to a point; Thence 53.14 feet along the arc of a[ircular curve to the right,said curve having d radius of 115.00 feet, 2 delta angle of 26'2VW,a chard bearing of K18'41'13"W and a chord distance of 52_67 feet to a 5/8- inch rebar; Thence NOO'32'43'E a distance of 125.29 feet to the POINT 4F UEGINPfING- Said parcel contains a total of 128.207 acres,more or less_ Attached hereto Is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. ST 12459 OF ' L SOX, Cilem Project NaMP PAGE 2 Page 28 Item 6. F 13 FWLAINUiA CFP p o POINT Or REGINNING N 1/4 CORNER t- BASIS OF BEARING SECTION 28 ❑ _ 20 21 W.Chindern aw{Hwy 20f2B) CL ❑ _ _S89'27'17"E 2609,0' j m ❑ 29 a6 28 i4.66' — — 1124.74' — — - _ _ '� u c m POINT OF COMMENCEMENT = Nwl 'LuMINUM P CiD wta SCU4.3'55"wCORN O SECTION 28 858•89' fl N y rl P N (u m r` S89-24'23'E 1248,5B' _ U) 2 Z W < Q} s H CL` fV C 4 J O M� a 0 250 500 1000 w w x C) o LLJ a dJ SCALE: 1"=540' Annexation Area: 178.207±AC. CL 8 S0428233646,R6991222210,S0428120950, a S>v'33'}e SO428131315,SO428131200,R6991222101&SO428211102 o v 4a Current Zoning:RUT S78-DS.TS v �8,77• 1.Sfi C} � Q 6 M1 d Q saa 5e v}"E J DATE: MEMBER PWQ PROJECT: U-M N89'21'12"W W7Tsa'T7 SHEET: 825.OQ' W 1 OF 2 M1 8 a _ 9 � d o CENTER-WESr 1/16 DDRNEi2 a OF SECTION 28 2 PIPE E CENTER OF S£C710N 28 z N8ff 2l'l2"W 88&03' f y y BRAS_ CAP L1 N89'S4'25"W 789.53' — — W 1/4 CORNER km SECTION 28 r LID L9 ~ J' ENGINCIAS-SURVEYOAS.AVNNERS 5233 VK5T STRTESTAEET L}1 L2 6o ISEr IUAM083714 �L12 L7 LB PNQN(I2osl(J9 5935 L6_— �L4 L3 FAN WGI 6394910 Page 29 Item 6. Fl 14 a � LINE TABLE LINE TABLE ° � o LINE BEARING I DISTANCE LINE BEARING DISTANCE Ev Ll S89'25'25"E 60.00 L15 W52'17"E 215.98 ;t Q L2 SO'43'51"N 24.35 L18 N75'32'131 272.40 _D `~ m 13 553'05'5314 16.53 L17 N7532'13"E 219-13 m L4 N7W07'3814 18.68 08 S69'18'13'W 270.56 N „0 115 58918'481Y 45.49 L19 N31'55'35'W 91.73 1410 2 z L6 N66.14'49"W 63.92 L20 NO'32'43'E 125.29 Ku L7 NBS'50'0419 85.57 Icc O L6 H80.59'54"W 36.69 C 4✓ � � O 1-9 97927'41'W 25.64 1 N U Lo L10 589'15'00'14 20.04 W 9 L1 1 N9B'S3'39'IY 1 89.53 I.- dj f L12 5B4'D4'039A' 27-94 w- ~ L13 hW'52'21"E 16.96 C a Li4 N755112E 48.41 i 41 O !Z +r � p CURVE TABLE OATF- GELEMRER 2030 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD ap0Ecr - ri 45.00' 30.59' 38'56'33- N793ZIYE 30.00' SHEET: C2 115.U0' 53.14' 2E26'39- N18'41'13"W 52.67' 2 OF 2 !on ENGINEERS.SURY6rM.pANNER5 9233 WESTSTATE STREE7 BOISE.IO.AHO 83714 PHONE121161639-5939 FA%I2m16393930 Page 30 Item 6. 115 km E Nr,; I N F E R I N G December 17.2020 Project N.D.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for ftzoFr2 to G-G Prescott Ridge Subdivislon A parcel of land situated in a portion 4f Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Settior7 28,Tow nshlp 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly descrl bed as follows: Commencing at an aluminum Cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,6O9.40-eet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 WrMr 4f said Section 2$, thence following the nordierly fine of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, M'27'17^E a distance of 1,484.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following Bald northerly line,539'27'17"E a distance of 1,124,74 Feet to said alumin+Jm Cap making the North 1/4 corner; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Northwest 3/4,S0O'43'55"W a distance of 586.55 feet to a 1/2-Inch rebar, Thence leavIng said easterly Ifne,5S9'?5'31"E a distance of 27.44 feet to a point; Thence 500'34'290W a distance of 397,44 Feet to a point; Thence N89`Z5'31"1N a distance of 826_54 feet to a paint; Thence NOf1°32'13"E a distance of 837.62 feet to a 1/2-4nch relmr, Thence 569'18'13"W a distance of 270-56 feet tc d 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N31`55'3YW a distance of 81.73 feet to it point; Thence 53.14 feet along the arc of a circular curve tin the right,said Curve haYing a radius of 115.00 feet a delta angle of 26'28'39",a chord bearing of N18'41'IrW and a chord dlstanee of 52.67 feet to a 5/9- inch rebar; Thence MOX32'43"E d distartiee of 125.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Sold parcel contains a total of 19.952 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference is hereby made a part of. Cxk 1245 o m 9233 Welt Stow Strut r Mise,Idaho 93714 . 208.639.6939 * Irmrr611p-cvm Page 31 Item 6. Fl 16 D d EV t � 3 ALUMINUM CAP W POINT OF BEGINNING W-CWnden Blvd{Hwy 20126) N 1/4 CORNER BASIS OF BEARING 1`"�C�ON 28 w 20 21 SB9'27'17"E 2809.40' 1 a 29 28 $6 27'17-E 1464.66' 1124.74' O � tli NOE732'4 LA 0 7 ❑ 125.2E1' 5�4$� LJ1 •p N31'55'35"W v 81.73' u°7i Z3 4 � a Rezone Area: 19.85±AC. n 50428211202,R6991222101,R6991222210(Portron), d ,n 50428220950{pdrtiany,$0428120640{Portion} :E V) o a &50428131200(Portion) x WJ z 4 Current Zoning:RUT W v N Proposed Zoning:C•G 4 d � o � a M 38725'31 41 17.a4• a I � DATE: uECEfn(�ER T010 Z f+ CURVE TABLE PnOIFCT; 18300 CURVE 1 RAIDIUS LENGTH I DELTA CH RID BRG CHORE) SHEET: 1 OF 1 Cl 115.00' 53.14' 21 28'39"I NIB-41.13-W 52-87' q i � N89'25'31"1V 828.54' F�-yy �Y ENfiBYEEA3.SIlINEY0R5.PGNINEAS 0 100 200 400 1 9233WE51r5TATE5TAEET 0MC 0AHQ S3714 PHORE 1M)E394039 SCALE: 1'=200° FAx f2061f,39 ft3u Page 32 Item 6. 117 km E N G I N E E R I N G April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R,8 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 28,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28, thence foil❑wing the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89'27'17"E a distance of 2,609.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28, 589°25'25"E a distance of 60.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,S00'43'55"W a distance of 658.89 feet to a point; Thence 589'24'23"E a distance of 1,248.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly fine,S00'36'13"W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said easterly line, N77`58'17"W a distance of 1,338.12 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, SOY43'55"W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch pipe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,500'43'51"W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S53"05'53"W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N78"07'38°W a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S89"18'46"W a distance of 45.49 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'14'49"W a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N88'50'04"W a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence N84°59'54"W a distance of 36.69 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N70'27'41"W a distance of 25.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S89'15'00"W a distance of 20.04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'53'39"W a distance of 189.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 564'04'03"W a distance of 27.64 feet to a 5/8-inch reba r; Thence N89'14'25"W a distance of 799.53 feet to a point; Thence NO0°52'21"E a distance of 16.96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 28; Thence following the southerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89'21'12"W a distance of 686.03 feet to a}point; Thence leaving said southerly line,N01'40'37"'E a distance of 400.00 feet to a point; Thence N89'21'12"W a distance of 625.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said westerly line,N01"00'37"E a distance of 690.74 feet to a point; 9233 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 83714 • 248.639.6939 o kmengllp.com Page 33 Item 6. 118 Thence leaving said westerly line,S71"33'16"E a distance of 483.50 feet to a point; Thence S78'08'16"E a distance of 589.77 feet to a point; Thence 545"56'D1"E a distance of 299.29 feet to a point; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 4&41 feet to a point, Thence NDD°52'17"E a distance of 215.98 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75°32'13"E a distance of 272A0 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30.59 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet,a delta angle of 3$"56'33",a chord bearing of N75°32'13"E and a chord distance of 30.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75°32'13"E a distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar,- Thence NDD°32'13"E a distance of 659.67 feet to a point; Thence 589a25'31"E a distance of 279.95 feet to a point; Thence SOD°34'29"W a distance of 420.05 feet to a point; Thence 589'25'31"E a distance of 275.60 feet to a point; Thence 82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet, a delta angle of 31°3b'09",a chord bearing of S73"37'27"E and a chord distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence S57°49'22"E a distance of 138.82 feet to a point; Thence 275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 50D.00 feet, a delta angle of 31`36'09",a chard bearing of N16'22'33"E and a chord distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence NOD"34'29"E a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence 589'25'31"E a distance of496.43 feet to a point; Thence ND4°36'19"E a d istance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence 1\189°24'23"W a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence NOO°34'29"E a distance of 122.33 feet to a point; Thence N89°25'3VW a distance of 17.44 feet to a point on the easterly lute of the Northwest 114 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, NDQ°43'55"E a distance of 586.55 feet to the POINT OE BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 99.532 acres, more a less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference Is hereby made a part of. I S T �~ m 124 C OF % Client Project Name PAGE 2 Page 34 Item 6. 119 1 POINT OF BEGINNING O ALUMINUM CAP 0 — N i/4 CORNER i SECTION 28 20 21 BASIS OF BEARING W,Chinden Blvd{Hwy 20/26) CL — —SB9'27'17"E 2609.40' L1 m 0 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT — — C' m Q ALUMINUM CAP 00 Q S00'43'55"W I SE14W CORNER 658.89' V1 N SECTION 28 u� ED �O °�' L24 S89'24'23"E 124B.58' N V O N z z 1 L23 L22 S89'25'31"E r4 279.95' I I 0 N C iv S89.25'31"E 1 .� 496.43' *—' a-' u 0 250 500 1000 0; m 2 -x VI O el w O m 61 N M SCALE: 1"=500' $ LIB w a O N �7g 0 N Z S77.33 B" 0 C2 o a} 4a ' e Rezone Area:99.53±AC. "' t v so s7608'1s 01 50428233640,R6991222210(Portion),50428120950(Portion), Enc° V 589.77' Ctrs C1 SO428131315&SO428131200(Portion) a o A �2 Current Zoning:RUT `O S4611,56'01"E Proposed Zoning:R-8 DATE: APRIL 2020 299.29' �}k PROJECT. 18-140 N89'21'12"W N77-5817.W 133 SHEET: 625.00' w Ln tn 8.12' 1 OF Z q In M O b, N a o - CENTER-WEST 1/15 CORNER o o OF SECTION 28 A2" PIPE o g — CENTER OF SECTION 28 ` z N89'21'12"W 686.03' BRASS CAP L13 N89'14'25"W 789.53' _ — Ion W 1/4 CORNER ' SECTION 2S Jf�Tr i ��2 ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PLANNERS 9233 WEST STATE STREET ROISE,IDANC 93714 \_L12L1 PHCNE(209)fi39-0939 FAx{206)fi39-6930 Page 35 Item 6. Fl 20 In 0 0 - LINE TABLE LINETABLE a 0 ro 0 LINE BEARING DISTANCE LINE BEARING DISTANCE C o ¢ Li 589'25'25"E 60.00 L15 NO'52'77"E 215.98 00 _ c L2 SO'43'51"W 24.35 Lib N7532'13'E 272.40 y cm L3 S53'05'53'W 16.53 L17 WS'32'13'E 219.13 O f0 + r L4 N7B'07'38"W 19.68 LIB 589'25'31'E 275.80 O cr, L5 SBT 18'4B"W 45.49 L19 S57'49'22'E 138.82 O LP1 Z Z L6 N86'14'49'W 83.62 L20 NO'34'29"E 233.13 cu N (D � W 1 00 L7 NBW50'04"W 55.57 L21 NO'35'19"E 294.95 I O ^I LB N80'S9'54"W 38.69 L22 NBW24'23"W 496.59 m O L9 N70'27'41"W 25.64 L23 NO'34'29'E 122.33 '~ 0 *' Lt0 S89.15'00^N 20.04 L24 N89'25'31"W 17.44 L ON c X cu L11 N86'53'39"W 189.53 L25 NO'43'55"E 556.55 W d L Y \ L12 56404'03"W 27.64 p L13 NO'52'21"E 16.96 c0 L14 N75'S1'12"E 48.41 r 0J 0 +�a ¢ o CURVE TABLE O u; APRIL2020 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORDBRG CHORD vnaEa: �Nmao Cl 45.00' 30.59' 3856'33' N75'3243E 30.00 SHEET: C2 150.00' 82.73' 31'36'09' S733727E 81.69 Z OF 2 C3 500,00' 275.78' 31'36'09" Ni6'22'33'E 272.30' !am ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PIANNEM1 9233 W EST 1-SRREET MISE,IDAH083114 PNE 120) FAX(20R)29-0309 Page 36 Item 6. 121 km E N G I N E E R I N G Apri17,gala Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-15 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion cf Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89"27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 114 corner of said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89°27'17"E a distance of 2,078.14 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,S00°43'55"W a distance of 983.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89"25'31"E a distance of 546.59 feet to a point; Thence N00434'29"E a distance of 275.11 feet to a point; Thence S89°24'23"E a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence 500436'19"W a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence N89°25'31"W a distance of 496.43 feet to a point; Thence 500`34'29"W a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence.275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet, a delta angle of 31'36'09",a chord bearing of 516°22'33"W and a chord distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence N57°49'22"W a distance of 138.82 feet to a point; Thence 82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150_OD feet,a delta angle of 319V)9",a chord bearing of N73°37'27"W and a chord distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence N89"25'31"W a distance of 275.60 feet to a point; Thence 11400'34'29"E a distance of 420.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 8.822 acres,more or less. Attached;hereto is Exhibit 3 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. 4 � 12459 g of 9233 West State street Boise,Idaho 83714 * 208.639.6939 kmengllp.com Page 37 Item 6. 122 m a ALUMINUM CAP T r N 1/4 CORNER m + BASIS OF BEARING W.Chinden Blvd(Hwy 20/26) 1 SECTION 25 =3 20 21 _ 569-27'17"E 2609.40' 7/ O 0 29 26 2078.14' — — — — — C a -a ,j C) o ¢ � a � POINT OF COMMENCEMENT I I .7 m ca ALUMINUM CAP 4�0 : c NW CORNER I — — SECTION 2B w 0) O m i 589'24'23"E 4-96.59' — — — r4 '^ d cc GC `p O M e rn m y Z V 4� Ln 0 o L I///r POINT OF BEGINNING Z w r' !E X N S89'25'31"E 546.59' v Y L Rezone Area: 8.82±AC. i N89'25'31 W 496.43' p O c Z o R6991222210(Portion)& �, o 0 50428120950(Portion) M Current Zoning:RUT a ¢ w Proposed Zoning:R-15 �^ DATE: APRIL 2020 N PROJECTS 18-140 M d I SHEET: Z I 1OF1 U N69'25'31'1N 275.60' C2 CURVETABLF N57'49'22"W 0 100 200 400 lam CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD 136'82 C1 5ao.00' 275.78' 31'36'09" S1622'33W 272,30' I SCALE: 1"=200' ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PLANNERS sTATr STREET C2 150.00' 82.73' 31'36'09" N7337'27W 81.69' 9233wes'DAHO83714 BOiSE,IOAH083714 PHONE(208)539-E939 FAX(203)53M930 Page 38 Item 6. F123] C. Preliminary Plat(date: 9,128,12020 i 0/2 i 20 i i 20,/N 12/22/20),Phasing Plan u'Lot T .,, ou4 1r'.,L ibit_ REVISED PRESCOTT PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING -- r ' --' —~—� —� II r-- w.allorR s<va A PARCEL OF LAN051TUATEP INA PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 28,TOWN SHIP 4 RANGE 1 WES7,ROISL MLRIDI.AN,ADA COUNTY.IDAHO f r OPEN SPACE a07ARFAa� - �R�n— Zr 9-17 T9 .�,.3•.:3v.... m �. Ort u. O®p �®® .,,,,�. ® ® ®®Q e +•E:�E:E•&3s;E3E:; 0�,, y' 4n m W •••' O p� '��' �:�I�:�I�`I9eS::y` o _ _ _ B�® p `_ ien boa Q � • ®Q Cd€ � I I II"AI Ill':H SFA:: ` ,._ O ti.` "6:• I ® ® �` .� I PRESCOTF RIDGESEIBDIVIMON; N0 MERIDIAN,IDARO i H p O e;s ::ti III of ® [akrn �'�ME L ® 0 fH P 8 ® 0 O ® 41 0 Q 0 O o p ® p m m m 0 w - - - wPPi.o _ Page 39 Item 6. Fl 24 o. ' (r .Try LJ•irY�,yFIT �' �- w �2 WOUT PLAN vm®. 1 i A. I 1 bt•TMfuN g MATCH TINE-SEE SHEET PP2.2 .tt 4,� ® 1 o \ _ __ _ mil.-:�. iullk V I M ® i�. 1 ® ® BESCD7 FIDGE SUBUIV151CAl p A ® d ® _ l�.' _ ® x g1P t d n 9 A O ➢ Q E7 a O �' m _ D MERIDIAN,-DAHO LAYOUT PLAN ...PP2.3 .. Page 40 Item 6. Fl 25 _-----------.... — 0 . . •,-,�...,, ., ,p � .�'- 5-�--MATC�LfN��S�E3NEET PP2.3..... .. �. &® 9®!I® kB .t f. \ o ® k, . . :•: : '� o e n.•.••.• MATCH LINE•SEE SHEETPP2.1— T LAY�VT PLRN rti.•.•..-..-. � ' - - - - R l4d} cH ♦ n -q ... m oj FF'PiiF�''�'`� e`�`s•.f}�$ �^-x« -✓� p .■I �4 � o - d;'v4'G". AA2~�.. N�9.i//L. ��le- A"'•�'�°i�..�.ti/ �r arm w.'r" '•� , �' RESNTI RIDGE SEIDDIV151^ 1 w PP2.2 1 1 ml f� zl 1 x al f� �1 It �1 Ig NI IN L44 � i RI -------------- MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP2.4 _ ---, — ----1 RESCOTE RIDGE SUBDIVISION� f MEND IMI,ID4HO f ® M 5 m MATCH LINE•SEE SHEET PPL2 /«1_�6 y ------ "": 4c PP2.3 g Page 41 Item 6. ■ -----f------------ 1 , Ir r r r� r i ' I ' I a' F ' I I ' I r � r ' I [t 1 i - Page 42 F1 27] PHASE DUILDABLE LC TS 2 44 3 41 4 43 z Q 5 41 6 37 PHASE 1 7 29 d a 46 m 9 14 z TOTAL UUILL)AULE 370 �7 x LDTS PHASE 8 F 7 PHA,SS, km 3 F Plan Scale-1'=3OC' Page 43 Item 6. ■ D. Landscape Plan(date: 4�7tivrrvrwzv i n 9/2020 , i ii 940 12/22/20)—REVISED OMSPACE ARM — 1• C � unm ..w 1 N ww^wm _ r,c���r-•rt ww.ia�er. � E i� �—:---,----RISA ....�.��'� w--r : MalA I� u - � �•*P: —n�-_�L { xuA r.. •iS1iAL 9PFM SPA{C rnEFS —J R$Md � h � �. ISY�E7, t11E[[wILUL4fi[xi5 f1TREV311f�• - `x tt1i AL SIRE FT TR[FS M1rw ruuruawxs - ;� - •� CJ..A r r 1 Y d • � nri n in- •I+ r .S s,l' `'� mtuT�.a�euEa�GuuEo 1' - - r 'MRrAi*I KAYIILEMWry To a I mrumnne o+uoeo y-•: -_ IK+A MSAIOMN,IPAH4 f u i 1 - r o • o [i F s . , 1. _ ° JV u1UYAnrLVFa 11Ee. !LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN —�� vvL1A Page 44 Item 6. ■ • .11 ■ r - -. Jp - ay-- -- - ---•w_.... i � �ii17Yriz4rs • i ' I �■ I 1 1 { I 7 � Ir L � • � 'Fr w,�-e � � ._=pia=_____ !-• I �. ��aRR-T� � TF•IwE ! i �—� { +_�~ •� f� -�Sti ` � - a ��a• sat •rf le � 1'*14MIi� IIFS � +-5-r��TT— 1 1 �_� �k T • • F!!�Y wllt■ e•{l ti1Y1lia ��' �•• ", —_ � i y 1+ li' i • I; ,1 t 4_ i -- ■ 0rdov Page 45 Item 6. ■ �� ia4� 1 � • ��1 ,,r :I : i :a_� 1 ylh � • 4J F` * it • `�} f + I � ` + 4 it St 1 a F ( pT, IkF �1 'ram ,�.." + � • - - --• - I i ti�ti r� rr • • f --_.aui-i i-•Fa �• ' r' ' a 1 �' • .-a—a a�a-ai�-o • ` F + r � aaaa •1r��.. u: • terra arr�--_ I 1 LR�tiW L---------- -------------------------- • �a 1 � uL 1' a� Page 46 Item 6. ■ Ftl...tl } �NEW— 1 f - _ 1 1 1 • � 9 Page 47 Item 6. F132] E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities(dated: °"6"^ '0 9/2# ' 12/22/20)—REVISED PRESCOTT RIDGE SUBDIVISION F E MNANYP TOPERSPACEOATA °�"�'�`°" OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT � � I o -- e a Imo" w w ® ® a ®1 B TDTAL OPEN SPACE �u f ® w• ® w a w B B I .�.�w el®�®Isa® °oa® � m i � e e • Ba ®® ®e •wa � j I ® ®¢m 0. � ®B•w®e w a a � >a w e w® ® mp a� a -- _ j �i f���`� i B ® m®oat .�«. roaww® ® e ® B• w ® B B RESCOTT RIDGE SUBDIVISION 9 •••B B ••BBB ® ® 0 A'®®�0 • ' MERIDIAN,IDAHD ut •�r okm OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT "Mr, Page 48 Item 6. Fl 33 AMENffIES — v A-POOL AND CLUBHOUSE - TF 13605f Bl11LAING IF �'�•'�� 1 - 54'XJVPOOL } .� 17 PARKING SPACES LARGETOT LOT .ate: . - C-SMALLTOT LOT �j �r-� — 6-DOG PARKIPOCKLT PART( PRESCOTT - ��-- `h E-OPEN SPACE ' F•MEW RIDGE G-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MERIDIAN.IDAAHHO E L--� OFFICE ENCLOSED BIKE STORAGE,CENTRAL ,...- F MAILBOX C W STER,AND DIRECTORY MAP B E _ p c E -----. A SCHEMATIC CLUBHOUSE g LARGETOTLOT t T' SMALL TOT LOT DOG PARKIPOCKET PARK Page 49 Item 6. [134] F. Parking Plan(dated:4/8/20 10/21/2020)—REVISED 1 I P4XNfIG�N FRON,W IIVML.IS fi 4 g❑ F L 117 W a :2 9 7 7 F a ,avnRwnEswx�iNe 3 3 3 km "444�SWp .S S 18 PARKING t MIT szac�eoFursouWn� Page 50 Item 6. F135] G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives-REVISED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ` I � j 6 F1 ESCOTT ft1DGE 61CHI�IA,NRlY•1 TOWNHOMES FOUR-PLEX FLATS or �$ :�;�_� •�' � � +-tea _ ppp- i E T �Lfr�l �II��� i ■ ■'. Page 51 Item 6. 136 Three-story Hospital Watercolor Rendering Conceptual Elevations for Medical Office Building—NOT APPROVED (proposed to be 4-stories, not 3-stories as shown) Page 52 Item 6. F137] H. Parcel Status Exhibit IandproDATA Parcel Status Exhibit R6991222101 -Wheaton Legal parcel as a platted lot SO428211102- Roark within Peregrine Heights Legal parcel per e-mail Subdivision and a-mail from from Brent Danielson Brent Danielson dated e dated 8.26.19. 