Loading...
2021-03-18 E IDIAN HO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Lisa Holland Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Andrew Seal ADOPTION OF AGENDA-Adopted CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the March 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Kiddie Academy (H-2021-0003) by neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located at 3335 E.Victory Rd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lost Rapids Drive-Through (H-2021- 0001) by Lost Rapids Development, LLC, Located on the West Side of N. Ten Mile Rd., North of W. Lost Rapids Dr. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) by The Land Group, Generally Located South of E. Ustick Rd. on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 1.18 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. -Approved 5. Public Hearing Continued from January 21, 2021 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 and C-G zoning districts. - Recommended Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing for Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located east of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing-AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016-062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East-AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center -AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties - H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin - H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071)]. B. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council 7. Public Hearing for The Oasis (H-2021-0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. - Continued to May 6, 2021 8. Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. - Continued to April 1, 2021 ADJOURNMENT - 11:29 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 18, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 18, 2021, was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Lisa Holland X Maria Lorcher Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for March -- Thursday, March 18th, 2021. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney and Clerk's offices, as well as City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on the screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply to you as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. And with that we will begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have no changes this evening, so if I could get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. Cassinelli: So moved. Holland: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 5 Page 2 of 90 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the March 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Kiddie Academy (H-2021- 0003) by neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located at 3335 E. Victory Rd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lost Rapids Drive-Through (H-2021-0001) by Lost Rapids Development, LLC, Located on the West Side of N. Ten Mile Rd., North of W. Lost Rapids Dr. McCarvel: The next item on -- is the Consent Agenda and we have no items on the Consent Agenda this evening -- oh, no. We do. Thank you. Approve the minutes for March 4th, Planning and Zoning, and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Kiddie Academy, H-21 -- 2021-0003 and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lost Rapids Drive Through, H-2021-0001. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Holland: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: So, at this time I will briefly explain the public hearing process that we have this evening. 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 Unified 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. Each person will be called on only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will not be speaking, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 6 Page 3 of 90 others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may press raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only listening on the phone press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example, please be sure to mute those extra devices, so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation or final decision to City Council as needed. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) by The Land Group, Generally Located South of E. Ustick Rd. on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 1.18 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for Sadie Creek, Item No. H- 2021-0006, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 1.18 acres of land, zoned C-G, located south of East Ustick Road on the west side of North Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is vacant undeveloped land, zoned C-G. To the south is a drive through restaurant Jimmy Johns, zoned C-G. To the east is Eagle Road and across Eagle Road is commercial businesses, zoned C-G. To the west is vacant undeveloped land approved for Villa Sport, an indoor-outdoor recreation facility, zoned C-G. This property was annexed back in 2005 with the requirement of a development agreement, which was later amended in 2019 to exclude this property, which is now included in the Villa Sport development agreement. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional for this site. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive through within 300 feet of another drive through facility Jimmy Johns directly to the south, which requires conditional use approval per the UDC. The use is a 2,250 square foot coffee shop and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 for drive through establishments and 11-4-3-49 for restaurants. Staff has reviewed these standards and finds at over 400 feet the stacking lane should have sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive aisles by patrons and will hold approximately 21 vehicles. The stacking lane is a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 7 Page 4 of 90 and does not conflict with drive through to the south and is not located adjacent to a residential district or a residence. An escape lane is proposed. The drive through window is visible from the public right of way for surveillance purposes as required. Parking is proposed in accord -- excuse me -- in excess, actually, of UDC standards. Restaurants require a minimum of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Other commercial uses require one space per 500 square feet. To ensure adequate parking is provided in the event other tenant spaces are occupied by restaurants, staff recommends parking is provided at the standards for restaurants for the overall site, which would require a minimum of 30 spaces. Thirty-two spaces are proposed. The development agreement for Villa Sport project, which also governs this site, requires all of the frontage improvements, i.e., landscape street buffers, sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, pathways, et cetera, to be installed with the first phase of development. The Villa Sport project is anticipated to be the first phase. However, if this project ends up developing first it's responsible for these improvements, including those off site. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the multi-tenant building shell that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of formed metal wall panels with metal flashing, brick and glass storefront, with a flat roof. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received from Tamara Thompson, The Land Group, and she is in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, quick question on the drive through capacity. It seems pretty big, but I know there is -- there is some brands out there that seem to get way more traffic than others. Is that -- on this particular development is that a concern or is that -- it seems adequate, but I just wanted to get a feel for what staff thought on that. Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, I did discuss that with the applicant, actually, and they--they did assure me that this was not one of those users that creates an excessive amount of traffic, but you can certainly direct that question to them also if you would like. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Thompson: Good afternoon. This is Tamara Thompson with The Land Group. Just want to make sure you can hear me. McCarvel: Yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 8 Page 5 of 90 Thompson: Awesome. My address is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I'm representing the property owner for this application. This is a conditional use permit for a drive through. We -- what you are seeing on the slide is the site plan and it is for a drive -- it's a multi- tenant building with drive through for a coffee user on the north side. Just to answer Commissioner Cassinelli's question, we did look at bringing the stacking lane through the parking area, but that would just cause conflicts with backing traffic and we had enough width on the -- on the property that we could keep that out of that -- out of the parking area. We don't anticipate that cars will stack further back than the escape lane, but it just channelizes them and keeps them away from the rear -- people backing up into that drive through area. It keeps those backing conflicts to a minimum. As Sonya said we do have adequate parking for the use. We are fine with taking the one per 200 -- 250 parking stalls across the entire building. We can provide that on what you are seeing here. We have read the staff report. We agree with the recommended conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight and I will stand for any questions you might have. McCarvel: Thank you, Tamara. Any questions for the applicant? There being none, do we have any public testimony for this? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we had one person sign in to testify. That's Jeffrey D'Andrea. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Oh, I'm sorry. It's just a different sheet. Thank you. I will make note of that. McCarvel: Okay. With no public testimony -- is there anybody that didn't sign up that would like to comment on this application? Okay. With there being no public testimony, Tamara, do you have anything you would like to add? Thompson: No. I'm -- nothing to add. Thank you. McCarvel: And if we don't have any other questions for the applicant, could I get a motion to close the public hearing on item H-2021-0006. Holland: So moved. Lorcher: I second. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: That's quite the drive aisle. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 191 Page 6 of 90 Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: My concern was, you know, are there going to be 40 cars backed up in this thing, which I think there is a brand or two that does that. This doesn't appear to be that way. I'm in full support. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I also appreciate that they didn't design the drive aisle through the parking lot, because I remember trying to back out many times out of a parking lot when there is a drive through lane behind you. So, I appreciate that they took the room do that. I think it's a pretty straightforward project, so no concerns on my side. Yearsley: Madam Chair, this is Steve Yearsley. McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I agree. I think it's actually a really good design. I like how they have got the drive aisle outside of the parking area. You get the clean and efficient design and I have no issues with it. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm just going to go ahead. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0006 for the Sadie Creek Drive Through, with no modifications for the conditional use permit. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded -- seconded to approve H-2021-0006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 Flo] Page 7 of 90 5. Public Hearing Continued from January 21, 2021 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 and C-G zoning districts. 6. Public Hearing for Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located east of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project- specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing — AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016-062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East — AZ-13- 015/1-1-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #201 7-1 1 3747); Ten Mile Center — AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties — H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016- 030845); and Bainbridge Franklin — H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019- 077071)]. B. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the CG zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. McCarvel: So, at this time we will open hearing item H-2020-0074, Ten Mile Crossing, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. There is also a concurrent development agreement modification application submitted with these applications that is to be heard by City Council that does not require action by the Commission. The site for the proposed subdivision consists of 132.42 acres of land, zoned R-40 and C-G. It's located east of South Ten Mile Road and south of West Franklin Road. The proposed plat encompasses land that was annexed with the Ten Mile Center, TM Creek East, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 Fill Page 8 of 90 Calnon and Bainbridge Franklin projects. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations are commercial, mixed use commercial, mixed use residential, high density residential and medium high density residential. The applicant requests a rezone of 40.98 acres of land from the R-40 and C-C to the C-G zoning district, 3.9 acres from TN-C and C-G to R-40, .65 acre from R-8 and TN-C to C-G, and .53 acre from TN-C to C-G. The smaller area proposed to be zoned C-G will clean up the zoning in this area where it's irregular and doesn't follow parcel lines and/or proposed streets. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-40 south of the Ten Mile Creek will be an extension of the R-40 zoning that exists to the west and will allow for the development of additional multi-family residential uses with conditional use approval. The proposed zoning and use is consistent with the underlying mixed use residential future land use map designation. The target density for this designation is eight to 12 units per acre. The future land use map designation of the abutting property to the west is high density residential, which allows multi-family residential uses at a target density of 16 to 25 units per acre. Future land use designations are not parcel specific and an adjacent abutting designation when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing where the land development application may be used. Because the high density residential designation allows for a higher density, staff recommends this designation apply to future development of this property, since the density will be higher than 12 units per acre if apartments are developed on the site similar to those to the west, i.e., TM Creek East Apartments. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing development agreements for Ten Mile Center and Calnon and Bainbridge Franklin. Conceptual development plans were not approved for Calnon or Ten Mile with these projects, other than a conceptual street layout for the Ten Mile Center property. The larger area to be rezone to C-G between Franklin Road and the Ten Mile Creek is designated on the future land use map as mostly mixed use commercial with approximately a quarter of the area on the west end as high density residential. As noted, because the future land use map is not parcel specific and allows for abutting designations to govern, staff recommends the abutting mixed use commercial designation to the east apply to and govern future development of the western portion of this site as well. The proposed C-G zoning district is an appropriate zoning choice for the mixed use commercial designation, which allows for a variety of uses, including commercial vertically, integrated residential, live-work employment, entertainment, office and multi-family. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing development agreements for TM Creek East and Calnon. Also Bainbridge Franklin. Conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects. In the absence of conceptual development plan to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category, Le, commercial, residential and employment, are provided as set forth in the Ten Mile plan in accord with the provisions of the annexation. Staff recommends a conceptual use plan or a bubble plan is submitted and included in the new development agreement that demonstrates compliance with the existing development agreement provisions. This applicant did submit a conceptual use plan this afternoon as shown. Staff has not had adequate time to review this plan, however, to determine consistency with the plan. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 83 buildable lots and that consists of 74 commercial and nine high density residential, and two common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in six phases as shown. Phase one consisting of multi-family residential Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F12 Page 9 of 90 apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16, Block 3, is currently under construction and almost completed. No development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase two commenced last year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts. The development of phases three through six may vary in area and sequence based on the product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek and this is just a diagram showing the road sections. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor and that's this area right here, which includes a ten foot wide segment of the city's multi- use pathway and the relocated Vaughn Lateral, which will be deeded to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. There are no existing structures on this side. Wayfinder Avenue and the western portion of Cobalt in front of the TM Creek East Apartments has already been constructed outside of the subdivision process and are not consistent with the street section designated on the street section map in the Ten Mile plan. However, they do comply with ACHD standards and have been approved by ACHD. These street sections were constructed as standard street sections with two travel lanes, a center turn lane, bike lanes and no on-street parking. South Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Road to the roundabout at the southwest corner of the site was approved and constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. The eastern portion of Cobalt to New Market and Benchmark and the extension of New Market, Benchmark, from Franklin Road to the southern boundary of the site is proposed with the subject plat and has not yet been constructed. Staff recommends New Market and Benchmark is constructed a -- as a residential collector street in accord with Street Section D in the plan, with on-street parking along both sides of the street. Staff did discuss this with ACHD and they are supportive of this design. Because Cobalt is already partially constructed staff did not recommend any changes to that street section beyond what was proposed. There are two driveway accesses proposed via Franklin Road with the plat, one to the east and one to the west of New Market-Benchmark and that is this location right here and here. These accesses do require a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3, which limits access points to arterial streets unless otherwise approved by Council. A cross-access and ingress-egress easement is required between all nonresidential lots within the subdivision. Written testimony was received from Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, the applicant, in response to the staff report. Staff is recommending approval per the provisions in the staff report. Staff will answer any questions that Commission may have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, you mentioned staff hadn't had a chance to review that preliminary design. Is that -- does that change anything right now? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, not necessarily. Obviously, this still has to go to City Council and by that time staff will do a complete review and offer any comments we may have. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F13] Page 10 of 90 Cassinelli: So, that's not a concern at this point? Allen: I -- I can't say whether it does or it does not meet the intent of the plan -- the guidelines in the plan. It does show a mix of uses as -- as recommended, but I'm -- I'm not sure about the percentages, so that's what staff needs to look at a little closer. Cassinelli: Okay. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Go ahead. Cassinelli: You're muted. Madam Chair, you're muted. McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Lorcher. I could hear me here. Lorcher: I wasn't around for the original Ten Mile Crossing conceptual land use plan. Based on staff looking at this and I understand that they are trying to kind of just change some things around to fit things a little bit better. Is it a lot of changes or is it more subtle, compared to the original plat? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Lorcher, there -- there was not a previous plat for this area. There -- there was not a conceptual development plan for any of this area, except for the Bainbridge Franklin property at the northeast corner of the site and the applicant no longer plans to develop that property in accord with that concept plan, so that is changing. Really, the only plan that we have in effect for this area is the future land use map in the Ten Mile plan, so -- so, the concern is with this concern staff had in the absence of a conceptual development or use plan was once we grant zoning, then, that entitles the property to develop per that zoning district. So, that's -- that's the reason for staffs requesting the use plan to ensure that future development is consistent with the uses designated in the comp plan. Lorcher: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. If there is no other questions for staff, would the applicant like to come forward. Wardle: Madam Chair, this is Jon Wardle with Brighton. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Wardle: Perfect. And I would like to share my screen if I could. It says while Sonya is sharing and I cannot share. Allen: I will stop sharing, Jon, just for you. There we go. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F14 Page 11 of 90 Wardle: Perfect. Thank you. Get one second here to just type in a code here really quick. I just want to confirm that you can see my screen as well. McCarvel: Yes. Wardle: Perfect. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jon Wardle. My address is 2929 West Navigator Drive, Suite 400, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. And I am representing the combined entities of Brighton and FCS Development, who are the property owners or their affiliated entities out here at Ten Mile. We really appreciate the opportunity to be finally in front of you tonight. One -- on the surface the applications may appear to be just a rezone and preliminary plat applications. However, there is much more to these applications with the inclusion of the Ten Mile Crossing DA modification and design guidelines and which we have included in the applications. The design guidelines, the staff report and applicant responses all addressed those items. These applications now integrate a cohesive vision for 308 acres, which is more than just the preliminary plat area before you through the adoption of specific design guidelines concurrent with the Unified Development Agreement, instead of five as they currently exist right now. Before I get too deep into the details with the applications I wanted to note that there are a number of conditions that we have asked to be modified or eliminated in the staff recommended comments and conditions. To understand the context of those, however, I want -- I need to step back a little bit and provide an overview of what has occurred prior to tonight's hearing. The Ten Mile interchange specific --the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan also the TMISAP, was created through a public process that included property owners, citizens, developers, design professionals, agencies and elected officials to provide input. I will note that in our opinion developer input, while provided, was not given adequate consideration based on actual market conditions. There -- these workshops, agency meetings, and public hearings were -- were established to create a vision for a major community asset around the Ten Mile interchange that at that time had been generally undeveloped. The TMISAP was adopted in June 2007 with practical and aspirational goals, as well as directive to implement the plan and achieve results. A couple highlights from the TMISAP. It said that the plan requires an entirely new way of doing business for private and public sectors. The plan calls for bold new actions as characterized through the plan development and its use of charrette in particular. The city encourages -- and key landowners to take initiative and begin the implementation process bringing forward detailed design guidelines, zoning, and infrastructure proposals. Making the changes will not necessarily be easy and it will require leadership on behalf of the city. And, finally, the TMISAP comprises many small and medium sized parcels held by many owners. None of the parcels of land within the study area is large enough to affect the type of development described as desirable. To achieve this vision, as well as critical mass for financial success, adjacent owners will need to collaborate on development efforts. In addition, implementation was also a notable topic within the TMISAP. In fact, there was much described about how the public and private would work together to see the vision. A couple of key points here. The city encourages developers and key landowners to take the initiative and begin the implementation process, bring forward design detailed guidelines and zoning. Zoning. The city could look beyond the existing development regulations to new development provisions. These regulations could be linked to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F15] Page 12 of 90 design guidelines and should be written expressly to promote and guide the type of mixed use development. Development regulations. The plan implementation will be accomplished through the city's existing development codes, through amendments to these codes, or by the development of new provisions, such as new zoning districts, overlay districts, design guidelines and development standards. And, finally, achieving results here it will require leadership on behalf of the city and a willingness to innovate and collaborate with the players involved. And, finally, here one last item from the TMISAP, which is probably one of the areas of the -- of the document that's not renewed very much, because it is farther back in there. There are a few key statements here, both for developers and for the city. Developers are strongly encouraged to undertake these tasks and invite the city to the table as a means of advancing the plan more rapidly. The city should develop a side of -- a set of design guidelines for the interchange area or encourage the development community to work together to prepare a set of design guidelines and the city should develop an expedited review process for projects that embrace, incorporate, and where through cooperation developers have developed partnerships and specific integrated plans that cross property lines and advance necessary infrastructure construction. And, finally, the last statement was the city is ready to work as your partner. So, here we are today. Just a little bit more context. Since the adoption in 2007 the commercial real estate stalled and -- and user demand shifted dramatically. It required a close evaluation of the plan and how best to move forward to secure users, but create flexibility to adapt to more changes, including those to come, which we all know today as COVID. It also presented opportunities to work with adjoining property owners. This slide here is interesting. The first applications we brought to the city were TM Creek, which was on the corner of Franklin and Ten Mile Road, which was about 40 acres and, then, TM Crossing to the south, which was adjacent to Ten Mile Road and north of 1-84, which was about 77 acres. For us development only can finally commence in 2014 with plats. So, seven years after the adoption of the TMISAP. We provided plats, construction plans, and improvements. But an item that kept coming up with each application was the ad hoc approach to planning a larger area outside of what we current -- what we owned at that time and interpretation of the TMISAP. There has been a lot of effort, discussion, and maybe even occasional frustration by both city staff and us, seemingly because site condition -- site specific actions were referencing back to general aspirational statements no longer applicable, achievable in the market, or not responsive to current conditions in the TMISAP. Additionally, we have now seen seismic changes and a need to be flexible given COVID. In collaboration we work closely with our adjoining property owners to address land use, specifically Calnon, which was all the property to the east of us, excluding the Bainbridge property. We worked with them on land use annexation and zoning within the plan. We also worked with Treasure Valley Investment Shakoori, which was between the Ten Mile Creek property, the TM Creek and TM Crossing properties, to implement long-term desired transportation elements, which was the extension of Wayfinder and the construction of two roundabouts. We ultimately purchased those properties, so that a cohesive vision and complete plan for 300 acres shown here bounded in red could be achieved. Of note we purchased all of Calnon, which is on both sides of TM Creek, south of Franklin. Treasure Valley Investments from Ten Mile Road all the way back to the future Benchmark, Market Street and the Bainbridge Franklin property, which is directly to the north -- northeast corner of the site. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F16 Page 13 of 90 Of note, each of these, including TM Creek and TM Crossing, all had individual development agreements. So, we are dealing with five separate development agreements. However, by assembling all these parcels we were able to achieve one of the TMISAP goals to work across property lines in a collaborative way. So, here we are today. We did wait for some time, even though we had acquired these properties, to come together with a plan. It -- to provide you with a preliminary plat so we could understand the planning considerations, such as roadway connections, pathway pedestrian access, and land use and provide flexibility to be able to adjust to market conditions. Here before you outlined in red is the TM Center Subdivision, which is before you tonight, which is inset in the TM Crossing 308 acres. We submitted application on May 29th, 2020. The first hearing was scheduled for August 6th, which was continued. Then 9/3, which was continued. Then 9/17, which was continued. Then 12/3 which was then tabled to tonight. However, the most important discussion that was needed was to establish a set of design guidelines and a cohesive development agreement for all the properties within Ten Mile Crossing and not just the TM Center plat. We determined the best approach was to establish the design document and hired Cushing Terrell to research, review, and create a draft study. For the Ten Mile Crossing DA modern design guidelines, which is the area bounded in red here, we engaged Meridian staff one year ago and when I looked at that date today I was surprised, it was one year ago when we had our first conversation with staff on this issue to discuss the sub area plan and project specific guidelines. On July 15th we had a pre-application meeting and presented a draft sub area plan. On November 5th we had a second pre-app meeting. And, then, on November 19th we submitted applications. At the time of our application submittals they were a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, combining five development agreements, a planned unit development overlay to incorporate design guidelines and zoning modifications. Following redirection by staff in early January, a revised Ten Mile Crossing application was submitted on February 16th, which included DA modification to combine the five projects into a single master DA and design guidelines and zoning modifications, which we previously have talked about. All these applications are before you tonight. These two applications are. One of the items that is mentioned in the staff report, however briefly, but there is not a lot of context and I want to spend a little bit of time to review this document. So, if you will indulge me for a few minutes, like I said, we hired Cushing Terrell to prepare for us design guidelines for all Ten Mile Crossing, which applies to all 308 acres across the property. Our intent is that these design guidelines become the base and the governing guide for all development within Ten Mile Crossing and would be attached to and included in the development agreement. So, what do the guidelines contain? Well, there is, obviously, purpose and applicability. Those things are pretty common that you would find in -- in most zoning and guidelines. But more specifically there is design review process. There are design guidelines for site landscape. Typical street sections. The creek and pathway systems. Architecture and signage. Then, finally, we also provide some specific use standards on things that always come up that we wanted to incorporate into this document. And, then, there is a fairly extensive appendix photo library of buildings that are proposed or built within Ten Mile Crossing to provide a flair and flavor for the type of development that we want to see. Like I said, there is purpose and flexible -- purpose, applicability, and intent. Ideally the purpose of this is to encourage flexibility, innovation, and creativity and to eliminate some of that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F17 Page 14 of 90 rigidity which could be found in strict interpretation of zoning code or architectural guidelines. We want them to apply to the entire Ten Mile Crossing project, so that there is a unified approach to design and implementation. We also want to provide a simplified administrative procedure for all future submittals -- architectural submittals through a design review board. We have discussed having and have presented in these guidelines a design review board. That would be the first step that would approve all exterior improvements, both the site, building, and structure for every building out here in Ten Mile. That Ten Mile design review board would be comprised of three orfour independent architects from the application. We wouldn't have any architect reviewing our own plans. And the content of that would still have to include the information required by UDC. The one difference here is that that design review board becomes the -- it basically takes a step out of the city's process to provide them with more time. It would be presented to the city with an approval letter. The city would review for conformance with the guidelines and, then, it would move directly onto the certificate zoning compliance and, then, the city would issue the CZC, so that the building permit process could begin. Obviously, there is design exceptions and there is an allowance for that by the Planning director. A few of the high level things which are detailed within this. We have site and landscape, architectural and signage. I'm going to get into those details on the next slides. Also on the left-hand side this is very similar to the conceptual land uses plan you saw tonight. We provided more detail to that. But it shows what has been built or under construction and what is forthcoming. Also the open space plan on the right-hand side here shows all the pathway corridors. It does show the detached sidewalks throughout and the -- and the Ten Mile Creek and the Purdam Drain. We have provided four design considerations where additional architectural review needs to occur on key corners, on the frontage area between the creek and Franklin Road on Wayfinder. We have also identified an area that multi-story structures should be -- should occur. We have -- we have a number of five story, four story buildings already out here, and in this document we have asked for approval of a hundred foot, which would allow us to get to six levels or six stories on these buildings should that need arise. One of the items that Sonya had mentioned and had detailed quite a bit in her guidelines were roadways. Within this plan we have created a transportation circulation map, have also detailed the type of roadway system, the standards which would be there. We have reviewed these with ACHD. These all comply with their standards. We do know that there are different guidelines in the TMISAP, but we are requesting that these roadway standards carry through the balance of the project. We have also provided the city with an overall comprehensive pathway plan. Of course there are detached sidewalks throughout the entire community. But, more importantly, we have a variety of eight foot and ten foot pathways designated here on this map. We have the Ten Mile Creek regional pathway. We have a parallel pathway to future Benchmark which would be ten feet. We have a ten foot Purdam drainage regional pathway. We have an eight foot pathway connecting between the two roundabouts on Vanguard and Cobalt. We also are building a six foot parallel pedestrian boulevard shown there at F, kind of an east-west connection from Vanguard over to Benchmark. And, finally, we have a very specific detailed Main Street on Wayfinder north of the creek up to Franklin Boulevard. The elements in the design guidelines are site and landscape. We provide specifics for site amenities, fixtures, pavers, all of the tree planting elements. We also have standards in there for parking lots that would be required throughout and there Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F18 Page 15 of 90 is a whole set of actual implemented plans and pictures in the document itself. And I will go through this quickly. We have architectural guidelines for commercial. The important thing here is to identify form, scale, proportion, height, elements and details, materials and styles. How to screen mechanical equipment and lighting throughout. So, we have done this for commercial, for mixed use and flexspaces, flex buildings, for retail and residential in the multi-family side. I will note that we will in the future, on the part that is held out to the east, come back with more guidelines for single family residential, which will be appended to this document. Finally, one of the things that's important is the unification of signage. We have spent a lot of time creating a signage plan throughout Ten Mile, which is required at key locations, as well as the tenants in front of their buildings if they are going to have monument signs and this, too, is laid out in the design guidelines. And, like I said, there is an extensive photo library. Here is just a snapshot of a few of those, but if you get into the documentation it will show elements of all the things which I have already discussed tonight. So, going forward, you know, we find ourselves tonight needing to restate the -- restate and effectively defend -- essentially defend the importance of Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines. The TMISAP itself states that it wants developers to take the initiative and undertake these design guideline activities, to work a lot collaboratively across ownership and boundaries and bring forward detailed design guidelines to the city. Also it states that the city should develop an expedited review process for projects that embrace this collaborative approach, provide leadership, and be ready to work as a partner with developers. I will say that we have had very good support from staff on many issues, but on the issue of the TMISAP needing more specific guidelines, that's why this set of guidelines is before you tonight and that's why we are asking for your consideration. We are at a loss, however, why staff has either ignored or rejected the design guidelines that had been submitted. It -- staff does state in the staff report that they are not supportive for the different design guidelines and it's to have -- the purpose is to have a unified design for overall area. However, the TMISAP states that the city encourages developers and key landowners to take the initiative to bring forward the detailed design guidelines and zoning and infrastructure financing proposals. Finally, there are a few items that we just wanted to highlight and discuss just to be clear. The first is the conceptual land use map, which has been talked about. We have provided here additional context for the type of uses. We haven't got down to the specificity simply because there are changes that will and could occur and staff knows that as DA -- this prior DA mod had been modified to address changes in the market and new plans. We are asking for that flexibility, but also to give the city some certainty as to where certain uses will occur and the type of intensities we could expect. We provided, like I mentioned, a complete set of design guidelines to cover 308 acres out here at Ten Mile Crossing. We provided a process by which we would have a design review board and provide approval to the city, so that the CZC process could continue, as noted in our design guidelines. We have also provided a comprehensive roadway plan. I have identified what has been built, what will be built, and to what standards those will be built. I will note, however, that there -- there is a lot of conversation or staff time to talk about roadways. The Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines provide a comprehensive roadway plan for both circulation and standards. However, our details do differ from the TMISAP, but we are fully compliant with ACHD standards. Some of the TMISAP plans are aspirational, but are not necessarily applicable given the future land use pattern. There Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 Fig] Page 16 of 90 is the proverbial chicken and egg. What comes first. Without roads buildings can't happen. Buildings can't happen without roads and we have to make a commitment and that's what we have done. We have made a commitment, created key areas where some of those ideas could be accomplished, like Wayfinder Road north of the creek going up to Franklin Boulevard, where we can create that Main Street fill. We have established a guideline for all Ten Mile Crossing, so that there is a cohesive roadway plan that provides cross-access and connectivity. As mentioned, although it's not before you tonight, we have asked for two connections to Franklin Boulevard shown here. We know that it is a City Council item, but it's important to note that they are consolidated accesses that purport to provide joint use for the users of the sites. I will note that there is a cross- access to 12 Oaks. However, it is both deficient and poorly designed when you look at the cross-access between multi-family and the future commercial that's here. Will we use it yet, but it doesn't accomplish the need for access to the site. Pathways. I think this is something that's super unique. We know that the city has a master pathway plan and we have been able to not only embrace it, but enhance it. Originally there was a pathway just for Ten Mile Creek, which was to the north. We have also added in the Purdam Drain and we have taken the initiative to add ten foot and eight foot pathways and sidewalks, detached, throughout the entire project, so that we have connectivity. You will also note on this exhibit there is a red circle in certain locations, which are amenity sites. Those amenity sites provide connections where the people will be able to stop, we will have enhanced seating areas, there will be opportunities to go point to point and not just have a pathway system without a place to rest or visit with people, especially given that we have a large demographic of office workers out here. So, this will benefit them, as well as the residents -- residential uses which are already on site and will be in the site in the future. Arrival. One of the things that we have -- have worked on and we have presented both for-- to the north on the ICCU site and we will do here at Vanguard is a dramatically enhanced arrival at these entries in the project. We are going to create a sense of arrival. There is going to be definite identification. Here is an opportunity as well to provide that art element that the city has identified in a very prominent location. You will note here that one of the unique things about the site is if you drive it it -- we are directly adjacent to a not so pretty detention basin that's surrounded by chain link fence. We do have a license agreement from ACHD to enhance that area and to expand the area. Just to give you a frame of reference, this intersection -- that represents at least 60 feet highlighted here that will be enhanced directly at this intersection on both sides. Not just on the south side, but we will do the same -- it will mirror on both sides, provide an opportunity for signage, as well as public art. We have noted, however, that there is a condition in the -- in the staff report that the buffer along Ten Mile going between Vanguard and Cobalt be expanded to 50 feet. The UDC for gateway areas is 35 feet. One thing to note is in this area it drops down significantly from Ten Mile Road. There is a slope there already and the 35 foot landscape buffer, just as we have done to the north in previous plats, is -- is more than adequate to provide that separation from the street for pedestrians and provide landscaping on the backside of that as well. We have provided you with all of these items noted in our requested changes that was submitted by Mike Wardle earlier. We are anxious to move the process forward, to have you approve the preliminary plat, which has been before you since August, with a unified master development agreement and accompanying specific guidelines for Ten Mile Crossing, so that Ten Mile Crossing Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F20 Page 17 of 90 can be planned, developed in a complete and cohesive way that sets the standard for all the Ten Mile interchange area. In conclusion, we do concur with staff's recommendation for approval and request your approval of the Ten Mile Crossing DA modifications, which we know that is a City Council item with their proposed design guidelines, of the proposed rezones which are before you and of the TM Center Subdivision plat, including the requested of modifications which we have made and submitted to the conditions of approval. The proposed modifications achieve the direction of staff leadership for a master DA design guidelines to supersede the TMISAP and to provide for better-- a guide for development for all Ten Mile Crossing. We respectfully request your approval of the pre-plat and Ten Mile Crossing development agreements and design guidelines and I stand for any questions that you might have. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. We -- I did allow -- we went over quite a bit, but it was a large -- a large request here and a lot to get through. So, at this time do we have any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yeah. I was going to give you a hint there who it was. Yeah. There was a lot of information here and I have several questions, but I will take turns. First of all, Jon, can you -- if you can summarize your conclusion there. You are saying that you are in agreement with all staff conditions, is that accurate? Wardle: We are in agreement with staff's conditions. We have, however, made some modifications as it continues to revert back to references to the TMISAP and we are asking that the design guidelines be those that we have presented -- included in our application and are before you tonight. Those are noted -- go ahead. Cassinelli: I was going to say -- so, those modifications you made are just -- just with regards to the design guidelines. Wardle: Primarily that is correct. We went through -- sorry, Commissioner Cassinelli, Madam Chair. We went through the condition. We did strike out all the references to the TMISAP. We included reference to the Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines. We did make a couple of notes in here regarding some of the --the streetlights and we also made some notes based on, you know, the location of the pedestrian trails based on the current pathway plans. These -- a lot of this relates to development agreements and stitching together those five development agreements. So, we have made a lot of those notes based on that. One of the items that -- Commissioner Cassinelli, that you will note in there that we have struck, there -- there is a common reference found in the TMISAP regarding pedestrian scale of streetlights. We have made a very strong effort to create that pedestrian scale on Wayfinder between Franklin and Ten Mile Creek and we have -- we have provided pedestrian scale lighting, but there is also the other issue of the requirements to light the roads. So, throughout the document there are locations -- like Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F21 Page 18 of 90 on Ten Mile Road, on Franklin where it talks about creating pedestrian scale streetlights or lights at a lower level, we are just simply striking that and saying that the streetlights that are -- that still need to be installed, that they should meet city -- or city standards and should be acceptable as -- as requested. We have also made a note in here -- there -- there is a -- we have done this before, it's been picked up on previous DAs, but some of the existing DAs do not have the language about the certificate of zoning compliance and submittal process to go forward. But certificates of occupancy would have to wait until a plat has been recorded. But those other steps could occur prior to a subdivided lot. McCarvel: Other questions for staff? Or, I'm sorry, for the applicant. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think you said Commissioner Holland, so I will just keep moving forward. You are hard to hear, but that's okay. Jon, I wanted to say, first of all, thank you, it looks like you guys have done a significant amount of work. It's not -- we can definitely see how many pages of documents and how many months of planning have gone into this. So, want to take a second and just recognize how much work you have put into this process. I know before us tonight we really have three applications at this point to go through that with the Commission. The three applications we have is the preliminary plat for the 83 buildable lots and two common lots. Then we have got the request for the development agreement modification, which we can make a recommendation on, but that's really Council. And, then, we have got the request for the rezone to the C-G and, then, the other requests that are in there as well. Just making note of that. One -- one comment -- we never really had a chance to talk about the Ten Mile Center area. I appreciate that you have some amenity sites along the pathway network, but I'm curious if you have plans for a future open space that's more than, you know, an amenity site here and there. If there is -- if there is a plan at some point for a public plaza type style place or a -- you know, I think it would be amazing to have a five to ten acre park somewhere in this development when you have got so much residential and so much mixed use. I'm certainly a fan of mixed use and I think, you know, Ten Mile is a great opportunity for Meridian to compete and bring some jobs a little bit closer to home for residents, but certainly would love to make sure that we have elements of open space beyond maybe just the pathways in there and I was just curious if you could talk about it a little bit. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, thank you, again, for clarifying what is before the Commission this evening. Yes, parks are a key aspect to -- to our community and I think Meridian has done a very good job of -- of parks in and around the area. We also have access to public schools. But one of the things that we really keyed in on -- on this plan, Commissioner Holland, was the importance of not just a creek, but an enhanced creek. Not just a drain, but an enhanced drain. And not just a pathway, but a series of connected pathways. I think we would -- while having a dedicated five acre area would be nice to have and there are dedicated landscape areas within the residential pieces, so I want to be clear about that, that the residents that are out here both within the multi- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F22 Page 19 of 90 family and future residential will have dedicated landscape areas and those will be site specific development items. But the key I think for -- not even think. The key to all of this is how do we connect both a daytime population and an evening population and the best way to do that is through pathways. Like I mentioned, just the pathways themselves we have three and a half miles. We clearly have at least that much, if not more, in sidewalks and we made a very concerted effort to provide passage or pathways across those in a safe way as well. So, I will be clear, we haven't provided a five acre park out here, but we have spent a lot of time with city staff on creating a pathway system and adding to that pathway system in a very meaningful way and that's why we also want to create these little amenity areas throughout. They are not small. Some of them are very linear; right? But the idea is that we are giving people a place that they can go and be social or rest or just make their way on a circuit as well. Holland: Thank you, Jon, I appreciate that, and I know your team always does a great job with -- with planning and I have seen a number of your subdivisions and normally you guys do a great job. I would just ask that as you kind of consider what uses come through here in the future that having some sort of central amenity area, like a park or like a plaza space, would certainly be something I would love to see, because I think it would tie the whole development together fairly well when you have got 308 acres that you are looking at. So, just --just a request, a recommendation, but that's just one comment for now. Wardle: Madam Chair, if I might just make one comment there. McCarvel: Sure. Wardle: We do agree that plaza spaces are very important and we -- as you will note in front of our building -- and this is part of the -- maybe the beauty of us having some control is that we are able to dictate and ensure that these buildings are providing that positive space that's directly associated with the buildings. So, we agree with that. McCarvel: Thank you. Other questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, if nobody else -- this is Commissioner Cassinelli. McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Jon, can you address -- you're -- you're wanting a -- a change to the height to a hundred feet. Can you -- can you kind of highlight where -- where those -- where that change would be? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I just want to -- can you see my little hand cursor on the screen? Cassinelli: Yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F23 Page 20 of 90 Wardle: Okay. So, down here in Ten Mile Crossing in particular -- but it may happen a little bit to the north, it really would be user driven, but down here, that's where we really see that that hundred foot comes into play. With -- some of those buildings we have built already are five story and we have had to ask for alternative compliance, which I know that there -- that comes up at times, because it exceeded the height. It was within a percentage, but it exceeded the height. As we have talked to certain users and the opportunity to provide space, it has come up that maybe we would do a six story building here or there. I don't see that we would do a lot of them, but by making hundred foot allowed that gives us the flexibility without having to go through alternative compliance or any additional review for that. Cassinelli: And would that -- does that apply to the entire plat or -- Wardle: It's -- well -- Cassinelli: Go ahead. Wardle: No, I interrupted you. I apologize. Go ahead. Cassinelli: Well, I was -- I was -- I think you -- you understood what I'm saying. Does that apply to the entire -- the entire -- the entire area here or -- or just specific zones within this? Wardle: I'm going to let David Turnbull address that. Turnbull: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think that in general you could say it would apply. We don't anticipate it happening anywhere north of Cobalt Drive. As you know, we have got a fairly major medical user out here with potential to expand. So, that's one potential area in the D or E areas, that's probably where you might see it. We are not saying it's going to happen, but it does follow some of the aspirational aspects of the area that the city has always requested us to go as dense as we possibly can. You do run into some building code issues the higher you go, it gets more expensive, so there is always that balance and that calculation we have to run through, but this, as Jon mentioned, would help us to avoid future alternative compliance requests, which the city seems to suggest we -- we promote, but, then, we have to go through this alternative compliance. So, we are just trying to do away with that -- probably annoyance for everybody. Wardle: This E -- D, E, that's Cobalt right there. That's what David had referenced. That would be the -- the northern line. Cassinelli: Okay. Another quick question, if none of the other Commissioners have one. McCarvel: Go ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F24 Page 21 of 90 Cassinelli: There were -- there were a couple of additional access points off of Franklin. Can you highlight those? Are those -- so, they would be in those -- where the arrows are? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, that is correct. Those -- those would be the locations where we have discussed with ACHD about having those. ACHD does have a process that requires us to -- to get their approval for that. They are not granted outright. But of note they do align with uses across the street and we are able to consolidate -- particularly on the count on Banbridge piece, multiple access points into a single. We still have the -- the -- the collector system that will be there and internal backage roads, but being able to provide access directly out to Franklin Road from those locations is important. Turnbull: And, Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassinelli, I just want to emphasize what Jon mentioned before about the cross-access that's already provided through the 12 Oaks apartment complex. If any of you had an opportunity to drive through there you would see that it comes right in and, then, directly into the property through an apartment parking lot and we don't think that that's really much of a beneficial use for the property that we own, nor -- you know, it's most likely just going to create conflicts with the residential use to the -- to the east. So, we will take that through the process with ACHD and the city for the waiver process that's required. I don't think you are granting it here through this process. That's not on the table. Cassinelli: No. I was just curious where those -- where those were located. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I have one more. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Do you have -- Jon, do you have an overlay of -- of the before and after in terms of the rezones? Wardle: I do. So, this is -- this -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, this is the current zoning on the site out here and you will note that there is -- there are a variety of zones that are already designated on the site. So, that's the current zoning base. This will be the new rezone area. To the north along Franklin and down to the Ten Mile Creek, that will all be zoned C-G. So, the R-40, the C-C, will convert to C-G. South of the creek we are changing a little bit of the TN-C to R-40 to continue that along Cobalt and those are the changes that are -- and there is a little bit of a cleanup south of Cobalt as well. But that's -- those are the changes there. So, kind of the existing and the proposed modifications. Lorcher: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F25] Page 22 of 90 McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Lorcher. There we go. Lorcher: The -- the reasoning for C-C to C-G along Franklin Road, so would that all be accessed from inside the complex or -- I know you had requests to have driveways or accesses from Franklin. What kind of businesses were you looking at or is it going to be more retail or is it going to be more office space? Franklin's very busy already right now and I don't know what was proposed there before, but I mean there is -- so, I think there is a Valvoline Oil shop right now and you can access that when you come into the complex. Is that what you are thinking that's going to continue to be for Franklin Road for commercial? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Lorcher, let me talk first, then, I will let David jump in as well. Along Franklin Road we do -- we do envision, starting with Wayfinder -- so, that's the -- that's the western collector that's north-south, we do anticipate that there will be a variety of retail uses that will be on that main street that will approach the street, have a great relationship with it, including some live-work units. It is very likely that as we work our way down Franklin Road that you will have other support services, whether they be financial, food -- even probably some small retail along there on key corners. We do have also that we have built -- this exhibit doesn't show it very well, but where the -- you reference the Valvoline. There is also a backage road or an internal drive aisle that provides access east-west that parallels Franklin and allows you to get to the light. What we are asking for, Commissioner Lorcher, is just a -- another single point of access that would allow people to turn into the site, get out of the site at that location and this location over here. But we also provide significant internal circulation. So, that that's not the single point. We have these collector roadways. Lorcher: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more follow-up question. I know -- this area is also in an urban renewal area for Meridian. I'm going back to my public plaza and parks comment just for a second, but just making one -- one note and hopeful that perhaps that could be something where the urban renewal agency might be able to step in and help with some of those other central amenities if that is something to move forward for considering in the future. I just wanted to make that comment and see if you had any other thoughts around that. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, it's a good point. I will note that it's my understanding that there are not any city designated park sites out here and so because it's not, quote, a public asset or designated, it wouldn't be able to be done as part of the urban renewal. Again, I do want to restate, however, that we are providing for substantial site specific open space with the residential uses and, again, we still are very high on the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F26 Page 23 of 90 connectivity of the pathway system. But with that I appreciate the comment. And we will -- Turnbull: We can explore it. Wardle: -- we can explore it for sure. Holland: Thanks, Jon. Appreciate it. McCarvel: Okay. If there is no other questions for the applicant, we will move on to public testimony. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to speak on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one person online with their hand raised. That's Lori. Lori, give me one moment, please, to move you over to permission to talk. Lori, you have permission now to unmute yourself. McCarvel: And, please, state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Do we have Lori still there? Weatherly: Lori, I sent you a memo to ask you to unmute. McCarvel: Yes. Lori, I think you need to unmute on your end. There you go. Lori: Sorry, I was trying to log onto another device, so I apologize. McCarvel: So, did you want to speak? Lori: No. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Anyone else wish to speak on this application in person or online? Okay. All right. We will move back to the applicant then. With no questions from the public, does the applicant have any closing remarks? Turnbull: Madam Chair, David Turnbull. I will just finish up with thanking Jon for doing a pretty comprehensive -- and we understand it's a lot of information, but he gave a pretty comprehensive look at it. In fact, he went so a long my daughter had a baby while he was speaking. McCarvel: Congratulations. Turnbull: I just got that -- I just got that text, yes. You know, I think I want to highlight what our intent is here. This -- this goes back to over a year ago with discussions with the city about, you know, mutual frustrations with how we have worked through these applications and -- and we came up with -- I thought -- I think should be a mutual understanding that we are following the plan which asks us to come up with specific design guidelines and we commissioned an architect and spent quite a bit of money to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F27 Page 24 of 90 come up with these design guidelines to give us consistency in architecture, consistency in landscaping, consistency in everything down to the kind of, you know, ground cover you can use and the benches and trash enclosures and all of those elements, because we want to see this be a cohesive development and we also want to alleviate some of the burden from the staff and also take it away from -- take it out of our hands by hiring professionals and we will pay those fees and I hope we can demonstrate to you that we have got -- we have -- we have tried to do the most innovative, high density commercial, high employment, which was the goal of the city. There are -- there are changes that came about through the last dozen or so years. There used to be a lifestyle center designation on this property. Well, guess what, that got built at The Village at Meridian and Anna Canning, who was the planning director at the time, commented to me, well, there is only going to be one of those probably that are supportable in this city. So, that's probably not going to happen at Ten Mile now -- and we concur. So, we have not -- we don't have a heavy retail focus out here. We have a heavy high density employment, medical --the medical component is going to be substantial and, then, we have been able to do some things with high density multi-family that hasn't been done in the Meridian market and those things have come about -- probably weren't practical even to do 12 years ago. The market changes, though, and one of the things that COVID brought us was a realization of the need for -- that the companies that actually survived and thrived through this environment have been the ones that had drive throughs, for example, and so we have incorporated all of these things into these design guidelines that will be reviewed by third party architects, so that when they come to you you have the -- you know, architectural review is not a check the box kind of science. There is as much art to it as there is engineering and that's what we hope to bring to the table. That's why we spent a great deal of effort working on these design guidelines to provide the city the product that it wants and deserves. So, you know, we could -- we could go over some additional items, but I think you have what you need. I know you know what the applications are before you. The City Council is going to have to be the final decision maker on some of these, but I hope you can see the intent of what we are trying to do here to accomplish something great for the city. So, I will close with that. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. If there is no more questions for the applicant or for staff, could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-0074, items No. 5 and 6 on the agenda. Grove: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 5 and 6, H-2020-0074. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: I have got -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F28 Page 25 of 90 Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: -- Commissioner Holland and Commissioner Cassinelli unmuted. Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I will just start with some comments and we will probably have -- have lots of comments and thoughts and stuff. I -- I really agree with Commissioner Holland's suggestion on some sort of park open space. I don't know that it needs to necessarily be five acres and -- something to where -- and I -- you know, I understand what the applicant said as far as it's not being a lifestyle center, but still somewhere where those coming from the outside that don't live or work there that are coming there to -- you know, to grab a bite of food or -- or whatever they may be -- they might be doing, can -- can go there and take that -- you know, take the sandwich from the deli and go eat maybe off site and just enjoy it. So, just something -- and maybe in that. I guess it would be the northwest corner or something that I could just kind of envision. So, that's -- that's one thought. And, then, personally, the -- the -- the pedestrian scale lighting that -- that staff has required, I'm definitely in support of. Comment on the height aspect is I don't necessarily think we should approve that sitewide, because, then, they could potentially take it and put a six story building right up against Franklin. I'm not saying that they would, but if that -- you know, if we give them that -- that leeway, that latitude, they could. So, I would like to somehow see us only allow that in a specific area within this plat or just leave as is and have them -- I mean if they can -- they have got an alternative compliance at least on one building I think to go -- to go up high enough, I -- I think, you know, I would -- I would rather have -- have that be the case, honestly, to -- to do it item by item. So, that's my -- my thought on that. Those are my -- those are my main thoughts right now. I would like to hear -- maybe after some questions, if Sonya could comment a little bit more on the -- on the design guidelines and just get a better understanding of where staff is at as opposed to where the applicant is at on -- on the design and that's it for now. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Do we want to pause and let Sonya answer that question first before we get too -- McCarvel: Yeah. Go ahead, Sonya. Sonya, would you like to unmute. Parsons: Commission, I'm happy to answer that question. McCarvel: Okay. Thanks, Bill. Parsons: You are welcome. And I think it -- I think those are the -- the applicant's done a very good job of explaining where we -- where we started and where we are at now, because as they have pointed out in tonight's presentation, it is very clear -- or at least the intent is that this is a partnership. This body, staff, applicant, property owners, we set out on this vision to make sure that we got something innovative, while still being flexible for applicants and that's probably the -- a lot of the time that we spent with the applicant Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F29 Page 26 of 90 on this process is from -- from our standpoint, from city staff standpoint, having to look at five different development agreements to regulate a development -- or try to manage a cohesive design and theme over 300 acres is -- can be a challenge, particularly with different team members looking at different applications. Each one us are going to have a different interpretation and that's why we really started out on this adventure with them. And I will call it an adventure, because I think we have all learned and grown from it. We know -- at least from my perspective I think some of our codes need to change to support what the applicant wants to do. For so many years the city has used the development agreement as the tool to kind of regulate development and I'm one team member, but I think that the PUD process is what we should be using to regulate developments, especially these larger master planned communities, and as we sat down with the applicant and worked through all of these design challenges that we were faced, we looked at it as -- as internally and we looked at it with them -- we were under the impression that our current PUD standards don't allow for that flexibility that they want under these current standards that they are presenting to you tonight. But what we did realize is that through the development agreement process we could at least add some flexibility or change some of the design guidelines in the -- in the comp plan, because the comp plan really is a guide, whereas the zoning ordinance is law and that's the discussion that we had with the applicant and came up with this concept of doing one master DA to govern the 308 acres and eliminate the five into one and that's where we ended. We -- we certainly shared our concern with how do we implement these guidelines. Is it appropriate to allow them to propose different guidelines that are different than what's intended for the Ten Mile area? And as staff that's -- that's what we are tasked with. We are tasked with ensuring that the development complies with the plan and that's why Sonya laid out in her staff report some of those elements that she thought should be kept as part of our recommendation. Now, ultimately, you as a recommending body and City Council, they will have to determine whether or not this is the right avenue to take. You have to -- if you think this is the right way to move forward, then, I would encourage you to set forth your recommendation that Council take this under consideration or at least provide staff some direction as we move forward with some future code changes, because as you know I'm one to say I think the Ten Mile Plan is pretty aspirational. It has some things -- and kind of going back to Cassinelli's height comment, the reason why we supported it as part of this process is because the Ten Mile Plan encourages higher floor area ratios, which, basically, means you are going to intensify the property and go vertical and a lot of those employment areas -- or a lot of the buildings they have built out there we have done alternative compliance and we have gotten those plaza areas because of doing that alternative compliance process. We have also talked with them about incorporating some plazas into their commercial space, too, so -- and public art as well and we have gotten the same responses you have gotten tonight, that they are willing to look at that and take that into consideration. The one component that you are not seeing as part of their design guidelines is really the residential component that they have highlighted and that's where you are going to start seeing some of the innovative open space and some different residential uses that they will come back and eventually amend their DA and include those design guidelines as part of that project. So, I don't want you to think you are not getting the full picture tonight. Right now the applicant's really trying to meet the intent of the plan, but do it differently than what we have done it -- the way we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F30 Page 27 of 90 have done it before and that's really coming up with an 80 page document is saying, city, please, endorse this, so that we can give your staff the tools to review this 308 acres under one specific guideline, rather than having them look at multiple documents. I don't know if I helped the conversation or hurt it, but I guess just giving you staff's perspective, that's -- that's really why we got to where we are and I'm hoping out of this that we get some clear direction from this body and City Council, because I -- I tend to agree with the applicant, we just need to be more flexible and we need to be innovative and if this is the tool to do that, then, I think at some point we should really think about it and think about changing our codes to align and move in this direction. McCarvel: Thank you, Bill. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Bill, a couple of follow-up questions to that. How integrated was staff in the creation of the design guideline document that the applicant proposed? Were you sitting at the table with them while they were trying to develop most of that document? Parsons: I wouldn't say we were sitting at the table. I think they really took the lead. To be -- to be frank with you, I was the one that encouraged them to do it, because it's my planning experience from other -- another -- a previous life I guess I should say -- that's what they-- that was their main tool. They had zoning ordinances from 1976. They didn't ever get into the code. They controlled everything through the PUD process. Whereas when you come to Idaho you have a different set of rules to follow and you look at the land use laws and, really, the DA is where you kind of -- once you get zoning out you -- you kind of typically get what you get and that's why we are -- we scrutinize applicants so much at the annexation process, because we want to -- if we are going to give away zoning we want to make sure we have clear direction and clear plans moving forward. So, no, we weren't at the table, but the applicant was always willing to share the information with us and ask us for our feedback. Now, were we as -- as responsive as we should have been? I would probably say no, just given the workload and what we were dealing with we could not give them a full comprehensive review of this document. I have read through it and looking through -- they have taken out a lot of the -- some of the things they had in it they did remove it, because we felt it was unnecessary and so looking at it today do I feel comfortable with what they are proposing? I -- again, I can't say that I have gone through our code and compared that to what -- the Ten Mile guidelines compared to what they are proposing here, but what they are showing here and what Sonya alluded to in her presentation tonight was the plan encourages that mix of uses they gave you a bubble plan that showed that. So, do I know what the percentages are? No. Do I feel confident that they are going to meet the spirit and the intent of the plan? Yes. And that's -- that's always been their intent and in our communications with them that's what they have always conveyed to us, that they recognize what the plan is and they plan on meeting the intent of that plan as closely as possible. And I -- and, you know, from our time constraints as far as design review, I like Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F31 Page 28 of 90 -- I like the aspect of having a third party review. Currently we don't have -- we have -- currently all of the design review is at our staff level and, then, if the applicant doesn't agree or make the changes, then, we have to convene a design review committee to look at that, which is basically our third party review to say yes or no, we agree with staff or don't. So, them putting that extra level of scrutiny on themselves is probably making them as much accountable as the city doing the review for them. So, I do like that aspect that they are proposing, because I think that will help expedite some of the review for staff. So, again, I go back to my closing remarks. It's -- it's really more of a philosophical discussion tonight whether or not this is the right approach we should take. And to be curious -- it's going to be interesting to see what Council does on it. Holland: Thank you, Bill. So, I guess I can jump in with my comments, if that's all right, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Go ahead. Holland: So, again, I go back to -- we have three different applications in front of us, so -- and the way that we deliberate I just want to make sure we -- we talk about them in that order. So, the first item we have is the preliminary plat of the 83 buildable lots and the two common lots for the 132 acres of land in the R-40 and the C-G zoning districts and, then, the second application we have is the development agreement modification and the rezone request. So, speaking just high level about the request for the preliminary plat and for the rezone, I don't see big concerns. I think they have done a good job of explaining why they want to make those rezone requests. I think it fits well with the way that they have shown the bubble concepts. So, I think those ones are fairly straightforward, with the additions of what the staff report has. Talking about, you know, the concept we have been talking about, whether they have a design guideline, I -- I'm not opposed to it either. I think it's really nice to have a smart focused