8.26.19• w 20 W Chinden Blvd - n� xo r SO428120640- Providence Illegal parcel,but will become ACHD z right-of-way per Christy Little e-mail dated 11.6.19. R6991222210- Roark Legal parcel as a platted SO428131200-School lot within Peregrine Illegal parcel,but included Heights Subdivision. with this application to S0428233640- Hon rectify illegal status. Legal parcel per e-mail from Brent Danielson dated 9.5.19. ❑ 0 SO428120950&SO428131315- Kuenzli House parcel is legal. �i Remainder is illegal,but will be rectified SO428233620-Thomson qh by this application. Legal parcel per e-mail from Brent Danielson q3°39'13.74'RN 115°27'15E!BW dated 9.5.19. Fnep aan 02019 Aug 25,2019-IandproDATA.com The materials available at this website are for informational Scale:1 inch approx 600 feet purposes only and do not constitute a legal document. Page 53 Item 6. F138] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION commercial,The conceptual development plan for the C G zoned portion of the site, shall be- Fevised and submitted to the City C!eF!i at least 4 0 days p4or to the City Couneil heaFiRg FeReet eonfor-manee with the following guidelines in the COMPFehensive Plan for-Mixed Use • The buildings in the commercial C G zoned portion of the deVelopment shall be arran ed to er-eate some form of >usable RFea, parks,the mixed use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (pg.3 43)-. not limited to plazas, > open space, > site; -and- schools shall be provided in the Mixed Use designated portion of the outdoor seating areas-at annex-ation area does not satisfy this mquiventent as it is notpar4 of the AAx- ed U-se designate • Development of the Mixed Use designated area shall be eentered around spaces that are well designed publie and quasi pubfie eenteFs of aetivity. Spaees should be aetivated and ineor-porate permanent design elements and amenities that fosteF a wide vaFiety o interests ranging&om leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated in • The 4 story medieal office building proposed at the southeast corner of the eommere development shall be shifted to the HOFth tO fFont on the main entry dFive aisle off N. Rustie Oak Way as a be�fte-r t-f-a-u-sition to the residenees to the south. • A eOMMeFeial land use type shall be ineluded on the plan in the MU R designated a retail, restaurants, 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. At the Applicant's request,three(3) separate DA's shall be required for each component of the project-one for the R-8 and R-15 zoned residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, Development Agreements shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer(s). Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicants to the Planning Division for each DA prior to commencement of the DA's. The DA's shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA's shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the development: 1. Future development of the R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the site shall be generally consistent with the master plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, qualified open space & site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section V111 and the provisions contained herein. Page 54 Item 6. F139] 2. Administrative design review shall be required for all single-family attached, townhome and multi-family structures. Compliance with the design standards for such listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 3. The rear and/or side of structures on Lots 2-6,Block 4; Lots 2-7,Block 1; Lots 8 and 9- 15,Block 9; Lot 16,Block 7; Lot 2,Block 12; Lots 2-14,Block 10;Lots 2-16 and 29, Block 14; Lot 68, 70, 81-83, and 77-78,Block 12; and Lots 43 44,75 42,45 and-79 67, Block 8 that face collector streets(i.e.N.McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.), shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 4. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for a multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development. 5. One management company shall handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire multi- family development to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. 6. An electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Department shall be provided for access to Serenity Ln. from the south. 7. Noise abatement for the future SH-16 extension shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to N. McDermott Rd. constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. b. Medical campus/hospital: 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the master plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevation included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. 3. Noise abatement shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-413. 4. A minimum 30-foot wide buffer with an 8-foot tall CMU wall shall be provided along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as proposed on the landscape plan in Section VIII.D. Dense landscaping consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at maturity is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The block wall shall be decorative and have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed. 5. A frontage road parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 shall be constructed as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A in accord with UDC 11-3H- 4B.3e. 6. The hospital building shall be restricted to 3-stories in height as proposed. Page 55 Item 6. F140] 7. The entire first floor of the medical office building shall consist of retail and restaurant uses as proposed to provide a mix of uses as desired in the Mixed-Use designated area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The final design of the site shall be consistent with the general Mixed Use and Mixed Use—Regional guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan(see pgs. 3-13 thru 3-15 and 3-18 thru 3-19). The City Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital which provides emergency care from Chinden Blvd.ISH 2O-26 via W. Rustic Oak Way meets the intent of the requirement in UDC 11-4-3-22A, which requires hospitals that provides emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. If so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If me� 00, Geuned, eonsider a medifiewien to the t nda a Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd.for the emer eenncy care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May S, 2020 included in the public record. c. School Site: 1. The subject property shall develop with an education institution; any other uses shall require modification of this agreement. 2. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for an education institution in the R-8 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14: Education Institution. 3. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 2. The final plat(s) submitted for this development shall incorporate the following changes: a. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 unless otherwise approved by the City and the Idaho Transportation Department. b. Remove Lot 1,Bleek 15 as it's AGHD right of way and eannet be platted as a eemmen . c. Depict cross-access/ingress-egress easements to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west(Parcels#R6991221700 &R6991221600)and east(Parcel#R6991222101)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. e. Depict the easement(s)for the West Tap sub-lateral; if the easement(s)is greater than 10- feet in width, it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet in width and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6E. fl. Re design the townheme poi4ion of the development(i.e. Lots 16 79,-Bleek 8)with ptib, streets (alleys and/or-eewAnen dr-iveways may be ineefpefated); or-,if pr-ivate stfeets are proposed, eaeh unit should ffen4 on and be aeeessed via the private stfeet(s). Altematively—, a multi family development(i.e. one stmetufe on one pr-apefty with 3 or-more dwelling uaits) with tev,%heme style tmits might be a d&velepmeat option for-this area. A revised eoneept plan shall be presented prior-to or-at the Commission hearing for-review and a revised plat r-efleeting this ehange shall be submitted at least 10 days prior-to the City Ceffn hearing. if private streets are proposed with a townhome development, a mew or-g Page 56 Item 6. 141 PAVate StFeets should be pFovided in aeeOFd with UDC 11 3F 1.Also,provide updated density ealeulatiomv. g. Lots 70-83,Block 12 in the multi-family portion of the development shall be revised to depict parking and access driveways on a common lot with an ingress-egress/parking easement for each buildable lot. A FeNUed plat shall be submitted at least 10 days p .Done h. Extend W. Smokejumper St. as a stub street to the out-parcel(Parcel#S0428233620) at the southwest corner of the site. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a detail/cross-section of the berm or berm and wall combination required as noise abatement within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd.; also address how the wall will be constructed to avoid a monotonous wall,that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. b. Remove Let 1,Bleek 15 as it's AC14D right of way and eannet be platted as a e0immen . c. Depict a detached sidewalk/pathway(as applicable) along all collector streets(i.e.N. McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.) and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in accord with UDC 11-3A-17.A detached 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along N. McDermott Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St. d. Landscaping shall be depicted on either side of all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 12C. e. If existing trees are proposed to be removed from the site,the Applicant shall coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. Mitigation information shall be included on the plan. If existing trees are proposed to be retained on site,they shall be depicted on the plan. f. A calculations table shall be included on the plan that demonstrates compliance with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E(common open space), 11-313-12C (pathways), 11-3A-17(parkways) and 11-313-7C(street buffers); calculations should include the linear feet of pathways,parkways and street buffers and square footage of common open space as applicable, along with the required vs.provided number of trees. g. Revise the fencing type around the perimeter of Lot 1,Block 2 and Lot 37,Block 12 to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7 to provide more visibility of the common areas in accord with CPTED design strategies. h. Include a detail of the amenities proposed with each phase of development. i. The CMU wall proposed along the south and west boundaries of the commercial portion of the development shall have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed; revise the detail(i.e.reference photo) accordingly. k. If a dog park is proposed on Lot 1,Block 2, demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.1h. Page 57 Item 6. F142] 1. Depict a small tot lot on Lot 12,Block 6 rather than a large tot lot, consistent with that shown on the site amenities plan. in. Modify the landscape plan consistent with changes required to the plat above under condition IX.A.2 above. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6, 11-2A-7 and 11-2B-3 for the R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts respectively. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and for commercial uses in accord with the standards listed in 11- 3C-6B;bicycle parking is required in commercial districts as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A Fevised paFldng plan shall be submitted prior-to oF at the Commission heaFing for-the townhome pokion of the development that Fefleets ehanges noted above in eondition#A.2f and that ffovides foF adequate guest parking serve this POFOOR of the developmenti. 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application(s)that depicts the setbacks,fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via common driveways; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. 7. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 8. Common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveways,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. This information may be included in a note on the face of the plat rather than in a separate easement. plat in the townhome peFtion of the development in Bleek 8 are not approved.9. The pr-ivme street a-ad eemmen driveways o9the pr-ivme stmet as proposed on the preliminary 10. All existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 11. Pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. 12. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the 10-foot wide multi-use pathways proposed within the site as required by the Park's Department, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome, multi-family and commercial structures.All structures except for single-family detached structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 58 Item 6. F143] B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian City water and sanitary sewer systems. Mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. Until utilities are available to the south boundary of the proposed development,the City of Meridian will not accept an application for final plat. 1.1.2 Sewer mainline/manholes are not allowed in common driveways or under sidewalks. Run service lines down common drive but make sure required separation can be met. 1.1.3 The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.4 The sewer line in N. Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd. 1.1.5 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.6 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$185.43 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.7 As noted in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by GeoTek Inc., all artificial fill materials on site must be removed. 1.1.8 New 12-inch water main will need to be installed in parts of W Sturgill Peak St,N Jumpspot Ave,W Parachute Dr,N Streamer Way,W Smokejumper St and N Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.9 Construct water main in N Streamer Way between W. Parachute Drive and W. Fireline Drive. 1.1.10 Water connections to the north need to be facilitated either by extension of a mainline or and easement in common area Lot 19,Block 1, or off the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line. This is dependent on how road connections to the north are designed and developed in the future. 1.1.11 Remove the water main proposed in N Serenity Avenue.At the intersection of N Serenity Ave and W Tanker Dr,Install a tee at the branch off point with an isolation valve directly attached to it and then cap off the outlet side of the valve. This allows the tap to be installed and pressure tested so if the existing County Subdivision wants to connect in the future they can easily do so. 1.1.12 Water& sewer need to flip locations in N Backfire Way. Currently these lines are not in the proper corridor. Water should be located on the east side of the road&sewer on the west. 1.1.13 Eliminate stub/dead-end water main at each corner of the townhome section off of W Wildfire Dr of the development. Services are only allowed in these areas just like common drives. 1.1.14 A water connection to the east(near N Static Line Ave and/or townhome section off of N Rustic Oak Way)needs to be enabled by either an extension of water mains to the property line or an easement. This is dependent on road connections to the east. Page 59 Item 6. F144] 1.1.15 Water modeling was completed both as an entire development and at each phase per the phasing plan included in this record. This development was modeled with the 12"mains through the subdivision as required above, and the rest of the mains were modeled as 8". Per this plan there are no pressure issues,but each phase will need to be modeled at Final Plat to verify there aren't any pressure issues. 1.1.16 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 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 Page 60 Item 6. 145 Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 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. Page 61 Item 6. F146] 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188367&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiV D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188188&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiy E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=191860&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancioy.or.zlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=189738&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=192646&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188429&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioy I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E): Page 62 Item 6. F147] Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and MU-R FL UM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this property if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IX. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the mix of lot sizes and housing types proposed in the residential portion of the development will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds the proposed medical offices and hospital along with recommended retail/restaurant uses will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City in accord with the purpose statement of the commercial districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Comments submitted by WASD indicate that existing enrollment numbers are below capacity in area schools that will serve this development. 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 IX. B. Preliminary Plat Findings(UDC 11-613-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat, with 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; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) Page 63 Item 6. 148 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, Stafffinds 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; Stafffinds 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 IXfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Street Findings (UDC 11-3F-5): 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 design of the private street does not meets the requirements in UDC 11-3F-4A.6 as eeminten a,,;.,eway arepr-oposed off Me „ ate street whiehareprehibitea as. other t H these that er-e a common mew is proposed through the site design er thatpropo 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 granting approval of the private street with the I,9t layout-, densio, PH ng�Ls proposed fire lanes are bleeked due to pa4ing in unautherized areas should not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity. 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 street do not nee - ri4,direet4,.,,,M We streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the regional transportation plan. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable) is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10- 1463, 11-3-2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The Director finds the proposed residential development deaq no incorporates a mew ergated developme in the design. Page 64 Item 6. F149] following: 1. Striet-adher-enee or applieation of the requirements are not€easb'e; o-r- requirements;2. The alternative eomplianee provides an equal o ans for- meeting the and 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the publie welfare or- impair the intended tises and ehafaeter-of stir-founding pr-opet4ies-. Page 65 Applicant Presentation � r i I� k �I. PROPOSED I - r PRESCOTT RIDGE r ` t . fit. L r r I A 1-1 1411.1.0i 1'1 . ■yH �r#,Jt kri r a ��r■ 3rar�sr3F 6�lil. II kll 141. IN all s �! a ' 0 r � r Prescott Ridge Annexation, Zoning and Preliminary Plat City of Meridian, Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2021 Project • • iInformation _ 11 WWQ k444 l iris ii r'' "i lll■ • 4 +_s alil � � ,• d l T i 1 a rl 11 j111�M11y1 i 00, ioaxa --- •�� r t �ti� • M! �Illl rr ` w�_�, MM lA A wwal R !1 r1 a � ! kv I _ ■a sop its t 1 44111111 VIOL All o-. 7,1111 l"J3t+ rM ( r Us Iflls - a. 1l��i 17R� �*I,lellilst �� lllll, � ,u - ■171111t* fJfBill ��lliik �: 1i111111111 11I � �Rl1r L 1111111111111 1111 _ +�, t Isi111; A 11111111111111 111111 , , .g r. '. y�I111F111 Illll llllil ��AI� � i 0" _ �- •F#IG1111�+111u11111�•t�l1e1v1' wiTsnl � - — �� � *� {1N Ia11111111if ~+ ' t'- . •le ••Ir s' 1111111 ¢ 1111 +Jl1111�# !111M1N1 Ii11151nw1 J •- + Il = Rrry: ��i11�4 111111 I,1111if91# 'IFIf1 7 lllllill �;.— #r Illl1 : • r ,. 1111111 .. 111!!1 f flltA'� 6 sy: a 11t1flEltlllll * , LLLLI iM�!.. ��*4i1111< {��* - 1al11o,1�1110-o-111irrrry1111E+1 Fes~ i �G r I 1 Future Land Use Map Elf } FUTURE LAND USES y f � f 6 Fire Station * Police Station ' � J i School m Parks .. ; � I• C� - MCMILLAN { Medium Density Residential Mixed Use Ronal Current Zoning Map r 1 - f # * " 0 # 1 C unu umuq CP IIIWII 111 1 1 M5 �m �� =� �. � W� 1■ 1 . nil �1 �_g 11111■1 � NMI �■�r mill ' ■ IN ■ - � Y '- i 1l■1 ill R-� c— _...f 1. _._ �-1$ 1111�1111 Illlll - ` '��"":�_ ■►' 11111111 111 1 Illlll .._ ., v ,�,' - I Requested Zoning Boundaries Zoning Details RUT RUT RUT L.-LL L LILL 300 Goo • C-G Zone, 16.36 acres — • R-15 Zone, 7.92 acres • R-8 Zone, 100.5 acres . . �, ry' Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat Details: • 317 single family lots 38 Townhome Lots (+3 unit buildings) 0 ii • 8 Single Family Attached Lots (2 unit ` buildings) m� • 14 Multifamily Lots with proposed 4-plex j oo® building on each lot • 42 common lots ��p ® • 1 lot, (16.36 ac) Proposed Medical Campus11 • 1 lot, (28 ac) West Ada School Parcel F ■HRoR� • 77 12.43 acres of qualified open space (15.5%) ui�i�iii� � I ����� I ■�i 00© m KIM �'itat2aS�E!°'t mo. 7 oil� ° a ® r9 Nam,„ QO©ki0 mom logo 00 . . 00000 Q Na.. . � -mail0: 0 Qualified Open S i N[f[II 8l4CF Qualified I • pen Space: ' 1 1 � — � u�xrs 1 I - � w�MIEt SE. B O ~� L ® 9 ,5w%II.o7M1Ks. 41 ® a - naxl ® 4D 6 Q x 1 • w.seaoa�arnrsR sr. � � 110 "�j J00 11Iv1[lL OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT n EnShc:1'•lEV Open Space and Site Amenities Central Park with Clubhouse, Pool and ■ ■ Large Tot Lot ■„ z Pocket Parks ■ — = Two small Tot Lots - T— t- I II,rI-1 - ; . - Dog park area i, lip f II�o 1. �y�Y�Q riklYi �iL 0011 - •a - .^F � Jilff Recreational ' I �` • Pathways r IN f LIPS ■■ T� 'I•jSMALL TOT LOT Open Space and Site Amenities la; k I . . F.y \ i.s'�a.�-�`�� �r ���- _1 �\`\mod•_.a � � .�� ��` _ _ �� Oro- �\ �X ,le �, , Open Space and Site Amenities Jl LI I lit lllktllll 111 Y�= :■i* -.�_ ,. � 1 ,.9�, ���IIIIIII���I�IIIII�I�I��ul��gil��lillli�ll!!l1�I����I�R����w�i� --mom At Aw— ,.n„r�, - Ir liNllll■1 •1� -- - � r■,ra...�1 - —- _. ,i. . <<.: y.� � '.. :::. ..^_u.� , r ',III � ,'�llN Il■IN Ii����i1iiBBBinIR11{4���,_- I-i a.r i�n I I I �,�...���i�l�l�� I f�lrl,�11I111 1�111■■I .. _.. :..... ..:..... 1 I I '1`1f�M�1�1���u1W�1 II�I<�I �AIIH juj� ■r �� � � - � � ����111h����11{;;����F���{��i±;,llll' ,{Il,fll� ����I I��I��I �I I III M _, �"" �� ■ Open Space and Site Amenities dL .. AOL 1 t ��- ,�t � us"ay �� �i,�� rjb mot,,� �¢ en�b� yid •r a, Pedestrian Connectivity PRESCOTT RIDGE r is Pathways through common lots I ; � Parks Dept 10' Pathway 1W . : . ;4P. I �.t IPROPOSED RIDGE . . CAMPUS PRESCOTT - � ■ , + - .�.� f i 1A.,. IIr .- �u.l I•• '1 i. . Phasing Plan PHASE I o� a® nii■��: :::_ om :a. MWOME '� _ _�. � I�IN�•� .mot. � ---- il�l�l� � Serviceability - _ Chind_en Blvd r 5-U-0S¢api' Fire Department Staff Report • 3 "This project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department. The phasing plan shall be ` strictly adhered to ensure there ,�t is always 2 access points W8terfleld - r' I r ;. ,.. . � , r� bevelaprneni Co LLC � 1 � � .i,i �?• ,I available for fire, police and w EMS." +P "The project does meet the JW targeted goal o 80% or greater �— g g f 9 reliability." F�i� 0 O�Qao�ooA - �d e � o o PHASE 1 ,. �,, � i.•�n.QG�OG � G Opp �, REGIONAL Access and Emergency Response Time Improvement Rustic Oak Way Extension: yy I Meridian Fire Department: • f -Wo "Pushing Levi Lane (Rustic Oak) through will help with fire T ,; LlPrescott Ridge ... • response times. As it sits, we cannot turn left from Chinden 9` onto McDermott. This will give x� h = `� � —r_ -- station 5 an avenue to make that - =oagog. flp r° run to McDermott without having to go all the way around. It would benefit all construction areas in _ Ito t-ibdmo the map section." � N hi man ; II fp�llllldl�l i1E==!��� G':• �� ,I �-_"` Meridian Police Department I M• .,r.. It i "Given your application and the - Oaks to the south I believe constructing the collector road all the way through as soon as possible would improve policeWSW .. response times because we • would have two points of access instead of just one partial access." • Serenity Lane ( Peregrine Heights) Access WIN 14f I 11 1 Future Electronic Gate— Preserve the privacy of Serenity Lane while offering Meridian Fire Dept approved "Opticom" �`''� • w �E..@yew ■�• � ����Y � lSa..y na. _ access. �, �•-�� � � p`��.�� � ' , 'ail ' �• ' ' Q n r� � � -_. . - - .. IRAHIM KIM . fFRI IC�C�app� ;dCCppp� wo �a p, CCC �o Goo -Tf Serenity Lane ( Peregrine Heights) Southern Access Proposed Electronic Gate Access for Serenity Lane: This access a gate preserves the privacy .:__" ,,,,,,�� rq�' r nll mlt1�� of our Serenity Lane neighbors while �,lll II III Illlllllli� f - ,,,,` : �„�,, � r� offering unhindered emergency access - - O a Na through ticom device. III!!�lk�. IIIIIIIII g p Opticom allows the Fire Truck or Emergency Vehicle to trigger the opening of the gate in advance to ensure rapid access to the destination. VON o 4 1�1IIIII II�II � IIII IIIIIIIII11lll� �� - - _ ., ,� Housing Types ± ij ao®®® ao�o® r �fcJ=`�^ •w•,y axe a°y��.yam? ��yy d�.�7 �a�E��:;��..'— 1'��■� �� r� loC!� �;u fff flit r k31 ' - Wffs: Mff m �; , ..., • 00®ram �® d �oE=moo© IF Elio inn NEI WE ®�0� ! Accommodating Neighbors r r I - iiir r �t*:GSM 1 l I � Vic L I I . . ... _ dr {.- c- � � v Typical Home Elevations WA 'NK .. ......... Typical Home Elevations ? _ 71. LLA I A: �ilU�ll�plll)IlIi:EIIII1�lliilllilll�lil6. Attached Single Family r 1 I '1t I, R Townhome Single Family Attached U.S.HIGHWAY 26/CHtN(IEN MEDICAL PRESCOTT RIDGE ,7 D 7 , �, .,�.. IDAHO - - �r r0NCfPTUA1,SU11JECT TO ��r- l�afrasa SCHOOLFUTURE SME f � � ins FUTURE OAKS r � t =■ ISON Townhome and Single Family Attached IL I f '+9• Townhome Single Family Attached Rear-Load Renderings i ' RIGHT ELEVATION WO, IN L �#!l a M' MA I LEFT ELEVATION w".. �►fw SIR 1.� -Rf f - f Z i.f - fw Y�Y �\!w - 'M -��wR 4f -ar r I Townhome Single Family Attached Front Load Renderings lo 17 T+ .R'- "'�a Imo.: ���:'t 'r; '-�-;•,: �•='�`;. ter._- �, Townhome Single Family Attached Front Load Duplex Renderings s !j I LB � II '\EE EEEE EEEE - 'q EEEE EEEE i -� E1 "E EEEE EEEE r Townhome Mew Examples Fw r i AMU AhI y. f ,IFS 01. _ - � •�.� _ 111 i , �������,�^ Townhome Gathering Park - �t• r -21 ado I ' •., �c ��ir� ••P arm � -- - ��' � . • Multifamily Four- Plex Flats r ip D CAMPUS PRESCOTT RIDGE MERIDIAN, ID.M0 i - - - •� - --- •a�i •ky�- i. , •14CMUAL.SU&JECT TO CIANCEFUTURE SCHOOL ��r■ 3larr�■� WE FLTFURE illll 4� s;4 J OAKS NORTH :D Multifamily Four- Plex Flats �� �■■r� � fir" I rr maim Multifamily Four- Plex Flats J �� yip - ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IIL Home Quality Builders in Idaho a Rack to Stale View Program kndiratars in Idaho Bast-U on na4on.W ayerages,ENE%Y STAR certified homes ' 16121E ENERGY STAR cerbrim homes built to-date built III M9 are the equivalent OE 1131 a ENERGY STAR CerbW n0rM bui1203p 10 Gab ptdueing COS emiss.am ty 2 merit darts • 11809 ENEMY STAR cara ied norrws wh in 20% C-W 4 43,Tfb free 9004k5 RX 10 years • 87 EgERGY STAR Builder P-�rtmus Avcrrjrrp are eanmrnptlon of 6,161 barrels of od ■ Rvmev v 572 passenger%,ebi esfrorntheraald Filter this list by the type of homes built: All Site-Built Manufactured Muni-Faroily Affordable 0 Indoor airPLUS aJ'Il_Y, _L lal_I I_z K-711 l_a Y• _I l.i_Il_z ]11 Il.Y• I Bnpbtm Horrid 20" 2S16 1.5w Qdy Huhbis Homc!v ill 20N 331 U9 959 SOM C* Home Quality — Design Center la io,2 ■WWI I W. r 4AL r" 2020 FALL PARADE OF HOMES FRI DAYS - SU N DAY'S 1 11 A.M. - 5 P.M. OCTOBER 2 - 4, 9 - 11 & 16 -- 18 BJdmq Cailra 1—Ass mli—d 5—tk—t—Idaho,All Rights Reserved !�!lam IAN ti 9) BolEEPARADEOFHomF-s.cOM NUBBLE 208.433.8800 1 HubbleHomes.com HOMES Home Quality u ` y Mai L - i� All - Ir✓ _ Home Quality - Int - • E. ;if - 41 A-in ..- .h E%] ki �'O4 e� ,... w I---�_ — Medical Campus W.CHINDEN BLVD. Medical Office Building: OUMDOR COURTYARD 4 stories First floor Retail/Restaurant ��► Top 3 stories: 60,000 SF of PHASE 2 Hospital6uilding: i I FIRE ACC °�a! ..I.` OUT3 stories, 181,000 SF FQ, SHADE TREE 2V -- - -2V-- Parking: EVERGREEN TREE a � 544 spaces required -- I�'I : 596 spaces provided Lk LLLLLLLJ- EDUTDOOrl ENTRY 10, MAIN ENTRY tNrHV a _ ICEWITH SHADED P ING - PLAZA a � ISEATING I STORY i� PHASE 3 o IAh Full Movement 7� 2vJI e!JPHASE ILANDSCAPE OLFFER { 1�1I L'T "r'-- SHADED OUTDOOR AREA +��II o 1V PUXSTRIAN PATHWAY TO Qsaia+-_L —Z,� il I Ho i Medical Campus Hospital • . Urgent Care_ f Iz OF Medical Office Building - • • m r. ValleyWest IIvT - • Caldwell n Medical Campus ��. ellt. Rn 'ini�' ' may; � .r �, � t � �� • �,�.. Conclusion 4w - _- s D _ I CAMPUS PRESCOTT RIDGE MERIDIAN, IDAHO E �I r ^ �h ,. . h _ �'-oNCV7UAL MuECT TO FUTURE �!r! 3lar�i�y SCH OC illllSTE ii .. I .G: Item 7. L150 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from January 7, 2021 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-0 zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 21, 2021 ITEM #ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO dr40 2 3 t (7 w;q S �I 4 } i 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 7. 151 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from January 7, 2021 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H- 2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-0 zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING January 21,2021 Legend s DATE: 101 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission URN FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner - ❑ _' 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0108 Vicenza North LOCATION: Generallylocated in the northwest corner r ) , of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 27, i Township 4N.,Range 1 W. (Parcels: SO427417210 and SO427438410) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted requests for the following: • 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; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #: 2019-055407) for the purpose of developing the site with detached single-family residences and general commercial,consistent with the new development plan,by Bridgetower,LLC. Page 1 Item 7. r153] II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 76.58 acres(R-8—41.58;R-15— 16.6; C-C—3.67;C-G— 16.76) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) Vacant farm land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-Family Residential and Commercial Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 183 total lots—169 single-family residential; 6 commercials;and 8 common lot. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as 7 phases Number of Residential Units(type 169 detached single-family homes of units) Density(gross&net) Gross—4.06 du/ac.;Net—6.3 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 7.69 acres of qualified open space overall—6.04 acres [%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 10%)directly for this new project.Other 1.65 acres are from existing subdivision(Bridgetower). Amenities 1 amenity proposed to be added with this development—A segment of a 10' multi-use pathway along the extension of the collector street. The remaining amenities are to be shared with the adjacent subdivision,Bridgetower,and include a clubhouse,pool,picnic area,and a basketball court. Staff analysis is below in Section V. Physical Features(waterways, N/A hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 2 virtual meetings:August 13,2020(16attendees)& attendees: December 8,2020(18 attendees) History(previous approvals) CPA-08-003 (Comp Plan Map Amendment to change property to Mixed-Use Community);H-2019-0001 (Summerwood MDA,DA Inst.#2019-055407);A-2020- 0162(PBA). 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 new local street connections to an Hwy/Local)(Existing and extension of a collector street through the site(shown as W. Proposed) Gondola St.).The commercial portion of the site has driveway accesses to this collector street as well but only on the East side of this street.W.Gondola will be extended from the center of the development where existing N. San Vito Way and N.Vicenza Way intersect;Gondola will connect to N.Ten Mile Road. Traffic Level of Service Ten Mile Road—"F"(609/720 VPH) McMillan Road—Better than"D"(335/575 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to construct all internal local streets as Access brick pavers and extend the two local street connections from the north(San Vito Avenue and Fairborn Avenue)into this site from the Bainbridge Subdivision. Page 2 Item 7. F154] Description Details Page Existing Road Network Portions of N. San Vito Way and N.Vicenza Way are existing(adjacent to the R-15 parcel).Ten Mile and McMillan are both existing. 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. There is existing detached sidewalk and landscape buffer along McMillan Road. Proposed Road Improvements Through the Traffic Impact Study(TIS),the Applicant is required to construct dedicated westbound right-turn lanes on McMillan Road at both San Vito Way and Vicenza Way. The Applicant is also proposing to extend the residential collector street network through the site and connect to Ten Mile Road. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Heroes Park is adjacent to the site at the northeast corner size) (25.5 acres in size). Keith Bird Legacy Park(7.5 acres)is approximately 0.3 miles away from north property boundary via car. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#5 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#5 reliability is 84%. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 1 —Residential • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Fire has signed off on proposed phasing plan;any changes to the phasing plan shall be approved by the Meridian Fire Department. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 6 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 6-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 11/l/2019- 10/31/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 641 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. The crime count on the calls for service was 139. 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. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ins,hs) Pleasant View Elementary— 1.8 miles Star Middle School—3.9 miles Meridian High School—3.5 miles • Capacity of Schools Pleasant View Elementary—650 Star Middle School— 1000 Meridian High School—2075 • #of Students Enrolled Pleasant View Elementary—368 Star Middle School—709 Meridian High School— 1914** **these future students could attend Owyhee High School depending on boundaries and new school completion. Page 3 Item 7. F155] Description Details Page Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed North Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.99 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed •Slope between manholes G1 and F7 needs to be 5%or less. Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone Split zones— 1 &2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •All water mains were modeled as 8". Coordinate with Engineering if a larger pipe size is needed for the proposed uses. •The water main connecting to the west subdivision via the common path is not needed and should be eliminated.There is plenty of water connectivity in the area. COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 2,860 Jobs w/in 1 mile 1,000 • Ratio 0.3—indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio) i Nearest Bus Stop 3.7 miles Nearest Public School 0.9 miles Nearest Public Park 0.1 miles(Heroes Park) Nearest Grocery Store 0.1 miles(Wal-Mart) Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Section VIII.E Page 4 Item 7. [156] C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend 0 0 Project Location MM I Project Location A; r(q ORE e i Density S11 nfla ffR1 F / _^ H e S! n r t -1 EIRE', GB Low Density R -iden i I Off4 liee— IREHE .Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend RTI-4 0 Legend I I - 0 F7Project Location eR Project Location q� —1 M, 'm 0 F!7"" 1 RU, PTMTi City Limits P PTMTi R, �NFL] L-0 Planned Parcels E A0119 RUT FFH MILE Lit EMMI R- ERB -8 H Jgmuij�H R-15 L -8. C R RUT RUT GF@ Fog RUTS K, G-G D 11 8 R-8 F RUT, RU HE -,I%------ ffEB 111. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: WH Pacific,Inc., an NV5 Company - 690 S. Industry Way, Ste. 10,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Bridgetower Investments,LLC-398 Copper Ridge,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Terry O'Brien,WH Pacific-690 S. Industry Way, Ste. 10,Meridian, ID 83642 Page 5 Item 7. F157 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 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/7/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) A modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-055407), approved in 2019,which consolidated four(4)agreements and+/-276 acres of land into one(1)master agreement, is requested for the purpose of including a new development plan for the subject 76.5 acres of land consisting of detached single-family dwellings,general commercial,a small area of office,and conceptual multi- family along McMillan. The existing DA provisions are still applicable. The existing DA includes a concept plan for this mixed-use area from 2008 when the property received a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the property from Medium Density Residential to Mixed-Use Community. The current concept plan depicts a large-scale business park consisting of a private hospital or other large employer, large-and small-scale retail,professional and personal services, restaurants, and a large area of assisted living facilities with supportive medical offices in the area now zoned R-15, as shown in Section VII.B. This map amendment and concept plan were intended to create an employment center in northwest Meridian. The Applicant believes the existing concept plan for this area of the agreement does not match the current needs of the City since there is such a need for housing. The Applicant believes the existing concept plan depicting a large office and medical campus is no longer attainable on this site because of various market factors and the fact that no hospital has requested approval on this site. Therefore,the Applicant is proposing a new concept plan and plat with a significant reduction in the existing commercial in order for single-family residential to be developed instead(further analysis is below in the Rezone section). The proposed development plan with residential is intended to be an extension of the Volterra North Subdivision(Bridgetower)to the west with shared amenities,open space, and be managed by the same homeowner's association. In addition,the Applicant is proposing some neighborhood commercial just south of the proposed extension of the residential collector street in order to offer more of a walkable and pedestrian oriented commercial area than traditional strip commercial development. Where the Applicant is keeping general commercial zoning,more traditional commercial building outlines are shown on the site plan but no end users are proposed or known at this time. The area of the existing concept plan that abuts McMillan Road is not currently part of any proposal in this subject application but is part of the existing concept plan overall, it must be included in the DA Modification. The existing concept plan shows this area as assisted living and some type of multi-family development. The Applicant is depicting multi-family residential within this area of the site removing any semblance of an assisted living element. The Applicant has stated that the design for this area of the site is extremely conceptual and will likely be modified again with a future conditional use permit. However, Staff finds that with the significant loss of commercial zoning being requested with this Page 6 Item 7. Fl-581 development and subsequent loss of potential employment,this area of the existing concept plan should remain and continue to depict assisted living to ensure some higher-level employment remains on site. Staff is amenable to some additional residential on this site but there is significant loss of commercial and potential employment with the Applicant's request. Because of this, Staff is recommending specific revisions to the development plan to retain more commercial zoning and include more integration within the development to be more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff s recommended modifications are discussed in the next section;the provisions for the amended DA are included in Section VIII.A.1 and the revised concept plan for the overall site is included in Section VII.D. REZONE(RZ) A Rezone of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing existing C-C zoning from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres,reducing existing L-O zoning from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing existing C-G zoning from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres is being requested. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with single-family detached dwellings,one office pad-site,and neighborhood and strip commercial. As discussed in the DA Modification section above, Staff is amenable to constructing more single-family dwellings in this area of the City. However, the loss of existing commercial zoning must also be discussed and Staff recommends some changes to the overall project design that is a compromise and helps meet the mixed-use policies discussed in the Comp Plan polices section below. As part of the rezone, the Applicant is reducing the overall commercial zoning from approximately 63 acres down to approximately 22 acres. The loss of 41 acres equates to approximately a 65%loss of commercial zoning to residential. The percentage itself is large but just as important is the loss of potential employment. The remaining smaller areas of commercial proposed will likely contain strip commercial with majority minimum wage service jobs instead of the higher wage jobs seen in larger commercial buildings or with more complex uses that require more expertise. Staff does not believe the remaining 22 acres of commercial zoning is enough. An avenue to reach a compromise in this regard is to redesign the placement of the proposed collector street extension (W.. Gondola Street) that traverses through the project. Gondola Street is currently proposed as seen on the preliminary plat and generally traverses through the center of the overall site north of Wal-Mart, extending the two existing streets that connect to McMillan, and connects to Ten Mile Road near the northeast corner of the site. Where it comes into the site from Ten Mile, it extends into the site approximately 350 feet(the depth of the commercial lots along Ten Mile Road). Staff recommends bringing this collector street deeper into the site generally to where the Applicant is showing a local street within the residential portion of the site labeled as N. Calcutta Avenue. The stub street to the north that is stubbed to the property from Bainbridge could then connect more directly to the collector street. In essence, this would move the north-south portion of Gondola Street further west into the site approximately the depth of the proposed residential lots and the Applicant would be able to keep the overall residential block designs but shift everything west. This recommended redesign would result in a loss of some residential lots but allow the addition of multiple commercial pad-sites to the east of Gondola that share the parking between those with frontage on Ten Mile. The new area of commercial would allow buildings to front on Gondola street, have shared plazas along the street within walking distance of the residential, and place the parking area between sets of buildings therefore offering a better buffer, more integration of uses, and transition from the residential to the commercial and from the residential to the busy arterial, Ten Mile Road. Staff recommends allowing the client to determine whether this area of"new"commercial should be zoned either L-O or C-C—Staff recommends either of these two designations to mitigate any intensive use being proposed adjacent to the collector street and secondarily adjacent to the residences. The main Page 7 Item 7. E reason for this rezone request is to reduce the amount of commercial area due to market factors, as stated by the Applicant. In line with this, if the Applicant chooses to zone this area C-C, multi family residential is allowed within this zone through a conditional use permit which gives the Applicant an opportunity to turn some of this commercial area into residential in the future while also allowing the City to keep more commercial zoning in the interim. If the Commission supports Staffs recommended changes, the Commission should continue this project to allow the applicant to revise the plan and allow staff time to analyze the changes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): This property is primarily designated MU-C(Mixed Use—Community)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)with a narrow sliver of Medium Density Residential(MDR)along the western portion of the site. Land Use: The MU-C designation allocates areas where community-servicing 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 MU-N(Mixed-Use Neighborhood)designated areas but not as large as in MU-R(Mixed Use—Regional)designated 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 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. In general, the proposed uses of single family detached dwellings and multiple commercial lots are listed as probable uses within the MU-C designated areas. Further comprehensive plan policy analysis is below.As currently designed staff believes the C-G portion of the development may develop as strip commercial and recommends additional changes as noted above so the project aligns with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed below. Transportation: Access is proposed via a relatively large extension of a collector street(W. Gondola Street) and other local street extensions from the adjacent subdivision to the North(Bainbridge Subdivision). The existing collector street network consists of two north-south streets that connect to McMillan Road that abut both sides of the southern portion of the area governed by the Development Agreement in this area(behind the existing Wal-Mart). These streets currently dead-end into the project site and the Applicant is proposing to extend the street from their existing termini and intersect in a new 4-way intersection that will function as both traffic calming for the new collector street and as the main entrance into the proposed subdivision. This collector street is then proposed to continue east and then bend north to connect to Ten Mile Road in line with W. Malta Drive on the east side of Ten Mile. At the request of Staff,the Applicant is proposing to construct an additional local street connection to the collector street to offer an alternative access into the residential portion and provide a more direct path for any cut-through traffic,minimizing the amount of the subdivision that cut-through traffic would have to traverse in order to move north through Bainbridge. With Staffs recommended road layout changes the eastern most stub street from Bainbridge should connect more directly to the collector street,further minimizing the desire for cut-through traffic to occur through this proposed subdivision. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Page 8 Item 7. F160] The proposed single-family detached dwellings will be an extension of the existing Bridgetower Subdivision which has been well received by residents and should meet the preferences ofpresent and future Meridian residents. With Staffs recommendation to retain the assisted living uses on the R-15 parcel, an additional housing type will remain on site and add to the diversity available in the area. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City." (2.01.01G) Two (2)different residential lot sizes are generally proposed in this development(i.e. lot sizes that average approximately 7,700 and 5,500 square feet)which will accommodate a variety of housing styles consisting of I-and 2-story units as proposed. Retaining the assisted living use in the concept plan is an additional housing type for the area. • "Limit canal tiling and piping of creeks, sloughs, laterals, and drains to man-made facilities where public safety issues cannot be mitigated or are not of concern."(4.05.01C) The Lemp Canal, which runs through the center of the northern portion of the property, is a largely unused canal that does not contain water throughout the entire year. It is also not a protected waterway and will be tiled for the benefit of orderly site design but will be incorporated into linear open space for the development. • `Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) With Staffs recommended changes, the proposed single-family residential development and overall site design offer adequate transition from the residences to the commercial and further to Ten Mile Road. Furthermore, the proposed single-family residential should be compatible with existing residential uses to the west despite being slightly smaller lots; in turn, the differing lot sizes offer an adequate transition from the existing residential to the proposed and existing commercial along McMillan and Ten Mile. • "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) Pedestrian pathways are proposed to existing pedestrian facilities, the shared open space, and the amenities in the central common area in the single-family portion of the development. These pathways also connect to attached sidewalks within the residential part of the site and to the multi- use pathway along the new collector street. In addition, the multi-use pathway will attach to the sidewalks along Ten Mile which would allow for easy access to Heroes Park, which is adjacent to subdivision but across Ten Mile at the very northeast corner of the property. The large central common area in the Bridgetower subdivision is intended to be shared because the proposed residential is an extension of this existing subdivision. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are not required to Page 9 Item 7. N be provided to and through this development because all remaining parcels will already have stubs to their property lines. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Although there are some undeveloped residential and commercial properties in the nearest'/a mile vicinity, the larger area is surrounded by properties that have been annexed and developed in the City with a vast majority of this area being residential. This property does not meet the definition of infill but will result in more efficient provision ofpublic services, including road infrastructure. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM),generally at/near the mid- mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B) The Applicant is proposing to extend and construct a collector street through the site as required and seen by the MSM. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B) The proposed vacant parcels are within the City limits and are already zoned. In addition, the larger area is surrounded by properties already developed in the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. • "Monitor and adjust the amount and mix of industrial, commercial,and office areas needed to meet the employment needs of the City."(3.06.01B) The Applicant's proposal removes a significant area of commercial and office areas for this site which diminishes the opportunity for larger employers in this area. Despite the existence of Wal-Mart on the corner, the City needs more employment. Because of this, Staff has recommended changes to the site design to retain more commercial zoning within this development. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The proposed development includes zoning(R-8, C-C, C-G, and L-O) that would allow multiple uses, both residential and commercial. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." The Applicant is not proposing any high density residential with this proposal. Conceptually, the Applicant is showing multi family development along McMillan Road in the Development Agreement concept plan. Staff believes this area should remain an assisted living development as seen in the existing development plan. Regardless of its proximity to a state highway, the overall loss of commercial zoning in the nearby vicinity infers this area is a part of the city that needs more employment and less housing, according to COMPASS and City Staff. This parcel and adjacent road Page 10 Item 7. F162] network may not be able to handle higher density residential. Instead, the assisted living development offers better employment opportunities and allows residents of adjacent subdivisions an opportunity to live near their aging family members. • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed- Use designation." An overall development plan is proposed for the MU-C designated site with the associated rezone application.A modification to the existing Development Agreement is also proposed consistent with the proposed project. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space." The small area of proposed C-C zoning contains a commercial plaza that can be easily accessed by nearby residents. The area of commercial along Ten Mile and within the C-G zoning district does not have any shared plazas between the buildings. Staff is recommending that with the other recommended layout changes, that the Applicant provide more shared green spaces between the commercial buildings along Ten Mile and even along the new collector street to integrate the uses. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." The proposed plan depicts medium density residential buffered from the future commercial area via the new collector street and tree-lined parkways. This same design is still attainable with Staffs recommended changes. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares,civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." No such uses are proposed in this development although they may be provided in the future commercial along Ten Mile or the proposed additional commercial along the east side of the collector street extension with Staffs recommended changes and increase in commercial zoning retained. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count." As noted, the Applicant is proposing a neighborhood serving commercial space that is approximately 3.5 acres near the intersection of the collector roadways at the south end of the proposed development. This area is intended to be a pedestrian focused and activated node for the nearby residences. • "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 placemaking opportunities considered." The area of the project that is being proposed for development at this time has a relatively small 3- acre area of space that should function as a neighborhood commercial center, as noted above. The Development Agreement will encompass the area directly south of this C-C zoned lot but does not seem to show any more commercial areas of this design. Staff is recommending that more of the commercial areas have these activity nodes to better create placemaking opportunities in the future. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed development will be directly accessible to adjacent neighborhoods through extension of streets and internal pedestrian pathways and the multi-use pathway along the collector street Page 11 Item 7. F163] extension. Staff believes better integration could occur if the concept plan is revised to reduce the residential and increase the commercial areas as recommended by staff. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." There are no alleys proposed in this development but the roadways as proposed act as a transition between the proposed residential and commercial area as desired. Staff's recommended changes would further create this transition as described in more detail earlier in the report. • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town; therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-C areas,per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs.3-15 thru 3-16): • "Developments should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas." See analysis above. • "All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types." The proposed development includes zoning(R-8, GC, C-G, and L-O) that allow multiple uses, both residential and commercial. • "Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre." The proposed residential use comprises approximately 66%of the proposed development (approximately 54%of the overall concept plan area of 76.5 acres)at an overall gross density of 4.06 units per acre, is not consistent with the gross density desired in MU-C designated areas. Because of the loss of commercial, the need for higher density residential is diminished and this area may not be able to meet the desired MU-C density range. Despite this, Staff believes the project overall is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • "Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings." The Applicant has provided a color board showing the conceptual non-residential elevations. These are images more than they are architectural elevations but show modern architecture that should help create placemaking and appear to be proportional to adjacent residential buildings. • "Vertically integrated structures are encouraged." No vertically integrated structures are proposed but could offer a better transition between the detached residential and the commercial along Ten Mile in line with Staffs recommended changes. • "Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office,or residential and commercial land uses,a maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square-foot building footprint. For community grocery stores,the maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square-foot building footprint. For community grocery stores,the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000 square-foot building footprint. For the development of public-school sites,the maximum building size does not apply." The building footprints for future commercial uses are shown to be below 30,000 square feet. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas,outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement." Page 12 Item 7. E In addition to the analysis above, the proposed area of commercial at the southwest corner of the intersection of Gondola Street and Vicenza Way could be viewed as a public/quasi-public area that is proposed to incorporate shared outdoor spaces for both residential and commercial activities like that of Hyde Park in Boise, ID. This approximate 3.5 acres makes up just over the minimum 5% requirement. In order to ensure that more space is constructed with this requirement in mind, Staffs recommended changes should add to these quasi public spaces for the overall development. • Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%,the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint." The Applicant has not requested advantage of these provisions with the proposed development. Based on the analysis above, Staff finds the proposed plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area in regard to land use,density and transportation. Several different land- uses should exist within the future commercial area of the site. Staff does have some concern that the phasing of development shown by the Applicant appears to show the commercial being developed in phase 5, after a large majority of the residential is constructed. Staff believes this leaves an opportunity for too much of this plan to change and more commercial area may be lost, especially the pedestrian focused commercial area making up the minimum 5%public/quasi- public space. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the area of commercial in the southwest corner of the Gondola and Vicenza Way intersection is constructed no later than with phase 2 of the proposed residential development. With the recommended revisions, Staff believes the project meets the Mixed-use policies. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 169 residential building lots and 8 common lots on 41.58 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district and 6 commercial building lots in the C-C and C-G zoning districts on approximately 20.4 acres of land. The plat is proposed to develop in seven(7)phases as shown on the phasing plan and as seen in Section VILC with construction of a collector street extension from San Vito Way and Vicenza Way east and north to Ten Mile Road with Phase 5. The Allowed Uses table in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for residential districts lists single-family detached dwellings as principal permitted uses in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Staff recommends that the extension Gondola Street(a collector roadway) is constructed with the first phase of development. Construction of this extension will help alleviate some traffic from the adjacent neighborhoods on the adjacent arterial networks and the McMillan and Ten Mile intersection. In addition, it would offer added pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle connectivity to nearby Heroes Park. Staff has recommended a DA provision in line with this. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are minimal if any existing structures on the project site.With the existing park that is part of the abutting Vicenza Subdivision to the west,there is existing landscaping and a fence that crosses onto this property. Both properties are owned by the same developer so the landscaping and fencing are proposed to be moved further west to accommodate some of the residential lots proposed in this plat. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district. Stafffinds the proposed plat and development comply with the required standards. Page 13 Item 7. F165] Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via a relatively large extension of a collector street(W. Gondola Street)and other local street extensions from the adjacent subdivision to the North(Bainbridge Subdivision) and from this collector street extension. The existing collector street network consists of two north-south streets that connect to McMillan Road and abut both sides of the southern portion of the area governed by the Development Agreement(behind the existing Wal-Mart). These streets currently dead-end into the project site and the Applicant is proposing to extend them from their existing termini as a 36-foot wide residential collector street section and intersect in a new 4-way intersection that will function as both traffic calming for the new collector street and as the main entrance into the proposed subdivision via local street connection directly north. This collector street is then proposed to continue east and then bend north to connect to Ten Mile Road in line with W. Malta Drive on the east side of Ten Mile. As were constructed with the Bridgetower Subdivision to the west,the Applicant is proposing to construct the local streets for the proposed residential area as 36-foot wide brick roads. ACHD does not approve of the 36-foot width and is requiring the Applicant to build the local streets as standard 33-foot wide sections and still include the required curb, gutter,and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk. Otherwise, ACHD has offered their support of the proposed street layout. Because of both the lot count and the increased traffic volume of the additional development,the Applicant was required to perform a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)prior to applying for these applications. ACHD has analyzed this report and their full analysis can be found in Section VIII.K The main requirements regarding the TIS are as follows: • The Applicant shall construct westbound right-turn lanes on McMillan Road for both of the existing collector street connections,N. Vicenza Way and N. San Vito Way. • ACHD recommends that the southbound approach on San Vito Way be restriped in order to add a right-turn lane(turning west)and a left-turn/through lane in line with how San Vito Way is constructed on the south side of McMillan Road. • The TIS provided by the Applicant did not incorporate any of the future commercial traffic because no end users are currently known and the fact that the Applicant does not intend on constructing the commercial until at least phase 5 of the development. Because of this exclusion,ACHD is requiring that an updated TIS be submitted prior to the first application for any use within the commercial portion of the development. Road Improvements: As noted above,the Applicant is proposing to extend existing residential collector streets through the site and connect to Ten Mile Road near the northeast corner of the property. The collector roadway is proposed as a 36-foot wide street section within 50 feet of right-of-way allowing for two lanes of travel,bike lanes,and on-street parking. In addition and commensurate with the recommended improvements within the TIS and by ACHD, Staff is recommending the Applicant construct westbound right-turn lanes on McMillan road for both N. Vicenza Way and N. San Vito Way. According to ACHD, an updated TIS that includes the commercial area analysis may require a dedicated southbound right-turn lane on Ten Mile Road. ACHD is not requiring this turn lane until a commercial application is requested and an updated TIS is submitted. Therefore, Staff is not requiring this turn lane at this time. It should be noted;the Applicant will not be compensated for additional right-of-way that may be required should the turn lane be necessary in the future. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A segment of the City's regional pathway is depicted on the Pathways Master Plan along the north side of the future collector street extension. The Park's Dept.recommends the pathway is constructed as seen on the pathways plan and connect to the existing sidewalk along Ten Mile Road. The Park's department Page 14 Item 7. F166] did not discuss a need for the Applicant to modify the existing 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along San Vito Way shown as a multi-use pathway segment on the Master Pathways Plan. Currently,this multi-use pathway segment is the only amenity proposed with this development. A pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for this pathway in accord with Park's Dept. requirements. The Applicant is proposing to use this segment of multi-use pathway as the required detached pedestrian facilities along Gondola Street, a collector street extension. According to ACHD, in order for this pathway to count as adequate pedestrian facilities, the Applicant will have to construct the pathway along Gondola Street as concrete instead of asphalt. Otherwise, the Applicant will be required by ACHD to construct a separate attached or detached sidewalk along Gondola and there would then be double pedestrian facilities. To ensure this does not happen, Staff is recommending the multi-use pathway be constructed as concrete pathway instead of an asphalt one. The Applicant is also proposing multiple micro pathways throughout the development to connect to shared open space, the multi-use pathway along Gondola, and subsequently with easier access to the commercial area. With Staffs recommendations, these micro paths will also connect to more shared plazas and green space along Gondola for added integration and traffic calming. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17 as proposed. The UDC requires 5-foot wide detached sidewalks to be constructed along collector streets (i.e. Gondola Street). The Applicant is showing compliance with this requirement with the alternative that the northern sidewalk along Gondola Street is proposed as a segment of the City's 10 foot wide multi-use pathway. The sidewalks on both sides of Gondola are proposed as detached with parkways between them and the roadway. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-17E. Landscaped parkways are proposed along N. Gondola Street, a collector street, in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district, 11-213-3 for the C-C, C-G, and L-O zoning districts and planted in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Street buffers are required to be placed in a common lot and maintained by the Homeowner's Association for residential districts and uses. Street buffers may be within an easement for commercial developments.None of the required landscape buffers appear to show the required shrubs and code requirement for at least 70%vegetative coverage at the time of maturity. The Applicant will be required to construct these buffers according to UDC 11-313 standards. A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Ten Mile Road, an arterial street. There is existing sidewalk along Ten Mile but no landscape buffers currently exist. The Applicant appears to show this buffer within an easement rather than a common lot as allowed by the UDC for commercial developments. The buffer is proposed as 25 feet wide and appears to meet UDC planting requirements for the required number of trees but not the vegetative ground cover. A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along both sides of N. Gondola Street, a collector street extension within this development. The buffer is proposed to contain the required 10-foot multi-use pathway on the north and west side of Gondola and is shown as greater than the 20-foot minimum width. The buffer along the commercial zoning does not appear to meet the 20-foot requirement. It is unclear whether the Applicant will add additional landscaping on the interior side of the detached sidewalk to meet the street buffer width requirement. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to correct this with each Final Plat. Page 15 Item 7. M A 25-foot landscape buffer on the south side of the C-C zoning is required adjacent to the R-15 zoning district. This buffer does not appear to be shown on any of the plans. Staff is recommending this be corrected at the time of final plat submittal. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Landscaping is proposed in these areas in excess of the minimum standards—the Applicant is proposing to relocate a majority of the existing trees to the new boundary of the shared subdivision park. Further analysis of this open space is below. Landscaping is required to be provided along pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A landscape strip a minimum of 5-feet wide is required along each side of all pathways planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. The submitted landscape plans appear to show compliance with these requirements except for the required shrubbery;staff recommends a condition to include this in all landscaped areas. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The overall development is subject to the qualified open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. A minimum of 10%qualified open space is required to be provided based on the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B and a minimum of two (2)qualified site amenities are required due to the size of the plat being over 40 acres. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted for the entire development as shown in Section VII.E. The Applicant has submitted an open space exhibit that does not match the latest plat design. Because Staff is recommending a number of layout changes to current plat,the Applicant should be required to submit a revised open space exhibit prior to the City Council hearing. Regardless,the numbers on the submitted open space exhibit should not change drastically with either layout. On the submitted exhibit, a total of 6.04 acres(or 10.06%)of qualified open space is proposed throughout the development,not including the R-15 parcel which is conceptual. Page 16 Item 7. 168 The open space proposed consists of the Ten Mile street buffer, the collector street buffers,pathways, and other, smaller, landscaped end-caps. Some of this area could be considered to be irrelevant to the residential portion of the site(the Ten Mile street buffer) but if this area were to be removed, the open space would appear to dip below the minimum 10%requirement. However, the Applicant is not counting the open space from the existing Bridgetower Park directly adjacent to the west that is to be shared with this residential development. When the original Volterra North Subdivision (now Vicenza)was approved, it was approved with a 10.2 acre park that serves the homes that are currently built and homes within this proposed development to the northeast of the park, as seen below: is '�, !7� 1 •� r, �'.r. I .: � - +t •,v}..ref. - �LL rr M _ • � yy 1y i. •� ' � 1Ci i � �r J y.. 1 — .. { • I .f r� � 4 I \ A Clearly, the road layout has slightly changed but the original vision of this area was to have some residential northeast of the park and share in its use. In 2017, when the park was formally constructed, it was constructed as a 13 acre park, in excess of the approved amount of 10.2 acres. With the proposed applications, the Applicant is proposing to utilize approximately 1.6 acres of the 13 acre park for homes, as originally approved. This will leave approximately 11.4 acres remaining, still in excess of the amount originally approved and still required. Because this park is existing, the Applicant is choosing not to include any portion of the park towards their qualified open space. However, the Applicant has provided a master open space exhibit that shows the total open space for Volterra North, Volterra South, and now this concept plan and subdivision.According to this master plan, a minimum of 33.97 acres of qualified common open space is required to be provided for the existing subdivisions and a minimum of 5.7 acres of qualified open space should be provided for the proposed Vicenza North. With the open space proposed in the Vicenza North development and the existing qualified open space, the Applicant is proposing a total of 40.12 acres of qualified common Page 17 Item 7. F169] open space for the master area. This exceeds the 39.67 acres of qualified open space required per UDC 11-3G-3. With the circumstances outlined, Staff agrees with the Applicant's open space calculations but should be verified following Staffs recommended changes and the inherent revisions of the open space exhibit. One(1)qualified site amenity is proposed in this development consisting of a segment of multi-use pathway, as required by the Master Pathways Plan. The existing park contains a clubhouse, a swimming pool,pergola shade structure,and a basketball court. Because the new plat contains 40 acres of residential, at least two additional amenities should be provided. As stated,the Applicant has only proposed one with this application—Staff is recommending a condition of approval that an additional amenity is provided somewhere within this preliminary plat or within the shared park. NOTE: The multi-family portion of the development is required to provide its own open space and site amenities with future application submittals. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 5-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed adjacent to the shared park at the rear of a number of residential lots; a 6-foot tall semi-private fence is proposed adjacent to all end cap landscaping and micro-paths; and a 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along most other portions of the site. All proposed fencing meets or exceeds UDC standards. For example, the Applicant is able to construct 6-foot solid fencing abutting the end cap landscape lots instead of semi private fencing. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18 : An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage is proposed to be mitigated by underground seepage beds and/or retention ponds in accord with ACHD design criteria. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future commercial structures but not for the proposed detached single-family dwellings. The Applicant should provide conceptual elevations prior the Commission meeting. All non-residential structures require Administrative Design Review prior to obtaining building permits. At the time of those submittals, Staff will analyze conformance with the Architectural Standards Manual. An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance is also required to be submitted along with Design Review for all non-residential structures. In addition,the existing Development Agreement requires compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual and design standards in UDC 11-3A-19. The future commercial area in the southwest corner of Vicenza Way and Gondola Street is anticipated to incorporate outdoor eating spaces, outdoor activities, and an overall pedestrian focused commercial area. With that in mind, the conceptual elevations for this area show modern architecture with active outdoor spaces that emulate the Village at Meridian with buildings that have large storefronts and windows, high-end stone finishes, and other secondary materials of high quality. The other area of commercial is intended to be more traditional commercial but the Applicant has carried over the quality materials and large storefronts for the structures along Ten Mile. Staff supports Page 18 Item 7. ■ the proposed conceptual commercial elevations but still requires the Applicant submit conceptual home elevations prior to the Commission hearing. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the existing Development Agreement, Rezone,and Preliminary Plat per the provisions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 19 6. Hill *_ IMMML - s Willillpi[III till kill.. 4_ �L� r 4• --- I y * - - 7r r'w. moo N ANMy ---------- �A� - y T Item 7. 172 B. Rezone Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps(NOT APPROVED) VICENZA NORTH ZONING 4 EXHIBIT i [ I BAINBRWO.6 B47I1BRIDGE BAINBRIDGE SUR. N0.20 .SUB. NO,a SUB. NO E L-0 VICENZA 61,941 SQ ET LAKES R-8 1.56 ACRES SUBDIVISION 1,811,023 SQ FT 41.58 ACRES VICENZA SUB, No. 3 J I a C-G 89C,193 SQ FT INST N0. 2018039550 20.44 ACMES PARCEL 3 PARCEL A VICENZA SUBDIVISION 1 h� COl�MAN SUBDIVISION PARCEL B I' I i VICENZA sus YH"C1'flllhlCCli G<AYJI�CINFfI kHF"kl'fty'( u VICENZA NORTH ---- _.._... ....... 11 AC ZONING EXHIBIT 229119.0099370.00 ^�.,,,r �'3 I OF �NZA NORTH WNN cHzctyBn ac MIKE IvIcGOLLUM nsT=_olr ,,u 800 S IiCI FRY WAY,SI117E 18 VICENZA NORTH NOTTOEGALE --�,r��nTr. R zaaJ4as�nn rxwa�w.cpr Page 21 Item 7. F 73 November 10,2020 Zoning—Vicenza North Zone R-8 A parcel of land being located in the SE114 of Section 27,Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and being and comprising of a portion of Parcel A of the Property Line Adjustment Survey for Bridgetower Investments LLC.,filed as Record of Survey 12520, Instrument No. 2020-122911 on September 18,2020 in the office of the Ada County Recorder, and being and comprising a portion of the property described in Instrument No. 2016039550, and being more particularly described as follows: ik COMMENCING at a found aluminum cap for the southeast corner of said Section 27, (Corner Record No 20 1 6-0641 67),WHENCE a found aluminum cap for the 5114 corner of said Section 27, (Corner Record No. 2017-116131) bears North 88°56'23"West a distance of 2654.57 feet-, k THENCE coincident with the easterly line of said Section 27, North 0°21'19"East a distance of 2644.36 feet to the E114 corner of Said Section 27; p THENCE leaving said easterly line of Section 27, running with and coincident with the northerly line of said Parcel A, North 89°21'28"West a distance of 371.42 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THLNCE leaving said northerly line of Parcel A,South 0°38'49"West a distance of 178.51 feet; THENCE South 70°3'31" East a distance of 37.89 feet; THENCE South 36°43'9" East a distance of 28.72 feet to non-tangent curve; THENCE along a curve to the LEFT, having an arc length of 26.46 feet, a radius of 175.00 feet, a central angle of 08' 39'49", and a chard of South 48"56'56"West, a distance of 26.44 feet to j a point of tangency; THENCE South 44°37'2"West a distance of 46.20 feet to a tangent curve; THENCE along a curve to the LEFT, having an arc length of 129.24 feet, a radius of 170.00 feet, a central angle of 43'33'32",and a chord of South 22°50'16"West,a distance of 126.15 feet to a point of tangency; s THENCE South 1°3'30"West a distance of 642.67 feet to a tangent curve; THENCE along a curve to the RIGHT, having an arc length of 273.63 feet, a radius of 175.00 i feet, a central angle of 89'35' 19", and a chord of South 45'51'10"West, a distance of 246.60 feet to a point of tangency; 5 THENCE North 89'21'11"West a distance of 862.01 feet to a tangent curve; i THENCE along a curve to the LEFT, having an arc length of 156,77 feet, a radius of 175,00 feet, a central angle of 51° 19'43", and a chord of South 64°58'58"West, a distance of 151.58 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE South 39°19'6"West a distance of 150.37 feet to a point conterminous with the Page 22 Item 7. 174 northerly Right of Way line of N. San Vito Way and the southerly line of said Parcel A; THENCE coincident and running with said northerly Right of Way line of N. San Vito Way and the southerly line of said Parcel A, North 47'48'14"West a distance of 37.61 feet to the southwest corner of said Parcel A; THENCE coincident with the westerly line of said Parcel A the following five courses; North 23°12'30" East a distance of 136.21 feet; North 66°47'30"West a distance of 231,99 feet to a non-tangent curve; Along a curve to the LEFT, having an arc length of 58.20 feet, a radius of 225.00 feet, a central angle of 14' 49' 14", and a chord of North 0'1'10"West, a distance of 58 04 feet to a point of tangency; North 7'25'47"West a distance of 253.64 feet to a tangent curve; Along a curve to the RIGHT, having an arc length of 52.13 feet, a radius of 396.00 feet,a central angle of 07°32' 32", and a chord of North 3°39'32"West, a distance of 52.09 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE leaving said westerly line of Parcel A, North 0°6'44"Fast a distance of 350,96 feet to the southeast comer of the plat of Vicenza Subdivision No.3,filed as Book 112, Page 16373 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder, t THENCE coincident with the easterly line of saia plat of Vicenza Subdivision No. 3 and the easterly line the plat of Vicenza Lakes Subdivision,filed as Book 115, Page 17340 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder, North 0°39'22"East a distance of 429.18 feet to the northeast corner of said plat of Vicenza Lakes and the northerly line of the SE1/4 of said Section 27; THENCE coincident with said northerly line of said SE114 Section 27 and said northerly line of Parcel A, South 89°21'9"East a distance of 1552.04 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 4 The above described parcel contains 1811022.73 square feet or 41.58 acres; more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is North 88°56'23"West between the southeast corner and the 31/4 corner of said Section 27. n Robert Gromatzky, P.L.S. License No. 17216 f � a 17216 f Page 23 Item 7. 175 VICENZA NORTH R-8 ZONING 4 EXHIBIT 1 POINT OF BEGIN IN BArVBRF1)CE JTffM �SUB. �J � BAINBRIDGE SUB. NO.10 NO.& SUB. NO.R N89 2.10`W �1' 2' SM"21'09"E 1552.04' 60.38'49"W 17&51' VICENZA LAKES R-8 SUBDIVISION w 1,811,023 SQ FT S70103'31'E 37.89' N 41.58 ACRES S36.4SC9"E 28.72' C7 VICENZA SUB. CD ! CURVE TABLE � S4a37'02"W 48.26 N0, 3 CURVE # DELTA RADIUS LENGTH M. BEARING CH. DIST. g , C7 8'39'49" 175.00 2646 S48'56'56'W 26.44 I R.r CB 4333'32" 17D,00 129.24 S22'5015"W 126.15 CV O C9 89'35'19" 175.00 273.63 S45'51'10"W 246,60 z C10 5119'43' 175.00 156.77 564'58'58"W 151.58 e4 I U C11 14'49'14" 225.00 5&20 N0'D1'10"W 58.04 INST NO. 2016039550 ' PARCEL C12 7'32'32" 396.00 52.13 N3'39'32"W 52.09 Z N7'25'47'W 253.64' N66'47'30'W 231,99' PARCEL A N23'12WE 136.21' N47'48'14'W 37.61' �p N9971'11"W 062.01' m S3919'06'W 150.37' N VICENZA SUBDIVISION _ COLEMAIV f SUBDIVISION f PARCEL B € x f �1 L Is o sT�r/% � �o rOINTF COMMENCEMENT S1/4 CORNER gT. OF 0 „�L SE CORNER SECTION 27 SECTION 27 ��p ALUMINUM CAP ALUMINUM CAP CORNER RECORD NO. CORNER RECORD — — _2016-064167 NO. 2017-116131 BASIS OF BEARING N88'S6'23"W 2654.57' Sh'EE-N�IA3 ER VICENZA NORTHUe�AW1M_LNF EXHIBIT 5!:CCT INFO` v N� 1R-8 ZONING EXHIBIT 2'291?9-0093370.00 ��^� W --� 3 of 3 FN7A NORTH 2ONN MIKE McC01 LUM Lnsr�l- �ro a9osupsR�Y 2Av.sW7E 10 VICENZA NORTH NOUTO8UAL_E onre r any wwwpvscq� Page 24 Item 7. 176 r November 10, 2020 Zoning—Vicenza North Zone L-0 Y A parcel of land being located in the SE114 of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and being and comprising of a portion of Parcel A of the Property Line Adjustment Survey for Bridgetower Investments LLC., filed as Record of Survey 12520, Instrument No, 2020-122911 on September 18, 2020 in the office of the Ada County Recorder, and being and comprising a portion of N. Ten Mile Road, and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a found aluminum cap for the southeast corner of said Section 27, (Corner Record No.2016-064167), WHENCE a found aluminum cap for the S114 corner of said Section 27, (Corner Record No.2017-116131)bears North 88°56'23"West a distance of 2654.57 feet; I THENCE coincident with the easterly llne of said Section 27, North 0°21'19" East a distance of 2467.52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, { THENCE leaving said easterly line of Section 27, North 89°38'41"West a distance of 213.82 f feet to a tangent curve; 4 THENCE along a curve to the LEFT, having an arc length of 113.24 feet, a radius of 175.00 feet, a central angle of 37' 04'29", and a chord of South 71"49'5"West, a distance of 111.27 feet to a point of non-tangency; THENCE North 36°43'9"West a distance of 28,72 feet; z THENCE North 70°3'31"West a distance of 37.89 feet; THENCE North 0°38'49"East a distance of 178.51 feet to a point conterminous with the northerly line of said Parcel A; THENCE coincident and running with said northerly line of Parcel A, South 89°21'9" East a distance of 371.42 feet to a point conterminous with said easterly line of Section 27; THENCE coincident with said easterly line of Section 27, South 0°21'19"West a distance of 176.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 67940.72 square feet or 1.56 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is North 88°56'23"West between the southeast corner and the S114 corner of said Section 27. Robert Gromatzk P.L.S. S 14 License No. 17216 f 17216 0 F ' RT G RO Page 25 Item 7. F 77 VICENZA NORTH L-0 ZONING f EXHIBIT r Nf o- I � F R i r B&1iBRIDGE SUB, NO.1 O R e I_ �ssg*2111-E 371 42' in � L-0 67,941 SR FT 1.56 ACRLS ul K N70'03'31"W 37.89' POINT OF BEGINNING N36'009°W 28.72' t N89'38'41"W 213.82' W h CURVE TABLE I z CURVE# DELTA RADIUS LENGTH CH. BEARING CH. DIST, f L41yp� C13 3T04'29" 175.00 113.24 S71'49'05"W 111.27 N S T 17216 Lp��� OF GRQIJP POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 51/4 CORNER SE CORNER SECTION 27 SECTION 27 ALUMINUM CAP ALUMINUM CAP CORNER RECORD NO. BASIS OF BEARING _ 2016-064167 CORNER RECORD N88'56'23"W 2654.57 NO. 2017-116131 6H=_T NVIA9ER �NAlMNG INFO `1H,Fr INF11 VICENZA NORTH _ _..._... L-O ZONING EXH161T 229119-009070.00 °RN.'N 1 2 Of 2 ENZANORTHZONN - MIKE MCCOLLUM �L!EDIT 11luq'2o 900 S II RMW WAY,S11f1E 10 VIGENZA NORTH NOT TO SCALE aL rare pzswawxw.rlv�mW { Page 26 Item 7. 178 I 'r i F I k I� Y November 10,2020 Zoning—Vicenza North Zone C-G A parcel of land being located in the SE114 of Section 27,Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and being and comprising of a portion of Parcel A of the Property Line Adjustment Survey for Bridgetower Investments LLC.,filed as . Record of Survey 12520, Instrument No. 2020-122911 on September 18,2020 in the office of t the Ada County Recorder, and being and comprising portions of N. Ten Mile Road, N. Vicenza Way, and N. San Vito Way, and being more particularly described as follows: Y COMMENCING at a found aluminum cap for the southeast corner of said Section 27, (Corner Record No. 2016-064167), WHENCE a found aluminum cap for the S1/4 corner of said Section 27, (Corner Record No.2017-116131) bears North 88°56'23"West a distance of 2654,57 feet; i' THENCE coincident with the easterly line of said Section 27, North 0'21'19"East a distance of 1137.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; l THENCE leaving said easterly line of Section 27, running with and coincident with the southerly line of said Parcel A the following three courses; h North 89°14'27"West a distance of 668.75 feet; t North 1°17' East a distance of 112.39 feet; North 88°57'42"West a distance of 435.26 feet to a point conterminous with the easterly Right of Way of said N.Vicenza Way; THENCE South 60'29'47"West a distance of 25.02 feet to a point of non-tangent curvature; THENCE along a curve to the RIGHT, having an arc length of 108.61 feet, a radius of 281.83 feet, a central angle of 22' 04'48", and a chord of South 18°28'53" East, a distance of 107.94 feet to a point of non-tangency; THENCE running with and coincident with said southerly line of Parcel A, North 89°14'25"West a distance of 683.48 feet to the centerline of said N. San Vito Way and to a point of non-tangent curvature; THENCE coincident with said centerline of N. San Vito Way, along a curve to the RIGHT, having an arc length of 143.82 feet, a radius of 600.00 feet, a central angle of 13'44'01", and a chord of North 32'22'18" East, a distance of 143.47 feet to a point conterminous with the northerly Right of Way line of said N. San Vito Way and said southerly line of said Parcel A, also being a point of tangency; THENCE leaving said Right of Way line of said N. San Vito Way and said southerly line of said Parcel A, North 39'1916" East a distance of 150.37 feet to a tangent curve; THENCE along a curve to the RIGHT, having an arc length of 156.77 feet, a radius of 175.00 f feet, a central angle of 51° 19'43",and a chord of North 64°58'58" East,a distance of 151.58 h feet to a point of tangency; THENCE South 89'21'11"East a distance of 862.01 feet to a tangent curve; Page 27 Item 7. 179 THENCE along a curve to the LEFT, having an arc length of 273.63 feet, a radius of 175 00 feet, a central angle of 89' 35' 19", and a chord of North 45°51'10" East, a distance of 246.60 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE North 1°3'30" East a distance of 642.67 feet to a tangent curve; E THENCE along a curve to the RIGHT, having an arc length of 129.24 feet, a radius of 170.00 feet, a central angle of 43' 33'32", and a chord of North 22°50'16" East, a distance of 126.15 feet to a point of tangency; is THENCE North 44°3712"East a distance of 46.20 feet to a tangent curve, THENCE along a curve to the RIGHT, having an arc length of 139.70 feet, a radius of 175,00 feet, a central angle of 45' 44' 17", and a chord of North 67'29'11" East, a distance of 136.02 feet to a point of tangency; t f THENCE South 89'38'41" East a distance of 213.82 feet to a point conterminous with said easterly line of Section 27; r, THENCE coincident with said easterly line of Section 27, South 0°21'19"West a distance of 1329.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 890193.45 square feet or 20.44 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is North 88°56'23"West between the southeast corner and the 5114 corner of said Section 27. Robert Gromatzky, P.L.S. License No. 17216 N v I 17216 F OF ¢�r aROMP�� t is Y is C P f 1, t. C G r Page 28 Item 7. Fl-8o VICENZA NORTH C-G ZONING 4 EXHIBIT BsAI I GE SLBX0.9 U,B .6 SUB. .10 CI 11 VICENZA IMES 589 38'41"E 213.82' SUBDIVISION N44'37'02'E 48.20 NO. 3 ' VICENZA SUB. 1 CURVE TABLE CURVE # DELTA RADIUS LENGTH CH. BEARING CH. DIST, / C1 22'04'48" 281.83 108.61 S16'28'53"E 107.94 ' C2 13'44'01" 600.00 143.82 N32'22'18"E 143.47 4 C3 5119'43" 175.00 156,77 N64'58'58"E 151.58 Ld C_G l C4 89'35'19" 175,0C 273-53 N45'51'1D"E 245.60 890,193 SQ FT�N l p �a.� ACRES INST N0. 2016039554 C5 43'33'32" 17a.00 129.24 N22'50'16"E 126.15 PARCEL 3 ' C6 45'44'17° 175.00 139.70 N67'29'11"f 136,02 PARCEL A Ivor CS S89'21'11'E 862.01' N3919'06'E 150.37' — — — A S60'29'47°W 25.02' NBB 57I42'W 435.26' VICENZA N1'01'07'E 112.39' SUBDIVISION N8914'25'W 683,46' 1 N89'14'27'W 666.75' COLEMAIV SUBDIVISION POINT OF BEGINNING 1 PARCEL B i � �p,L LA�yp '— f 17216 ���/1 DINT OF COMMENCEMENT �r Rl SE CORNER SECTION 27 S1/4 CORNER q OF 1° ALUMINUM CAP SECTION 27 GROM CORNER RECORD NO. ALUMINUM CAP _ 2016-064167 CORNER RECORD�\ ,NO. 2017--116131 BASIS OF BEARING N88'56'23'W 2654.57' SNEEY Nl1FLaHR s EEr wFo VICENZA NORTH oagwNo-0 GG ZONING EXHIBIT 229��9-aosss7v.00 il�^wN W� N'V�5 3 of 3 ENZA NORTH ZONN "ECKEo �c MIKE MCCOLLU191 Boo a lli0llSTRY NAY,11M 10 VICENZA NORTH NOTTU SCALE A ATE P 20t'LE1W MWXAMl.WII Page 29 Item 7. 181 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/28/2020) and Phasing Plan(NOT APPROVED) T �s N I � � Y I I I I .�9�i _ s• — #- Q- VICINIttMAP �'F[�'�FY dI' ---- ---- III I� T 111 `1IL�S u �lY e I gg II + � J�-ill i3ii4SE c _ a x� I FTL1 I 1.1 1 1 TITL I I I LI 7, LL r L — ,r�.`-'1' 11u1L111r11L�� I � I I I I I I T- ' 4 }I carex�,r susflms,ox I f III 11 A --- --—— III "Aff a I _ w Page 30 Item 7. Fl 82 � - •r I�l •.� — ,. .............. �p �.• .a.ar.aa...a..n.s....:..aan................n..i.a.a......w.aaa.w.a. ....... — W lop- ! i L- T EEi T E T TE I T _ H-E Lj ogg" .. rr �..............:..... "_' .....,._.r.ne.........,....a...............aa....rr. IMF Y - N I �...---......••-......•-'•----:- ...... ........• I �h' .. ...-•.i..I•.................. �� * --f➢TOTIIIIIfQi — Pr ,.'rf'' III•I�III �� i. ,��...-..,x. _�.� .II I Page 31 Item 7. ■ D. Landscape Plan(dated: 12/07/2020) igeoSL .era 1 I(I _. 1•'` � FuTuR , m.� �i F111II sk�EE7" L. LEf1 ,r c 0 �^ Lis TAT RIo ETOA 1IL��� $ vicE 2 �f l -_ri 4 nRu _ -r• pgi Ir ,vlci NrTr MAP ,:— uE c�rvcCn r 7 IFL'�y]�IIL�' ctla AJ— � "1E'Ij IrOEVELOINARY PMENTFEAT FEATURES y-,j "'''��� L16 r�� rtF roch�crr�F�v.rilrm yr JWI�',i -- --- _� _ I. rI L �(< +� �{ LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS �IVL c TO 4s A s � '--",/ �__. i i i iSvU IERW0O- ��I 9� •w� - ." - 3� .h.rn -s•ars.r r- ..v.0 s.,� ��� J �E ; - �_ — ti { ,11 HEGHTS iM YJ�&E. - r�-c Frnw ecaiec rs C ti rY0OMMERCIAL - - � � rl 1 S iE RA 1 r' I J.9- e D.EGHrS _ pq -, VERALL GPnGETGWER SITE PLAN -n_f PA � 4•f0 • 8Mn 8NN6T8 LLl L1.B POH NNLABGNn ^ �.... 86S 8N6ET L2.0 PO8 LANDSCAP8 NO WAND PLANT]NG—A— o L Lo i _S LANDSCAPE LEGEND I i jPLANTSCHEUHLE ;� ....... a -,,... fi� z71 I— piii w� w IRR Wor, I I I X — — Li ovaeA— LJ� /�ALANbSGAbE'PLAN-ARE4 ONE 'il d��� r/pScn LINE 9EE Lra•� SITE PLAN <._._,._ •N�arae�nNn�PL�AiPVDizaivG ns anps- L1.1 y Page 32 Item 7. Fl 84 LANDSCAPE LEGEND %.. I I -•- � rj3�,rl� lit 1 PLANTSCHEDl1LE - TF_ -- - j1Q a �a ` I I I Ir : I s•`s � It ! x r14iCHLINE SSEeu. —._—.. AEI I __, .eaa sasax n>.o aoa oveeare LJ§..—..�_.—._—..—. i marcHLINEEE 17 I iwoscAaE PUN- EA Two •ass ssssT Lz.o sos cawnaceas- Li 2 ' xoT�,exn ece.rrDva Dw-rn:cs q _ _ LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTSCHEDULE �..•.. I - r _ .—. 1 � A IL W R - p 1] a I I J � w Jl I II 1 J II I III L %� F�..� , _ o c� � it '�•Ili .,_. oz IpI tulcrfury s e�,� .s>9D sl�Dx..,..eoa ovsaert. •-��LANDSCAPEII a ARE4 THREE �MiCHLIN SEE L 6 �! 11 F �, "�- ------ Page 33 Item 7. ■ le TCHLINE SEE LI.1 e { I I IIAWn_RE sEEua"�, " I R rx� all, 99 I, I p PLANT SCHEDULE k. ✓ z-g E HER-0 FOR OVERALL e. - RiTN PLAN ('1LAN0.9CAPE PLAN--El FbLA • - �_ _' •8EE 6RP.Rx Ls.a Fon LwNnsowPE L1 4 "" Noxes,eNn PLwnxwa nErAxce Il F-� NDs _ LA CAPE LEGEND ----� i - �.-.� -- FTCHLINE SEE rtrt 1LHLINE.SEE - � I I I I _. •j s it PLANT SCHEDULE f .H-. F K 'i i � Wpm Wp o �nnF ILLt �I L__L .LL L 1�1 - I� — -TT — —__— _I— ,Wi .__ _'� •gF8 RHRET LLO FOR OVERALL C �•� _ fOTE PLAN .s �ILANUSGPPE P AREA FIVE —__ •8R&BRREf L2.0 FUR LANIIRCAPR Page 34 Item 7. ■ LANDSCAPE LEGEND R �1- l I__. - _ LATCH N\9 EL3 'O v' I —I �� ws.xc�c.o 3Ermnko xa.a.:.•fr, �' a _ I¶O IrIATCHLINE-SEE 6 f&U PLANT SCHEDULE rA a 1` rl1-I T Id - 1 _ —_ •SET SHEEP LLO SOR OV@RALI. SITE PLAN NOBCAPE PLIJN-AREI1 SIX � I ��� '�� � — _— — •BEE agNE,.m L,3.0 ROR L l_6 NOTE&ANI PLANTING OETAILB Page 35 Item 7. F187] E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(dated: 7/30/2020)NOT APPROVED �� PROPOSE➢BAI.M1'.]R1DG6 SO➢ I I� a I I � (BY OTHERS) •• 3 5 i L-0 fy V ry A IF e _ a I d l fd I N 1, z � � 5 t _ —_ (TBD) S } Fz LU ¢ Fo Page 36 Item 7. F188] F. New Concept Plan for Development Agreement Modification(date: 11/25/2020)NOT APPROVED woa= o++ €� q 3tivaiaoa aoisinloans vza3�in •��(�F A tl ro l�n'sra3wis3nNl a3nnol3�oiae ONIMtlifO NOI1tlOIdI00114 YO d ltlld AWNIV411321d H1JON VZNDI I %'SNBRfDCB'SU8 Na?6 � N77 r i i Y Y I kZ / A, a•• I JI I � 4 3 C 3 Y� �- l t j__C7 I II 7-T I ll�I 1'L��lll�, f .�� I I f 1 cncsu�x sumDrvrsrox JIiV - � "3 �— €a uiW no���� n �+ I�I'I I L�--�J� a !'I I HA I W rC III !1 I Q z TjIj �sn it ',I{I t;lil l�d € — J.J.fI mo I , flII III ' — Page 37 Item 7. 189 G. Master Open Space Exhibit o - 4� 4 r.vnx Y. Z J y d o .se 3 _0 R"ym ¢gyp W _ U I ow - z�__on g _ _ a 8a L� Po w, O m�m� w � oo a $ zo LLl m o o a f 0 a TT Lu Of Lu ff I ���I�� o � � — — ICI,I�� �T I�L`l I`"■■r `�� I � -y r- - j 2 `-� W d 7t r i r--'i T II L : tA I� -_ i� IJ�.=I' -7 Lu z III v i n�q _J� ------ --- Ili EL LU LU f - �" a u) w Page 38 Item 7. 1 90 H. Conceptual Commercial Building Elevations Vicenza North Design Concepts Viz` Al -- N V 5 Improving in.gg Lirev J I - A: I I —_ I — 9 Neighborh000ll Commercial A2 / Ilr I dlla: 9t 6:General Commercial B " A4 T A3 y►a 'v6 � ., RS October2020 Page 39 Item 7. 991 1 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Development Agreement Modification: 1. Within six(6)months of the City Council granting the subject modification,the owner shall sign and obtain Council approval of the amended development agreement that includes an updated development plan as shown in Section VII.C; the amended DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual building elevations,preliminary plat,phasing plan,landscape plan, and qualified open space exhibits included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein with the following revisions: i. N. Gondola Street shall be constructed further west and deeper into the site,generally located where the local street N. Calcutta Avenue is currently shown; ii. Connect the easternmost stub street along the property's northern boundary from Bainbridge Subdivision directly to Gondola Street that meets ACHD offset requirements; iii. Expand the commercial area east of Gondola Street—this area shall be zoned either L-O or C-C; iv. The existing R-15 property and the existing concept plan for this area depicting assisted living and ancillary medical uses shall remain as part of the new concept plan. b. The 3.6 acre area of commercial in the southwest corner of the N. Gondola Street and N. Vicenza Way intersection(proposed to retain the C-C zoning district designation) shall be constructed no later than with phase 2 of the proposed residential development. c. To increase placemaking throughout the site,the Applicant shall construct at least two (2) additional pedestrian focused and shared plazas within the commercial area adjacent to Ten Mile Road,preferably across from where the residential micro-paths connect to the multi-use pathway along N. Gondola Street. d. The Applicant shall construct the 10-foot multi-use pathway and extend the required collector street(shown as N. Gondola Street)with the first phase of development. e. No building permits shall be issued for this development until the property has been subdivided. Preliminary Plat: 2. At least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall submit revised zoning exhibits and legal descriptions to reflect the inclusion of the C-C zoning area that is to remain and reflect Staffs recommended layout changes. 3. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the preliminary plat included in Section VII.C, shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the plat to show the recommended revisions outlined above and adjust any calculations or phasing as appropriate with these revisions. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D shall be revised as follows: a. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,revise the plans to reflect Staff's recommended changes above. Page 40 Item 7. N b. At the time of each Final Plat submittal, show the correct amount of vegetative ground cover per UDC 11-3B-5 standards. c. Show the full 20-foot wide collector street buffer along N. Gondola Street adjacent to all commercial zoning per UDC Table 11-2B-3 and landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7. d. Show the required 25-foot landscape buffer adjacent to the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7. e. At the time of each Final Plat submittal, show an additional qualifying site amenity within this subdivision or the shared park to meet UDC 11-3G-3 standards. 5. The Applicant shall submit a revised open space exhibit at least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing that reflects the most up to date preliminary plat and any staff recommended revisions for the project area. 6. The Applicant shall construct the required multi-use pathway within this development as a concrete pathway,per ACHD requirements to count as a pedestrian facility adjacent to a public roadway. 7. The Applicant shall provide conceptual elevations for the proposed detached single-family dwellings at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing. 8. All existing structures on this site are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat for the phase in which they are located. 9. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 10. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7,UDC Table 11-2B-3. 11. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 13. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance approvals for the future commercial buildings prior to submittal for any building permits for the commercial portion of the development. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). By entering into a development agreement with the City of Meridian,the applicant agrees to use the City of Meridians recycled water supply as the primary Page 41 Item 7. F193 source of irrigation water for the commercial lots. Further,the applicant agrees to provide for secondary backup water to provide service when recycled water is not available. Once development plans have been submitted to the city for review,the city will model the recycled water system and make a final determination regarding our ability to supply reclaimed water to the development. If the city can serve the development with recycled water,then recycled water must be utilized as the primary source of irrigation water for the commercial lots,and a secondary or backup source must also be provided. If the city can't serve the development then the primary source of irrigation water should come from surface water irrigation sources if available. 1.2 The applicant shall be responsible to construct the recycled irrigation system in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)recycled water rules and regulations,and Division 1200 of the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications and Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction. These requirements do not wave the applicants responsibilities or obligations to irrigation districts that may be able to provide surface water to the development. 1.3 Slope between sanitary sewer manhole"Const. G 1"and"Const. F7"needs to be 5%or less. 1.4 All water mains within this development were modeled as 8". Coordinate with Public Works Engineering if a larger pipe size is needed for the proposed uses. 1.5 The water main connection to the west subdivision via the common path is not needed and should be eliminated. There is plenty of water connectivity in the area. 1.6 Meridian Public Works has modeled each phase per the preliminary plat submitted. Currently each phase meets minimum flow requirements,but each phase will need to be re-modeled at Final Plat application to confirm minimum flow requirements are met. 1.7 Applicant shall be required to submit up to date geotechnical information and recommendations for the project site with the final plat application. The report from SITE Consulting,LLC that was submitted with this application is dated December 14,2010, and it indicates that groundwater monitoring efforts have taken place on the subject property previosly. The SITE report in part also states that groundwater was encountered between 2.0 and 6.6 feet below ground surface. Groundwater is typically shallower on the west end and east ends of the property,and deeper in the middle,halfway between Black Cat and Ten Mile Roads. The report also states that groundwater can be expected to rise and fall with changes in the irrigation season. The design engineer and developer should consult heavily with the geotechnical engineer to ensure that homes can be constructed free from intrusion of groundwater. The developer/builder should consider slab on grade construction methods. 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 Page 42 Item 7. F194 rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 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. Page 43 Item 7. Fl-951 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 I-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.or,g/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=217941&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218114&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217743&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=217403&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX Page 44 Item 7. ■ G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDoeView.aspx?id=217145&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=217369&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218395&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218002&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218955&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) 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 Applicant's proposal to rezone and develop the subject 63+/- acre property with residential and commercial uses is consistent with the associated MU-C FL UM designation for the property and applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as noted above in Section V.B with Staffs recommended revisions to include more commercial and less residential by revising the concept plan and revise the location of the collector street to be further west within the project. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential and commercial districts in that it will provide for differing residential lot sizes in the area and keep neighborhood serving commercial sites consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed uses should be compatible with adjacent existing residential properties to the west, north and east and commercial properties to the south. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Area schools are currently under capacity but this may change if boundaries are adjusted. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the City. Page 45 Item 7. 197 B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions and conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City s CIR 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. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 46 Applicant Presentation Vicenza North Planning & Zoning Hearing January 21 , 2021 Vicenza North Project Details ■ 11 llln "1", 11 Arm 6 n11 — ■I MINES -� 1 - I 111 111 1 i1Nil • ■k■ni ■ Ca R■FII �p R o = r Von 1■111 Original Annexation and Zoning - 2005 a �1 ISM �■ 11 � • 312.67 acres total acres a 11 ■ 1 i -� ■1 Ini ' _- 44. 23 acres non-residential '•�y1 II z g • �yRM 1ti11 C 1 1!I!I!1 11 � -III Project Boundary in 2005 Annexation Non-residential zoning GINEERING MW rF ism i �DWTIONS 7i �l 0 RezoningZ' - 2008 - Rezone & DA Modification Comparison from original 2005 zoning and 2008 zoning modification. _7 7 1 This request converted 93.64 acres of residential to an additional 73.64 acres - T111I1l of non-residential and 20 acres to R-15. c +Mrll� y 1 � rrr rr rar — Original Annexation and Rezone Request — 2008 37.84 acres C-C zone ZoningRequest - 2005 312.E acres total acres 25.10 acres C-G zone � 10.7 acres L-O zone ' - SUBDIVISION 44. 23 acres non-residential 20.0 acres R-15 ��` E j NO 0 VERONANO N-ICENZA 1013 Z 1 -- C-C I.W.. ----i R-8 No 01- --- ---, ;VERONA, • • • • • • I • • I � i; i_N003 i -- V7CENZA �VERONA C'OLEOI�N i • • • • . R-� C G No oa • ;VERONANO�_ - •'; j I oa:� I 1 • I • • • • • • , HEIGIfTS NO 02 -- -- -- -- -BRIDGETOFVER CROSSING NO 07 QL tU.�CONDO VOLTE --- ' ROd 1 HEIGHT• • • • I I I • ,-VOLTE i L-0 �-HEI- -------- BRIDGETO' NO 03 R R CROSSLN DR AN BRIDGE NOO; i i • . • • • • • • BRCDGTONNIE ROSSLNG VOLTERRA SUBDIVISION GINEERING l[N LOCATE❑IN SECTIONS 27 d U.TAN.R 1 W,6.M MERMIAN.ADA COUN F-Y.I DAHO OLU TIONS yv+r,+Nr, VICINITY MAP �a -: ,::.,..Ll NO i ' Project History A41-1 L�O • Rezone & DA Modification — 2008 ' 7V6 o3 • Conceptual Site Plan and Zoning Designations developed ■ Proposed uses were envisioned to compliment the hospital that was planning to locate on the property C—C ■ C-C Zoning Meridian-based businesses as well businesses that are not local will be able to expand and/or relocate their businesses here.This location will be appropriate for medical,technical,governmental and educational uses.Naturally,this area will be developed with uses listed in the Uniform Development Code;such as entertainment or recreation facilities, educational institutions,financial institutions,flex-space, healthcare,social services,hospitals,high-tech facilities, personal services and professional services. ■ L-O Zoning The L-0 area will be used for office uses which may include dentists,orthodontists,chiropractors,emergency care providers,doctors and other private medical providers.This site will likely be used for personal and professional services, in addition to other uses listed in the Uniform Development Code for this zoning classification. COLEMAN R • R-15 Zoning w of 5 As shown on the concept plan,the area to be zoned R-15 is envisioned to be used as a senior/assisted living facility and/or a skilled nursing facility.City ordinance encourages the development of multi-family C G residential uses for projects with the potential to serve as employment centers.The proposed R-15 residential area will help meet the CitVs objectives.This area also acts as a transitional use for the proposed residential areas to the west and will be developed with uses listed in the CitVs Uniform . Development Code. AW Any US 'NOI ■ Hospital deal fell through • Project History - 2010 - InI 2010 Partial Sale of the Property to Walmart Elul ni MEN i ��` ' poi. v ■ o �: a■ a■ � Two years after the rezone the and hospital dealM,low - u ■ MEN falling through, the previous owner sold a portion ■ """ of the site Illlr g ` �� rma • 21 .52 acres in the northwest corner of Ten Mile o; and McMillan Road were sold to Walmart Non-residential 0 zoning from 2005 �� r ■ , �� �.w■ii iA Remaining non-residential zoning from 2008 Zone change to R-15 in 2008 Property sold to Walmart 2010 F F i ♦ ■ eAnaRFDr.v __ Project History - 2011 VO�b to Present ;OMPTO�4 nHR) .F Half RIM eons 0 vani io,ti R-8 Y R-40 _ HAG1Ba1M E BA 1. nG F CO\ l.Tla�. 0: PIAl. �/►/ '�O 11 •F r ,ia3.tiHAWG.E i�{)M FA115 V Property purchased by Bridgetower Investments in 2011. Q 8a1�f043 EAU �J _ RID F U •Alh77UDGC '�Ri7�� The owner kept that land commercial because he builds commercial space. He prefers commercial. From i until now _ !Q [Fla 7C[ETA Y IlCaFFh f�TCEvlA [!' � W L there has been essentially n• demand from • - • ■ There has AMP "-----� C'OIIEl00�1► � 4L�� � . �'_l been absolutely n• demand from well-paying ''�aHA�� ___� tLaCKui '� � .� EROW: �• ■ ti0ll employmentjobs. I j [9TATE5 i - r� R-15 H10.2 �'�� � I I r•FRav��`•J 1I Pr While there has been interest in the R-1 5 zoning designation piece of the project for multi-family, no senior housing or assisted living C-G I. "FROv.a�o �� S�n�'=�, �BRIDGFTi�NFR akCRFFK developers hav- expressed - - site !O n l ;I i R058NG�O nT IE • �093_�; H[IGHTS 1 O 2019 D a Modification — supersedesother D as; zoningdesignations remained, all other details for each zone were �LTf RR � � _ BRFDGFTOM stricken tRAt�Ht1OG[ �O.La �tGr1+O�N[I Widening of Road and Ten Mile Road ROW .• Pia been dedicated so ACHID has the abilityto widen the road further1501A • put • •• • • R•.• Applicant• previously 100� widened • - • - • ••- • .•- and • 1`BRIIK. 9H.umma spot'$REDGE R41P4RK E .. Ix��/ ti0il 11�DG� JJJ� 111 r ,/.W.IDRIA�x I N0 09 . FAI.1 - - R41 a 1 4i rxr� j {- ,n C tin Nr101 � ncy. l_ I F J • , RAI\BRIDGE. 1 _ L7FtiF �7CE�iIA 41Ai ` 111�� i ►'EAa!Li 4 /: VI A '1C"F 17A • • i • K i FICTtiZA FY r--- i fOtr1►14ti5 �. tahmms - SLA CCCAT '� a j Fs TATU �nr3 col.rMAN RACKUT I R-t� I� tiona t$TAM 1 C-G I I �. --- � nsrc 'aM1an_�7 'rRloGrrnwt y _ gc'�ni rn�no I t �Y1I TE RR Q a I 11 III. I 1 I I I A: B: General Commercial Neighborhood - -• -• • • • •- Commercial - _-_ Item 8. L198 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved. B. A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the M-F zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. C. A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. Item 8. 199 1 (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 21, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved. B. A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the WE zoning district to the R- 15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. C. A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 8. ■ STAFF REPORT WE I COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING January 21,2021 Legend %9M 0 DATE: Project Location m TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0111 Aviator Subdivision h LOCATION: The site is located near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., directly north of Compass '----- Public Charter School,in the SW '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 10,Township 3N., Range 1 W. VV I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted requests for the following: • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved; • Rezone a total of 9.8 acres of land from the M-E zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment; and • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2018-079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan,by the Land Group, Inc. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 9.8 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Employment—Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single-Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) No plat is being requested at this time Physical Features(waterways, Purdam Gulch Drain runs diagonal through site from the hazards,flood plain,hillside) southeast corner to the northwest corner.Applicant intends to tile a majority of this drain and realign it to make better Page 1 Item 8. F201] Description Details Page utilization of the property and green space with future plat application. Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 13,2020,on-site meeting—3 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2018-0048(Compass Charter School AZ,CPAM;DA Inst.#2018-079763). 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 future extension of W.Aviator Street, Hwy/Local)(Existing and designated as a towncenter collector street on the Master Proposed) Street Map(MSM)and within the TMISAP(two lanes of travel with on-street bike lanes). There is no plat proposed with this application but there will be local street connections off of the Aviator extension. Traffic Level of Service Black Cat Road—Better than"B"(446/575 VPH) W.Aviator Street—no known traffic counts at this time. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to extend W.Aviator Street and bring Access it through the subject site and stub it to the eastern property boundary north of the irrigation district pump station in the southeast corner of the site upon future submittal of a preliminary plat. Existing Road Network W.Aviator ends in a temporary turnaround approximately 200 feet along the property's southern boundary.Next closest street is N.Black Cat Road,an arterial,and is in the ACHD CIP for widening in 2031-2035. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not proposing any road improvements at this time.When a preliminary plat is requested in the future,the applicant will be required to extend W.Aviator Street and stub it to their east property boundary. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Fuller Park(21.96 acres)— 1.3 miles by foot;approximately size) 1.7 miles by vehicle. Fire Service Comments Because no plat is being proposed,MFD did not offer any comments at this time.In general,project will be limited to no more than 30 homes off of singular access unless all homes are s rinklered. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 5 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4 '/2 minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 12/1/2019- 11/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,209 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. The crime count on the calls for service was 111. See attached documents for details. Between 12/1/2019- 11/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 35 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. • Additional Concerns None Page 2 wBig ■■■'� ■o:-■■1111111 nun • �� '-,„ f,3',F- rno - v1 IIIII=_ --� • �' ,,. --- Y_' 1- ` I I �•IIIII==_e=°°° � - r IIn\�\�II�Clllt lli111111111111111 I L -`� - _. I -' �Z' ■1 I � � fRANKLI�N I� - 1 � �FRANKLIN ■111 __ 11 - l f. 1111,� I11"IG Ito • • - �1111111 1111111__� 01�1 - .p;� � nos ;�; 4q - �:•1»� _ I ' 1 ' •! 1 I I 1 ■ -- R~ •���� •i' fir' ��Illlp� -•" �i:� �:'� IIIII RIIIIIIII � " ^• em''■ ly'1�■■■■■■■■■i-��-pI1n1 111 n■1■111n111 1II1nl llllllul I��i4�'= ', U9�UCJ • • 1l1l1u11�■�.�111/'- _' • 1■11■■11 11111111■I►�%ile= _��� � w� ■■ ■��v1•nnlm ' Ilnu"'� v1•nlTllnl,pn Innuli s•Imll IIIIIII ■ IIIII='- __--}I III 'I - --�i ■ IIIII ee.�---■� 711111 -r IIIIr „ 'I� ♦,IIIII==�•--- IIIII r•�� ■■ .IIIII=-., -7N11111 � Innl.____99�='.nmum■ \•�' ■,r =: :..IIIII"'+ L■n\\�II�CIII�IIIIIIInlnnllnnln �Ii~� 1 R►�\\u=Cl1�mm�nmm�nnm nmu�I I�, I"IIIIIII, '�, n■ r nun -- Illln ".e. Ilnll nn■IId11n111111111111 ■ IIIII jjjj, ..IIIII tl..IIIII IIIII nnm nnm rr■■� =nmm nnl== ill 11 Item 8. F203] IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification l/l/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 12/29/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/11/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 12/29/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT(CPAM) The Applicant is requesting to modify the comprehensive plan map for the subject parcel in order to allow for residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other industrial uses. The current future land use is Mixed Employment which encourage research and development, office, light- industrial,information, and other ancillary commercial uses. Instead,the applicant is requesting to return the property to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR). This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. 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 subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School application and received CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from medium- high density residential to mixed employment. The 2018 request and subsequent approval to change the future land use from residential to more of a commercial or industrial land use was so the new school could be constructed and an adjacent county landscaping business could be annexed into the City and still comply with code. Currently,these mixed employment parcels are the outliers in an area surrounded by parcels designated for medium-high and high density residential. At the time, it was determined that the map change was applicable because the subject parcel was conceptually shown with a sports field,track, and stadium and was the school's avenue for annexation into the City of Meridian in 2018. However,in 2020, Compass Charter received approval to modify their concept plan and Development Agreement to move their sports field to a more adjacent parcel to the new school. Therefore,this 9.8 acre parcel is no longer part of the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold to its current owners. In addition to the outcomes of the subject parcel,directly west of this site Hensley Station is currently under construction as a medium-high density residential subdivision and less than a half mile to the east of the subject site additional high-density residential projects are currently underway. In addition, directly south of Franklin Road is a larger area of the Ten Mile Plan with a mix of residential, commercial, employment,and industrial zoning. If this parcel is to remain with its current zoning and future land use, Staff believes it would essentially be a random area of commercial zoning and would be very difficult to properly mitigate any noxious uses from occurring. Because the Applicant is proposing to return the parcel back to its original future land use designation and become a more compatible land use to its neighbors, Staff supports the requested map amendment. Page 4 Item 8. F204] B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) The subject parcel is still subject to the existing Development Agreement and concept plan from the Compass Charter School annexation(Inst. #2018-079763)that shows this site containing the football field,track, and stadium for Compass Charter. As noted,the school is no longer going forward with this plan and received other approvals from the City to annex an adjacent parcel and construct a play field on it instead. Therefore,in conjunction with the CPAM to change the future land use from mixed employment to residential,this DA Modification request is for the purpose of removing this parcel from that agreement to enter into a new agreement consistent with the proposed residential concept plan(see Section VII. The proposed concept plan includes the required extension of W. Aviator Street along its southern boundary and then its eventual stub to the east property line within the property. Further analysis of this extension is below in the Rezone analysis. In addition,the concept plan shows single-family attached homes that are a mix of alley-loaded and front loaded homes; a large number of the homes are proposed to have front porches facing green space within the development and along the buffer to W. Aviator. The applicant is showing a local street that loops through the site and connects to Aviator near the southwest and southeast corners of the property allowing for an easy flow of traffic through the site. If the Applicant does not receive the requested map amendment approval,this concept plan,requested R-15 zoning, and conceptual residential use would become null and void. Because the development plan for this site has completely changed from the school site development previously approved and the terms of the agreement are therefore no longer applicable, Staff is amenable to the request for a new DA to replace the existing agreement based on the proposed concept plan;the provisions for the new DA are included in Section VIII.A.1 and the concept plan for the overall site is included in Section VII.D. REZONE(RZ) Lastly,the Applicant is requesting a Rezone of the 9.8 acre parcel, currently zoned Mixed Employment (M-E). This request hinges on the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Mixed Employment to Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR). If the map amendment is approved,the Applicant is requesting to rezone this property to the R-15 zoning district to allow for a future single- family residential development—no preliminary plat application is being proposed at this time because development of the property as residential hinges solely on receiving the map amendment approval. As discussed in the CPAM analysis section above, Staff is supportive of a residential development at this location. This property also lies within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and the Applicant has revised the concept plan numerous times in order to better meet the guidelines and preferences of the Ten Mile Plan. Specifically, the Applicant's concept plan depicts a mix of homes that will be alley-loaded or rear-loaded with the dwellings fronting on green space and homes that are more garage dominant. However, even the garage dominant units are proposed to meet the Ten Mile Plan by bringing the building closer to the street to establish a more uniform street presence and support a pedestrian environment as seen in the conceptual elevations and floor plans in Section VILE. Specific guidelines and policies within the Ten Mile Plan and the general Comprehensive Plan will be analyzed with a future preliminary plat. However, because the Applicant is not concurrently applying for a preliminary plat, these conceptual elevations,floor plans, and site plan will be made part of the Development Agreement to ensure substantial compliance with what is currently being proposed. Furthermore, Staff believes the proposed elevations are more in line with the Ten Mile Plan than previous iterations. Staff anticipates some tweaks to the site plan but nothing substantial-if the site plan changes substantially, a new DA Modification application will be required. Page 5 Item 8. F 05 Transportation: Concept plans within Development Agreements are heavily driven by road layouts and the transportation element of society. Therefore, it is important to discuss access for this project in a separate section within this staff report regardless of the fact no preliminary plat is currently being proposed. Access is proposed via extension of a collector street(W.Aviator Street)and a subsequent local street off of said collector. W. Aviator currently provides one of the accesses to the Compass Charter School and will provide access to Hensley Station Subdivision, directly west of the subject site. Due to the pattern of development,Aviator will only be extended to the east boundary of the subject site and not connect to any other major road until such time that more parcels develop to the south and east of the subject site. This is one more reason why the Applicant is not choosing to submit a preliminary plat at this time. Because of this, it is imperative that the conceptual layout of Aviator is well thought out and shown in a position that allows for fair and convenient extension in the future. The original concept plan submitted by the Applicant depicts Aviator continuing on its current path and heading due east through two parcels that are not currently annexed into the city and terminating at the western boundary of an irrigation parcel with unknown owners (a parcel containing a segment of the Purdam Gulch Drain). Both City Staff and ACHD believe this conceptual configuration for Aviator would be both costly and very difficult to execute because it would have to cross the drain in more than one location and there is no guarantee those permits would be allowed by its administrator. Staff shared these concerns with the Applicant and they revised the concept plan to show a more appropriate extension of Aviator. Staff is appreciative of the Applicant's ability to work with Staff and revise the layout for the above reasons. The revised concept plans (Section VII.D) now show Aviator heading northeast into the parcel from its terminus in front of the Compass Charter expansion, crossing the drain once, and then stubbing to the east property line north of the irrigation pump station in the southeast corner of the subject site. This new configuration allows for future extension of Aviator to occur without a need to cross the drain again and not require this Applicant to acquire land from the two county parcels to its south. This new layout generally depicts the same internal layout with some shifting of the site to the east to accommodate easements. In addition, the revised concept plan appears to lose much of its central green space but has more green space in other areas of the site. If possible, with future development applications, the Applicant should work to utilize more of the site to provide more central open space. The revised road layout and land area lost to right-of-way may lend itself to a mix of single family and multi family to help the property reach the density range for MHDR. Staff believes tying the DA to this revised concept plan is applicable but all parties should be aware that any significant changes will require a future DA Modification application. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment,modification to the existing Development Agreement, and Rezone per the provisions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. Page 6 Item 8. F206] VII. EXHIBITS A. Conceptual Development Plan Included in Existing Development Agreement ni fF1 L 7 [ 1* I i C-103Q Page 7 Item 8. F207] B. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map �, �� LEGAL DESCRIPTION =. •••A} THE ■s Page 1 OF 1 LAND GROUP November 10,2020 Project No.:120D35 R/Z EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN REZONE FROM M-E TO R-15 DESCRIPTION An area of land situate in Southwest Quarter of Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 10[from which the Southwest Corner of said Section 10 bears South 00"38'57"West,2653.05 feet distant];Thence on the west section line of said Section 10,South OD°38'57"West,1565.22 feet;Thence leaving said west section line,South 89'15'44" East,25.00 feet to a point common with the easterly right of way line of North Black Cat Road and the northerly right of way line of West Aviator Street;Thence on said northerly right of way line,South 89"1544"East,470.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence leaving said northerly right of way line,North OD'36'41"East,626.77 feet to a point on the centerline of the 200 foot right of way of the Union Pacific Railroad; Thence on said centerline right of way line,South 88'25'50"East,824.18 feet; Thence leaving said centerline right of way line,South 00"36'4 1"West,614.80 feet; Thence North 89'15'44"West,101.63 feet; Thence North 00'44'16"East,46.00 feet; Thence North 89'15'44"West,32.00 feet; Thence South 00'44'16"West,46.00 feet; Thence North 89'15'44"West,484.59 feet to a point common with the northerly and easterly right of way line of West Aviator Street; Thence on said easterly right of way line,South 00'36'4 1"West,27.50 feet to the centerline of said West Aviator Street; Thence on said centerline of West Aviator Street,North 89'15'44"West,205.91 feet; Thence leaving said centerline,North 00'44'16"East,27.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described area of land contains 11.84 acres,more or less. PREPARED BY: ",pl.LAJy The Land Group,Inc. WH O��GENSE G� Michael Femenia,PLS a 13 ❑ �6 '5 T OF\DA ARL S. 402 East Shore Drive.Suile 100,Eagle,Idaho 83616 208-939.4041 ihelandgrouplm-rom Page 8 Item 8. F 08 CL. W1/4 COR. ccr SEC.10 x4� R/W- R/W R/VJ --R/W- R/W -R/W o UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIC,HT-OF-WAY 1 S88°25'50"E 824. 8� nni- PN88°25'50"W 495.26V — - - - - -- - i Line Table �yAL LA N APN31210325951 I \C N � w COMPASS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL INC W G N BLACK CAT RD `r LINE BEARING LENGTH o 9.85 Acres± n r, 5 02� °� L1 N89°15'44"W 101.63' 0 REZONE AREA:17.84 Acres± �I L2 N00°44'16'E 46.00' 1�L c.r FROM:M-E S. I L3 N89°15'44"W 32.00' TO:R-15 q `t2 L4 S00°44'16"W 46.00' O �cm o S89°15'44"E 25.00' POB L3� 'i L5 S00°36'41"W 27.50' ` = N R89v15'44"E 470.54'R /// L7 N89°15'44"W_484.59' L1 m �W. AVIATOR STREET ; LS 1 L6 N89°15'44"W 205.91' R/W 32.00' L7 N00°44'16"E 27.50' Rezone = r for cc Compass Public w ��SW COR. "� F, SE0.16 Charter School, Inc. W A Situate in a Portion of the SW 114 of Section 10 .� 5 Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian W R m City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho ram+ N RIZ Exhbit 2020 0 200' 400' i� cc 4 ``\ Horizontal Scale-1 =200' Pmleci No.:120035 1 of 1 Date of Issuance:Number 10,2020 Page 9 Item 8. C. New Concept Plan(date: 8/03/2020)NOT APPROVED -rLAN' THE GRODUP IU 111W-11WAY Ff) -T T T7- T-1-7T- L -1717t j IF -4iu L[Lt-.a Pmpmy 0-- —'aIENTA—MCRCW�uc CM—i f.gi.—,L..d—p.A.hit.d,Planner -LTi- T THE LAND 3—P NC Call_T rAj__.IPMM(_F_ �V" i%LL J—L LLL�-i al I--'T _T, ........... CONTAOT 11.1.- A -- OMPO IRSCHOOL JN CONCEPT SITE PI iL :1 C6.00 Page 10 Item 8. D. Revised Concept Plan and Revised Road Layout(dated: 1/13/202 1) MTHE LIFIA11 Proles Summary: GROUP --77T -FT-M-77TITT T 41 Z..Irg RSq.lre..Pk- 'j �j trTT-1 Ll IT, Ropirty O-mr: I xEPT M—S UP FIA�S I L P 4bD E3 So SL le. SS S Engirmar,Landscape Ar.hfiart,Plaamm: T CD�HE LAPT GPOU— STFf I �P 4 M-11 I'?,=LH: Ca I, � L�'?7 00—W—T—SPLA—ES COI ESUTVfYQXj 1—ID"S'E 1H 11,"1 7 I�b�p� , ',�OMPASS F—F I L c �RTEK SCHOOL I Ll H JU C.CE"SIR Pw CONCEPT SITE PLAN C6.00 Page 11 Item 8. F 11 � � ' THE THE GROUP V.P,RR.PoGHT-0E-WAY 6 PLAN LEGEND: l,: AVIATGR SG GIVISIGN PA 11E01VA1-HIGH 0fN91TY RESIDE910ENTIAL �� •++„�-� RRAC AVIATG—TIGHT RGLLECTOTING —, ROAO L1A991FILATION'.COLLECTOR AVIATOR SUBDIVISION PARCEL wEET nvInTOR srREETxw+ - APPR0XIr1AlE f-RE ALIGNMEW •£I I� RDAO GASSIFIGATIGN',GGLLELTGR i•� - �MnNraAT PLINTnn � 3ytERS1 EFERj�E.pIF�� Pro er Owner: � p CI RT rtVfATVR STREET-FO veestlnerrtmuattas caoua.LLc y i'J SEID-2sr tYN O J o J �F { En sneer Landsna a Archdeci Planner: (— _ 1 9 P a0NT4-NRIM4IAONNLLmIAnNERJ C.fe _I mz LONT.L COI JIPA E'URN.MS FL.'IAX]9L.GEAR HI]FLf' a 4i TY 1E100L9' NC StIR IFYOA _ - } iPGLL, DID 611 •„„ 5 f 41 BOWERY PARCEL ICI ROXM PARCEL qqq� d1k a ,¢OMPASS TER SCHOOL �. 11 —_ _— II IT — I LL I,, caacErlrnleu:' CONCEPT SITE PLAN C6.00 Page 12 Item 8. 212 E. Conceptual Building Elevations and Floor Plan r r .y t rf, i J� II OA AG DRIVGWAY STREET SIDE STREET SIDE Conceptual Neighborhood Housing Type Pion Page 13 Item 8. F 13 - �rt Pit UNIT I L�N EAST ELE VLTICN Conceptual Neighborhood Housing Type Elevation VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Development Agreement Modification: — Page 14 Item 8. E 1. The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. #2018-079763)upon the property owner(s)entering into a new agreement. The new DA shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the City within six(6)months of City Council granting the approval of the rezone. The new DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual road layout, and conceptual elevations and floor plan exhibits included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. c. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the neighborhood design elements outlined in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) and the guidelines for the Medium-High Density Residential future land use designation within the TMISAP. d. Future residential development shall be constructed within a gross density range of 8-12 dwelling units per acre. e. The Applicant shall construct W. Aviator substantially consistent with the configuration shown on the Revised Road Layout(Exhibit VII.D). f. No building permits shall be issued for this development until the property has been subdivided. g. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing, The Applicant shall submit revised Rezone legal descriptions that include the NMID pump station parcel that was illegally split from this parcel in the past. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 No proposed changes to public sewer and water Infrastructure have been presented within this record. Any changes or modifications,to the Public Sewer Infrastructure, shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. C. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinklDoc View.aspx?id=218962&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity&cr =1 D. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218983&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianQ E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219210&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX Page 15 Item 8. F215] IX. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment(UDC 11-511-71)) 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 amendment to the comprehensive plan,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the proposed map amendment is consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan as discussed in Section V. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. As outlined in Section V, Staff finds the proposed map amendment is an improved guide to future growth for the subject property. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals,objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that due to the adjacent development and order of development, the proposed map amendment will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. No development is proposed with this application but Staff f nds the proposed use of residential is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Staff finds the map amendment makes the subject property more compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Because the Applicant will provide public utility extensions at their own cost with future development applications, Staff finds the proposed map amendment will not burden any service capabilities. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Staff finds the proposed map amendment allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated or unanticipated impacts associated with future development of the site. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. As outlined in Section V, Staff finds the proposed map amendment is in the best interest of the City. B. 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: Page 16 Item 8. F216] 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's proposal to rezone the 9.8 acre property to the R-15 zoning district is consistent with the requestedfuture land use designation ofMedium-High Density Residential as noted above in Section V.B with Staffs recommended provisions. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment and concept plan comply with the purpose statement of the residential district in a conceptual nature as no specific development is currently proposed. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed use should be compatible with adjacent existing residential properties to the west and the school property to the south. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the City. Page 17 • Avato i r • • • Subdivision Meridian Planning & Zoning Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Development Agreement Modification January 21 , 2021 ' T H E t 'i iW LAND GROUP Chaparral Fuller Park Vicinity Map j - - PROJECT i S ITE M I rraphss {{ Ton Mile . 1 is rt 14. st - Ch ristlan Church T tii!LT �' THE �- fi LAND �_ GROUP SuNe�.� ROW ct Property RDti�� UI 0"MAE ONE W HDR, CI,1C ■E ua u�aalaaaEraa 'r,n•- MU I Ivm•. F..Fr. I E 1 I[y- ME �sy T 71DR CI'd1� Ir11JC M C HCF ��fI�YYI^NY - 1Cu"Hh r :C_I• —NbR MHDR MUC HD" IHID I MDRY' M i *HDR LE E RAF h: I-D R 6HDR �■ ME 1 _ A _ • •,A••ar+;•A�;A���4 MUR HEr MDR MHDF d AA U MHC , M1dLli_ PIP!, HDE kL HDE At HUE (.._ Legend -----.''•r.._ Land Use Transportation -Mixed Use Commercial(MUC) Functional Classefiealtion ME Mixed Use Residential(MUR) Arterial G _I_itestyle Center(LC) Potential Arterial Extension Law Density Residential(LDR) Collector S I.1:ICF // M1nHf.F MI i� Medium Density Residential(MDR) uaaii Potential Collector Extension Medium Hign Density Residential(M HDR) Limited Access Pvk O High Density Residential(HDR) Potential Slip Ramp�Low DensttyEmployment(LDE) __— Local iij l � �• � 'I.HD� -High Density Employment(HIDE) —Existing Local mror Mixed EmplDylYlent(ME) Q Roundabout -IndustrIal(IND) 17 r E Green Space and Parward(PARK) Civic(CIVIC) OR -Gasline Easement(GAS) 650 1.300 2,6OD. 3,9 52 ~ I II Subject Property IE�� i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � � r Franklin Rd _ I milk �i-- Future Land Uses ■ --- Citywide Ten Mile Specific Low Density Residential Civic Low Density Employment Medium Density Residential Old Town Nigh Density Employment Mad-High Density Residential Mixed Use Neighhonccod Mixed Employment High Density Residential Mixed Use Ccmmunily Mlxed Use Residential . - Commercial Mixed Use Regional Mixed Use Commercial - ice Mixed Use Non-Residential - Industrial Mixed Use-Interchange `. , Rezone `� � • � ���■�■■�■� ���li�l����►ii� Niglio NOW opt 46 all - - ■ �11 �Ifl �1�111111� ■ �i : 11111 =' �� �� �� �11 ' �►/ 111111 - �� � 111�►�\II��I11�11111111111111fff11ff111 R- 15 • - ■ Sol ■ Illlllrf .. - ;.1111111111111�� 11111111111 - , � r% it R LAND Existing Zoning GROUP l4 i I i o� r77T7TTTTTTT7TL7 -- I — . LLL�j _ - 39 TV, my M I "Mr I +F 4 JIIf+II +II 1 I I I �- - - .. A1EWrY SPACE patll — i mmrvgPXE J �\ o~ 1 tlrlq- - - = - e• GNP fJF41 9 GI7 :IPA C1Rl � 7 86—` Str RI} 110—Sp is lY TA'.1.1L1R ST i 1I c 1 2 Ell y OMPASS iER SCHOOL --J [y I I 0 Tr. _t 1 TT-TTTl-T7-1 1 IoIi I JrI �I II I I 1 I I j l µMY \ I ITTAijA 11 ' • � � �� # � I I I I 1 $ i I I I IT19luKl —_ I •eve 2 �=— � .� � { +-,fir. —— � � - '• a I� _ — Ili I S W II G ft UAI I { ' � N1Yp\AGaMI� I / f - �--s� Conceptual Design Elements ���u���■r�7 nunun M1�'Fml,�M 111711 GARAGE loin Biginam i■V@98■i� ■■ I�I�■■ ,/ ILI' V Conceptual Housing Type Elevation ICE. so s , r,!F' THE LAND Conceptual Housing Type Plan LE i GROUP Sec VI I I A. Development Agreement Modification Staff Report 1 . a a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual road layout, and conceptual elevations and floor plan exhibits included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. d. Future residential development shall be constructed within a gross density range of$-l�l dwelling units per acre. 15 PagQ�MFIL7R,1 �EDIMONHIHE1TIT E$IDE1\TTII} { HDI ) TEN MILE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP DE51GhlATIONS NO Map Color ❑ Ian�n� R-15 �Thl-R Sample ������ ❑ Townhouses,row houses,duplexes,multi-family,and parks General ❑ Target Density:12 dwellings f acre;Rang a of 8#0 15 dwellings 1 acre Stan Cards ❑ Design Review required;see Architectural Standards Manual LAND ❑ Comply vuittr pathways Master plan Aviator Subdivision Application includes: • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to MHDR • Rezone to R- 15 • Development Agreement Modification Concept Plan • Flexibility within MHDR and R- 15 zone for concept plan to allow for exploration of full density range Staff Report • We are in agreement with staff report with the exception of the items we requested regarding the DA Mod ' T H E t "i iW LAND THANK YOU GROUP Applicant Presentation