area. This is a really unique spot in Meridian and it does have -- I mentioned it has an urban renewal district with it, which is one of the few tools that cities have to be able to use to fund public infrastructure. So, I know that all of these new buildings that are going up -- the increment from all of these additions is going into a pool that can be used to help with infrastructure needs. So, I know that there -- there is some assistance in helping with roadways and helping with these pathways and I think they have -- they have done a fabulous job with the pathways. I have walked some of the projects. I have driven around some of the projects. Just previously looking at some of the -- I mean I have had a couple of business visits out at the new buildings that are up there. So, I think they have done a great job of comprehensive planning and design. I still would push for wanting to see more of a central amenity site somewhere in the plaza and I do really like that they have got the amenity areas. I understand and appreciate that they don't want to seek being a lifestyle center, because The Village exists, but The Village is several miles away and I think we have got so much density that we have approved within a one mile radius of where the site is that it would be nice to have a walkable amenity where multiple people could gather and have a little bit bigger open space beyond just what's in the residential neighborhoods connecting to it. So, I think that that would still be fairly strong in my recommendations, is that they consider having an element of public space, whether that's a plaza, whether Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F32 Page 29 of 90 that's green space, whether--whatever that is. I know I keep going back to that, but once the ground is developed there is no way to go back and add more ground back to it and when you have got a 308 acre space, hopefully, they can carve out five --five to ten acres somewhere in there for a nice central amenity. So, I'm going to get off my soapbox with that. I would also say I -- I appreciate that these developers have been so transparent in their process that they have certainly gone above and beyond in the way that they have come back to the city with a really nice looking document and suggestions, so I'm not opposed to making a recommendation to Council that they consider, you know, a different way of doing business when it comes to this specific project area, because it's part of the urban renewal area, because it's part of an employment center and a focus for Meridian, and, you know, I know that they are well known developers and they have done a great job with other projects. I'm not saying that we should approve it because they are a good developer, I'm saying it because it's nice to have a thoughtful plan that's laid out well. On a couple of the other issues that we have talked about, I would agree with Commissioner Cassinelli on the streetlights, I would follow staff's recommendation on that. I don't see any challenge with the hundred feet height, as long as we limit it to being on the side that's closer to the Interstate, because I would agree that a hundred foot building right off of the corner of Franklin and Ten Mile might stand out a little bit and that, you know, they would follow the intent of the bubble plan concept. I would hope that they would have some additional retail uses, even though it's an employment and high density focus. I think having that many employment centers and those many residents nearby they are going to want restaurants to go to, they are going to want somewhere to go for their break. Certainly would be a nice amenity and while retail certainly changed with COVID, I don't want to plan the future of our city on a one to two year pandemic, because I know that retail will come back in a different way in the future. So, that was a lot of comments for me. Sorry. I'm done now. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley -- or Commissioner Grove. Grove: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, my internet has been fluctuating, so I'm going to leave my video off, so I can attempt to not cut out. I would say that I agree with Commissioner Holland on just about everything that she said. I think for me that the height restriction being lifted I'm okay with them lift -- having it lifted and would go along with the rest of this body if they wanted to, you know, say where. I'm not as concerned about it I guess in this general area with limiting it, but I'm okay taking the limit off in terms of height. I'm very impressed with the level of detail that they have put towards the combining all of these different elements to make a cohesive plan and I like where they have gone with this. And I was a little confused trying to like read through all of the documentation leading up to this, but hearing all of the explanations tonight and getting a little bit more familiar with it, it's something I can get on board with. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F33 Page 30 of 90 Lorcher: Madam Chair, I don't really have much more to add that -- that the other Commissioners haven't really added. The fact that the developer has taken the time to really put a Comprehensive Plan for such a huge parcel that's very unique to our community and, really, the Treasure Valley. They are the first ones to, you know, set the bar for this type of project. So, it --from the beginnings of what they are proposing seems very viable and it would be a good space. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Madam Chair. So, I was actually involved with Planning and Zoning when this and the other application came in to develop all of this and I'm actually excited to see that that centerpiece actually has some momentum to move forward -- they actually start developing that piece as well. This was always meant to be kind of a showcase area with the Ten Mile corridor study that was done and I think so far they have done a really good job, especially as -- how would you say it? How the market has driven different things. Initially they were looking at more retail space, now it's more office space. People actually like that look a lot better. I think it plays better to the diversity for a live-work-play type stuff. So, I -- I'm in favor of what -- what they are proposing. I do agree with allowing the hundred foot height -- height restriction on there. Have a little height on this, this is the area to put that. So, you know, it's not like we are setting it off. I think this is a good location. So, I -- I'm a favor of this proposal. McCarvel: Okay. I think we have got all the comments. I would agree especially with Commissioner Grove. It was a lot to read and it makes a lot more sense. I appreciate the presentation. I have to admit when I saw he had 56 slides up there I was a little nervous, but I appreciate all the effort that went into the presentation tonight. It helped a lot. Yeah. I would -- the height sitewide, I think we might want to take a look at that, just so, you know, who knows what happens in the future and, you know, once we give that away it's gone, so -- and, yeah, the central amenity, I'm sure whoever makes the motion, will get that in there. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Is there -- if-- if Sonya or Bill could comment, because I'm still very concerned about just giving a wide open approval on the -- on the height limitation. I think we should rein it in a little bit and if they need to go outside of what we put up as a boundary, then, the alternative compliance is still an avenue, but it's kind of a check and balance. But Sonya or Bill, is there -- is there something that you could say to put my mind at ease on that, that it wouldn't get out of control? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, all I can add really is that current code does allow for the height to extend above that. I believe it's 20 percent in the code through alternative compliance through a conditional use permit. The applicant is trying to avoid doing that every time and going through the lengthy hearing process every time they have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F34] Page 31 of 90 that happen. Other than that, you know, that's -- that's under your purview. If you want to specify locations that they can or cannot go up to a hundred feet, that's -- that's really your decision. I don't really have any other ideas, unless Bill does. Parsons: No. I think you said it well, Sonya. It's really to, again, keep with the spirit of the plans. Again, the idea for this area was intensification and have taller buildings. That's -- and the C-G zone itself allows up to 65 feet in height. As Sonya mentioned, I think the tallest building out there is about 79 feet, if I remember correctly. Somewhere in that realm. So, we did alternative compliance and they did plat the area and we moved on. So, certainly, if -- if you want to self impose a specific area you can certainly add that in -- in your motion, Commissioner Cassinelli. Probably anything south of Cobalt and east of West -- I think it's Benchmark Street, if I'm not mistaken, which is basically -- and the Interstate there, it's-- pretty much all of that's C-G and the center of the project is probably I think where you guys -- based on the discussion leaving the -- the height limitation in that area. McCarvel: Yeah. I think that's exactly the borders that the applicant actually referred to as well is where they wanted to put them. South of Cobalt. Holland: Where was that again? McCarvel: South of Cobalt. Parsons: Yeah. Between Cobalt, the Interstate, and east of -- or, excuse me, west of Benchmark. See if I can zoom in on my map here and get the exact name of the -- it's South Benchmark Avenue is what I'm showing. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Parsons: Which is that eastern most -- eastern most north-south collector road where Jon's cursor is going up and down. Cassinelli: Is there a way to -- Parsons: It's a retail, office, entertainment, medical area. Cassinelli: Yeah. I wouldn't want to see a hundred -- I wouldn't want to see a hundred feet right at the border -- right at the edge of Ten Mile. I don't know that they would ever do that, but if -- if they could, you know, if we gave them the green light to do it now and that's where they could squeeze something in, then, you have got a six story building right at the -- you know, right at the edge of Ten Mile that, you know, winds up creating a -- you would wind up creating kind of a tunnel feel going through Ten Mile and I -- that's not -- you know, if we could even -- I'm great with -- personally, the benchmark I think on the east, Cobalt on the -- on the north, but if there is some way we can -- whoever is -- you know, our -- we have a professional motion maker when it gets this detailed. You know, if there is a way that they -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F35] Page 32 of 90 Holland: Commissioner Yearsley? Cassinelli: Exactly. If there is a way, too, to keep it a little bit in from -- from Ten Mile I would be -- I would be fine with -- with -- as long as we are keeping it -- keeping it in a confined area I'm fine with going to that height limit. I don't know -- Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm not sure what the foot requirement could be, but we could say that we would be allow -- willing to allow hundred foot height buildings as long as they had more than a hundred foot buffer or whatever number we decided is the arbitrary number between the -- a hundred foot buffer between Franklin Road, Ten Mile Road, or adjacent residential. Whatever the buffering is. If we could do something like that, instead of using roadways. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: One thing to kind of keep in mind as we are making these suggestions is the -- the road -- Ten Mile especially here is higher up than the property in a lot of places and so when we start saying a hundred feet or whatever, it might be -- it's going to be very different from the road than it is for the property itself and so I would -- I would caution us in making very detailed conditions on some of this, I think -- I think that the developer, you know, is going to do what is going to draw people into their development, right, and walking views and not allowing people to, you know, be welcomed into their space and welcomed into the city is not their intention, especially seeing how they own this entire development. So, I'm in favor of not putting a ton of restrictions in terms of the boundary for the height restriction. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I agree. I think -- I don't know if I have an issue with trying to put a condition on this. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think I would also agree. I think it's tough when we put too many conditions on it and measuring out a number. I was just trying to find a solution that might work for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F36 Page 33 of 90 the Commission, but I think I would be okay saying that we would allow the hundred foot height south of Cobalt and west of Benchmark Avenue, because I think that's the area that they are proposing that for and just -- I would agree that Ten Mile is kind of an elevated road coming in and if you are going to have that density that's the area that's designed for it. So, I don't really have a concern having a hundred feet high along Ten Mile, because I don't think they are going to block them all adjacent to each other. McCarvel: Is there a motion in the near future or do we have more discussion? Grove: Madam Chair, can I throw in one more thing? McCarvel: Absolutely. Commissioner Grove. Grove: So, just -- I guess maybe a question to Commissioner Holland. With the plaza open space piece that you have been pitching for --for this, I think one of the other maybe wording that we can run there -- I think amphitheater is something that has had success in some of these types of places. So, just kind of throwing that out for consideration for the -- not necessarily for the motion itself, but just throwing up the development idea. McCarvel: Okay. Lorcher: Madam Chair, are we going to try to combine several of these public hearing numbers together in one motion or are they going to be separate? McCarvel: That's up to the motion maker. But I think -- I will pose that question to staff, since we have the No. 5 and 6 listed separately, do you need two separate motions? Allen: No. You can include it. They -- they are all open together, so -- McCarvel: It's all under one item number, so -- Holland: All right. I will try taking a stab. Yearsley: Before we do that, can we have the applicant go to the conditions that they wanted to see on the screen. Cassinelli: We would have to open it back up. Yearsley: No. No. Just have to display that list of conditions, so at least we something to refer to when they are looking at it. Holland: I don't think we have to make the specific conditions today, because I think they are tied to the development agreement. I think -- we are not approving the development agreement modification, we are just a recommendation to it. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F37 Page 34 of 90 Holland: I know in the staff report they mentioned it's pages 48 through 56, there is a number of highlighted items that are in there. I have the staff report open, I can pull it up in here really quick. It's 48 to 56. There is a few highlighted items. One of them was around their conceptual use plan being submitted. Let's see. The bubble chart -- I'm not seeing all the highlight items. Another one was related to the TMISAP for complete streets. Talking about the starting point for each street. Sidewalks. Bike lanes. White shoulders. Crosswalks. Medians. Et cetera. The applicant shall address at the public hearing or in writing prior to the hearing what additional design features are planned for internal public streets within the development aside from those proposed. That was one of the items highlighted. So, I really only see a couple items highlighted, unless I'm missing something. McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: You help us out if there is specific things we need to address in that. McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Holland, I'm only seeing on page 48, Item A, and on page 56 it would be number four. Holland: Staff was it -- either Sonya or Bill, did they not want to include the bubble chart? Was that one of the challenges? Yearsley: Oh, I don't think the Council has had a chance to review that. So, I don't think we want to include that yet. Allen: Madam Chair, just to clarify that staff did not have the use plan, so -- initially. So, that's -- that was the request that they submit one, which they have done. McCarvel: You indicated you -- Allen: But generally it looks good, but the staff will take a closer look at it before the Council hearing. Holland: Is there any other items we need to make sure we note, Sonya? Cassinelli: This is my -- this is Commissioner Cassinelli. This is my last pitch for a little restriction on -- on -- on the height. Where ever a motion is going. Holland: Did you have a specific request, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: I just -- I mean I like -- because I would have -- by -- by the time you hit Vanguard, Ten Mile is pretty much flush with property there, so -- I mean I would like to see -- and I'm not -- I don't have a map that specifically shows the C-G, but I would like to stay south of Cobalt and within -- you threw out a number of a hundred feet of major arterials. I think -- although we would eliminate Franklin if we kept it south of Cobalt, but -- and I think that's their intent anyway would be to keep it south of Cobalt, but if that's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F38 Page 35 of 90 their intent then -- then, you know, just to specify that in a motion for Council to review think would be -- I think is adequate and, then, a hundred feet it keeps it back to -- to keep it more -- more inviting. I mean I -- I have seen -- you know, been around the country, you see a lot of projects where you get a lot of height right by the main roads and it doesn't mean that -- you know, I mean that -- people will still -- you know, you can still go in. It doesn't make it less inviting I guess, but it sure makes for a -- kind of a closed internal feel as you are -- when you are out -- when you are on the outside. So, a hundred feet? Yearsley: I could do 50 feet. Grove: Madam Chair, I -- I don't want to put those restrictions on, because then -- I don't know what those parcels are going to look like, how they need to develop. I'm really hesitant to put those restrictions, especially -- I mean I want to encourage the height and I think-- I mean there is not a lot of places in our city where we can encourage that amount of height and so I think for me I don't see those -- I hear your concerns, I guess, but I don't share them. Holland: Can I help out in the motion, that we make a note that just says for any properties that are adjacent to Ten Mile, if they are going to -- if there is a hope to go with a hundred foot building that they would work with staff to find where that's appropriate and, then, give staff that level of approval. Cassinelli: Well -- and that's what an alternative compliance says and that's why even if we set a hundred feet or 50 feet or whatever that number is, they can still get an alternative compliance. I just -- I'm just -- my thought is -- again, it's just a check and balance on that, so that once we -- I mean if we go a hundred feet everywhere then -- then they have got the ability to do that anywhere on the property without -- without anybody having a -- you know, be -- without -- without a check on that. So, I just -- that's why -- that's my thought. I'm not saying that I wouldn't be in favor of it, I'm just saying that, you know, think we need to keep a little bit of control here on it and have a -- have a -- you know, have a final look at it before it's -- before it goes up. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may try to help move this conversation along. I hear you what you are saying on the highest. Is it possible that maybe in your motion tonight that you say that the applicant work with staff prior to City Council to kind of designate an area to where they were -- at least in the plan. If these design guidelines come into play or that DA gets signed, at least there would be an exhibit as part of that DA that showed where it's appropriate to have hundred foot tall buildings and, then, the applicant can -- can work with us and, then, we can take that up to City Council. Holland: I think that's a great suggestion. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland? Cassinelli: I think I would be -- I would be good with that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F39 Page 36 of 90 Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council for the hearing date of March 18th, 2021, several items. For H- 2020-0074, for TM Center with the preliminary plat request, for H-2020-0074 for the development agreement modification that the applicant would work with staff on identifying prior to the City Council hearing the specific areas that the applicant would like to see hundred foot buildings and provide a conceptual diagram for Council to consider, but that they would provide significant buffering between future residential uses, neighborhood roadways, and that they would consider the area south of Cobalt and west to Benchmark Avenue for those higher height buildings. That the applicant would follow the bubble plan concept that was proposed in this evening's meeting as they move forward with their concept plans. That the applicant might also consider a significant central amenity for the project, whether it be an amphitheater, a plaza, a park and that they might seek assistance from the urban renewal agency or work with Council on what that amenity might look like, but that the commission would like to see some sort of significant central amenity added into the concept plan. And that we would also recommend approval of the request for the rezone of the 40.9 acres from R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district. The 3.9 acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning districts. The .65 five acres from the R-8 and the TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district. And the .53 acres from the TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district. Did I miss anything? McCarvel: A second? Yearsley: I will second that. McCarvel: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval for Items No. 5 and 6, H-2020-0074, with recommendations and modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I think we may be in for a bit of time on the next one. Can we take a -- McCarvel: Yeah. That's -- that's exactly where I was going. Let's take a five minute break. We will reconvene shortly after 8:10. Five, six minute break. Thanks. Cassinelli: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F40 Page 37 of 90 (Recess: 8:06 p.m. to 8:16 p.m.) 7. Public Hearing for The Oasis (H-2021-0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. McCarvel: Okay. So, back to it. We will open at this time Item No. 7, the Oasis, H-2021- 0004, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hold on. This is not working the way I want it to. There we go. Can you see my screen? McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Awesome. Thank you. Now, onto the fun one. Let the fun begin. This is Item No. 7, as noted, for The Oasis. It is for a conditional use permit. The site -- or the specific site is a portion of the three acre parcel shown on the screen. It is currently zoned C-G and is located generally at the southwest corner of Ustick and Eagle. There is a couple of things I want to note before we get going. One is the public testimony that was submitted, there was -- as of 4:00 p.m. there was 225 pieces. So, appreciate the -- the involvement of the community, honestly, whether it's good or bad. It's always good to have that. So, thank you. So, I would say probably 25 percent were in support, 75 percent were against it. Those that were in supportive of it noted a desire to have a music venue for entertainment here within the city, instead of in other cities nearby. Now, those who opposed the project note concerns over increased traffic, overall safety of having this kind of use near a residential development, drunk driving, parking count and how it would degrade the moral character of the city. That came up a lot. There are a couple of instances -- and I want to touch on this just for the clarity of the processing about how -- how could the city even entertain this by allowing it to be applied for it. That's not how development works. It's not how code works. We don't get to dictate those types of things. Even if it -- frankly, even if it's prohibited by the code an applicant could still ask for it and go to hearing and get denied. But they could still technically ask. So, we have to go through the process, we have to do our due diligence for that. Second to that, there were a lot of people -- I got some angry e-mails about -- you know, related to that, but also about how there is site work going on currently. That has some to do with this and absolutely nothing to do with this. That doesn't mean that this has been approved at all. That's why we are here tonight. The site work out there is from previous approvals, all the way back dating to 2019 that have been approved. I approved the overall site improvements. I also approved the building to the east of this and the building that this is proposed within. So, all of the dirt being moved out there has very little to do with this use. This is a use within a building that is not yet constructed, but has been recently approved as of three weeks ago. But the building -- again, nothing to do with the use. The use is being requested for the conditional use permit. So, just to make those items Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F41 Page 38 of 90 clear. Now we get to the actual presentation. The subject property -- again, this is a little bit of history here -- was annexed in 2003 as part of a larger annexation area. There was a development agreement associated with this annexation and it was modified in 2019 to remove this property from that DA and enter into a new one serving just this site. In December of 2020 the landowner, which is not the applicant, received preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property into five lots for future ownership purposes. The subject property is proposed within a new multi-tenant building in the very southwest corner of the overall three acre site. It is part of a larger mixed use regional area that includes the commercial developments to the north, the northeast, east, and the Villa Sport site to the west, which would be the remaining area here. And even the Sadie Creek, which was the first application up tonight. A project of this small size, meaning one use within a -- one building on a small site, cannot and is not intended to comply with all of the mixed use regional Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. However, in conjunction with the existing and approved uses in the general area, the mixed use policies have been met for the regional area. A few of the Comprehensive Plan policies that staff did find relevant are as follows: The proposed use can diversify Meridian's economic base to establish and maintain a self-sustaining, full service economy. Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access large commercial and mixed use developments. Enhance crime prevention awareness to the education of neighborhood watch groups, multi-family property management companies, homeowners associations and other organizations. In this case it would be the other organizations and the applicant and police working together. Require appropriate building design and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify and integrate commercial multi-family and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. In regards to the last policy noted, there is no neighborhood directly adjacent. So, meaning that there is no residential zoning directly adjacent to the property line of this subject application. But the closest home is approximately 330 feet from the southern property line. Future commercial buildings and parking lots will separate this project from the existing -- sorry -- from the approved multi- tenant building. With the recently approved CDC and design review, the approved landscaping meets all code requirements and helps to beautify the property, while offering an appropriate visual landscape buffer to the closest neighborhood to the southwest. Likely the subject site will not be directly viewable from the neighborhood directly to the southwest once other properties redevelop. The parking is located on the interior of the overall property, which will be largely screened by the buildings and landscaping from the adjacent properties, which is a benefit. Usually the parking is one of the most noise inducing elements of a commercial site. Other general Comprehensive Plan policies were discussed and analyzed within the staff report. But the ones noted even within this staff report is in no way an exhaustive list of the applicable policies, either in support or against the project. The approved building that would hold the proposed use is constructed with a modern and urban design that should integrate with the overall design of the other commercial buildings within this commercial development and with those adjacent to the site. However, according to the applicant, the real buffering of the proposed use comes from within the building, where there is proposed soundproofing materials, techniques and technologies. When it comes to the screening and buffering of the building and use, staff does find that the proposed landscaping and the internal building materials to be sufficient. This does not mean issues like parking and capacity are just by landscaping Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F42 Page 39 of 90 and sound proofing. Just to be clear. The administratively approved building, Eagle View Retail Center, will be approximately 8,300 square feet in size, with two tenants suites as seen. The Oasis is the larger tenant suite and is approximate -- approximately 7,000 square feet in size and the building and use meet all of the code required dimensional standards, meaning setbacks, height, etcetera. The proposed business is a combination of a nightclub and music venue, which falls under the drinking establishment and indoor recreation facility uses within our development code respectively. The indoor recreation facility is a principally permitted use within the C-G zoning district, unless it incorporates a music venue and is located within a thousand feet of any existing residence, which, then, requires a conditional use permit, as is the case with this application. The drinking establishment is a conditional use within the C-G zoning district outright. Therefore, the applicant is requesting this conditional use permit for these two uses to reside within one building and one business, The Oasis. I already showed this, but for this point it is anticipated that directly south of the approved building there will be additional landscaping, a larger parking lot, and a drive aisle. This parking lot and landscaping received preliminary approval with the Villa Sport application. The main access to and for this development will be via a shared driveway connection to Ustick Road, which would be a continuation of this further up and it will be limited to a right-in, right-out access regardless of this use. The landowner is currently constructing this shared driveway across -- or this driveway access for their development, because this site is developing before the Villa Sport project and this also ensures there is more than one way to get to the entrance of the site. This drive aisle will connect to North Cajun Lane, which is this portion here to the south. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and therefore -- and, therefore, no stub streets. Instead, there are private drive aisles as our standard for commercial developments. The applicant does have an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial property, so the Villa Sport property, but this agreement does not currently include a cross-parking agreement. In addition to the shared drive aisle that abuts the property to the west, the Villa Sport site improvements and recorded cross-access agreement will include an additional Ustick access road -- access point further to the west, which would be the North Centrepoint Way -- I guess -- yeah. This road. These access points to the arterial are approved for the site. Staff finds they are adequate and safe access to the site at full build out and also at the time with only the most adjacent Ustick access in conjunction with the drive aisle connection to Cajun Lane, which, then, goes onto -- I believe it's Seville and goes out to Eagle Road. However, to help mitigate any residential cut-through traffic, meaning accessing the drive aisle here and, then, cutting through here, to help mitigate that the applicant and landowner should work with the Villa Sport applicant to construct a driveway through the Villa Sport site in line with where ever that was approved previously. So, I believe there is a drive aisle approximately here. This driveway will provide a more direct means of accessing North Centrepoint Way and, again, help mitigate any cut-through traffic adjacent to the homes and it would get them to the existing traffic signal on North Centrepoint Way without having to use the roads adjacent to the subdivision. ACHD is the leading agency on access points and traffic mitigation for the City of Meridian and Boise, for that matter, and other adjacent cities to the east. Because peak traffic times should not be drastically affected by the proposed use on any access point, ACHD did not require a traffic impact study for this application. Even with the assumed capacity of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F43] Page 40 of 90 a thousand persons in the initial submittal, this was not required and restricting the capacity to 500 people should help with traffic concerns of this type of use. Further analysis regarding access should be addressed to ACHD, as they are the defending limiting body there. Staff also agrees that at peak hours of -- of business, which would be after 8:00 p.m. more than likely, access to the site should be improved as adjacent traffic levels on Ustick and Eagle should be much less than when it is at 5:00 or 6:00. With the proposed uses of a music venue nightclub, capacity and hours of operation are, obviously, integral factors in determining the compatibility of the uses with the neighboring and employment development, both commercial and residential. The applicant proposes hours of operation for The Oasis on the weekdays, which I labeled as Sunday through Thursday, as 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. On the weekdays -- sorry. Those are the weekdays. 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on the weekends, Friday, Saturday. For reference the Villa Sport site is approved to remain open until 12:00 a.m. midnight, which would cover a majority of the same operating hours. The Oasis is further away from the existing residential than Villa Sport, but this does not mean any negative impacts are automatically alleviated. Therefore, staff recommends the weekday hours be limited from 4:00 p.m. to midnight to match the Villa Sport and, then, the weekend hours be limited to 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. These hours of operation match or, again, one more hour than the Villa Sport closing time, which makes it more compatible with that use and nearby residential development. These limitations as noted are one less hour than what the applicant originally requested. In order to meet UDC minimum parking requirements, the suite size of 7,000 square feet would require a total of 28 parking spaces and this is based on the restaurant use, which is one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The -- our development code does not specify parking standards beyond that -- for specific uses beyond that. That is our most restrictive parking ratio. With the approved CZC, which was for reference a certificate of zoning compliance, which is a site plan review, this is from that approval. The overall site improvements, the -- and the additional spaces, which are on the site specific one, 102 parking spaces are proposed on site and would likely be all used, because there is an existing cross-access and cross-parking agreement for this site in place. Both the landowner and the applicant understand the entire site will likely be used for parking for this business. The approved plans do not show any parking along the future northern commercial lots here and the landlord has agreed that those spaces will be built prior to this use commencing. Depending on how the parking is configured on the north side of the site, there is actually physical room for approximately 37 additional parking spaces, which includes the required width of nine feet and including for landscape planters, which is in line with code requirements as well. Again, this is a maximum, but does -- but does show additional parking will be provided and can be provided on site beyond what is currently being shown. Because of the anticipated parking issues for the proposed use, staff has recommended the applicant-landowner obtain a cross-parking agreement with the adjacent properties to the south and to the west and increase the amount of available parking for this use. In addition, a minimum of 125 total parking spaces shall be constructed. That's an additional recommendation. Which would obtain a parking ratio of one to four in accord with previous approvals. In the applicant's original narrative an estimated capacity of approximately a thousand patrons for the 7,000 square foot tenant suite was proposed. After receiving a conceptual floorplan as already shown, preliminary discussions with fire plan review discuss a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F44 Page 41 of 90 maximum capacity closer to 700, but the exact number for the map -- the building occupancy -- so fire occupancy and building occupancy -- cannot be known until architectural plans are submitted with building permit submittal at a later date. However, through the CUP process, which we are currently in, capacity can be limited further. Because of the issues outlined, staff recommends that -- that the capacity be limited to no more than 500 people, including the employees. Staff made this distinction because employees will likely take up parking spaces for the entire hours of operation, not just a portion of-- and, then, therefore, they should be included in the maximum capacity. Staff arrived at this number because it is the same ratio as the minimum parking for the proposed use. Again, one to four, which one space for 250 square feet is not one to four, I do understand math to that point, but most commercial developments are based off of thousand square feet of gross floor area. So, 250 square feet of a thousand would be one space for every -- four spaces for every thousand square feet. So, that's why 500 persons and 125 parking spaces equate to one space for every four people, based on the maximum capacity. However, it should be noted that enforcement of any of these capacity limits will be difficult for the city to enforce. The applicant should discuss how they intend on enforcing these limits without requiring constant fire or police presence on site. Staff does recommend approval of the requested CUP, because the proposed use meets or exceeds the minimum code requirements as outlined in the staff report and after that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Joe, a couple quick questions. The capacity that you --you are recommending capacity at 500 persons? Dodson: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: And if that's less than fire code and whatnot, how is that enforceable? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, Madam Chair, that -- through the CUP process. That happens quite often. We do it more often with daycares to limit the number of children being served, but through the CUP process and this entitlement process we can limit that beyond the building requirements. Cassinelli: But how is that -- how would that be enforced on a nightly basis? Dodson: That is a good question and that is something I -- frankly should be left up to the applicant to -- as part of the CUP process to show us how that can be and should be enforced. I understand those concerns, which is why I noted that at the end of my presentation. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F45] Page 42 of 90 Cassinelli: And then -- although I thought you were referring to parking, but you were referring to indoor capacity as well? Dodson: Correct. Not just the parking. I -- they are tied together, so I imagine that if we can enforce the actual capacity, including the employees, the parking issue should be somewhat mitigated. Cassinelli: Okay. But there wouldn't be a -- if they are under the fire -- if they are within fire code, but over the 500, is there a -- does the city have a mechanism to enforce that and whatnot? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, my understanding would be that they could have their CUP revoked. Other than that it would probably be code enforcement citations and things like that, which is how we would track that and -- and, no, my assumption is that if this were to get approved with the behemoth opposition to it, that there would be many residents who might actually count people and report that, which the previous city I worked at that's how code enforcement worked. They did not do drive-bys and drive- throughs through the cities, they just operated off of complaints. So, it can be rather efficient. Cassinelli: Okay. I have another question if-- if I'm okay. If anyone else has a question first. Bongiorno: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Officer -- Bongiorno: Chief Bongiorno. McCarvel: Bongiorno. Bongiorno: Bongiorno. How is everybody tonight? McCarvel: Good. And you? Bongiorno: So, to kind of go along with what Commissioner Cassinelli was saying and -- and Joe was one hundred percent correct, we -- we can't be everywhere all the time. Obviously I don't have the staffing for it to track how many people are in the building. You know, there has been some tragic -- tragedies throughout the United States where we have had buildings over capacity where hundreds of people have lost their lives in buildings similar to this. So, in this case this building is going to be sprinklered. It's going to have fire sprinklers on it. And so it should have the latest and greatest of everything life safety wise. But Joe is one hundred percent correct, the bulk of it would be done off complaints of people using their gut and just saying, man, there is too many people here and, then, we can send PD or whatever to take a look at the building and make sure that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F46 Page 43 of 90 they are not overcapacity and if they are, then, we tell them they either have to shut down and everybody out or they have to remove people from the building. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have another question? Cassinelli: I did. Thank you. Joe -- and I seem to have picked this up from a couple of the comments. I wasn't able to read all 455. 1 think that's what the number was. But there were -- there were several and I know you kind of alluded to it up front as far as previous approvals and whatnot just on the buildings themselves. But can you address -- from what I have picked up there were a lot of -- there were several complaints about noticing and that sort of thing. Can you just reiterate or talk to that, that everything was -- you know, all proper noticing, mailing, those sorts of things were done? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, Madam Chair, my understanding, yes, the noticing part, that's done from the city. So, I hope we didn't mess that up. Adrienne never does, so I'm not pointing any fingers. Those are mailings that we mail out to --within 500 feet. The signposting I believe was one thing that had come up. I had -- I had driven by randomly and it did look like the sign was a little off of it being adjacent directly to the site, but, nonetheless, it was adjacent to Eagle, which is where it should be and there was one adjacent to Ustick and the reason for that was -- well, the reason why it was a little off site is because of the construction that is going on and there was an opening where probably the sign should have been where the construction workers were accessing the site in and out. So, as far as I know -- as far as I have been told and understand that it was all noticed correctly, including the neighborhood meeting. There were -- I know there were a couple issues with some changes in code and I will take a little bit of brunt of that, I did not let the applicant know that that had been changed from Monday to Thursday, because, frankly, I wasn't aware of it at the time. And, then, it -- he did correct and change it to the correct hours and we -- we move forward with that. But it's my understanding that everything was code compliant. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Joe, do you know is there an outdoor component of this use that's being proposed? Dodson: Commissioner Grove, no, there is not. Obviously people congregate on the sidewalks, but nothing is formally being proposed with that and I wouldn't -- through the narrative and no discussions with the applicant has that come up. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F47 Page 44 of 90 Grove: Okay. And I can ask the applicant about that. My main concern there is the nature of this type of business, but assuming they don't allow smoking indoors when -- when you start drinking there is typically a congregation point, so making sure that they have some contingency plan in place. And, then, I had a second question, just so that -- by the time we get to the deliberation and discussion point I am more certain than not that we will have a lot to undertake, but just kind of from the outset could you very clearly define what our parameters are in terms of what we are ruling on and what we are not litigating. Dodson: Commissioner Grove, that's a good question. Yes, if Mr. Baird wants to weigh in at all that would be wonderful as well, but from Planning's perspective the -- you stick to the findings. Those are what we have to base these things off of when we -- when we do this. Some of the comments in the public were talking about location. We can't necessarily deny something just because we say we don't like where it's being proposed. That can be a component of the denial, if this is -- if that happens. It can be a component of the approval. It just can't be arbitrary. It can't be we don't like the number of parking spaces for any unknown reason. It has to be a little bit more based in code, which is, again, why I could not recommend denial. I do not think that I had enough gumption or power within code to do that. So, you guys kind of -- I don't envy you tonight -- have that authority to do that tonight and recommend basing it in the findings of the conditional use permit, which are at the end of my staff report. Baird: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, sir. Baird: I concur with what's been said. This is a conditional use permit and the way I look at that is -- and you, as the Planning and Zoning Commission, find appropriate conditions to place on this such that it will fit within -- within the rules. You have got a little bit more leeway than the staff does as far as, you know, he's -- he's come up with a -- with an arithmetic way to limit the number of people. If you don't think that that's appropriate and it needs additional conditions, the Commission can certainly do that. So, that's the way I would -- I would approach it as the Commission. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And with that, if there is no more questions, I will ask the applicant to begin their presentation. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sorry. I'm going to ask this question at some point, so I may as well throw it out there now. This is actually to -- is it-- is it Chief Bongiorno or Deputy Chief? I'm sorry. He's muted. Bongiorno: No. I'm here. So, it -- either one works. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F48 Page 45 of 90 Cassinelli: Well, I want to give you proper respect there. Bongiorno: Deputy Chief is my official title, but -- Cassinelli: Okay. Bongiorno: -- a lot of people call me chief. Cassinelli: All right. Chief, I will -- there wasn't an actual report in there from the Fire Department that I -- unless I completely missed it. There were comments in the staff report, but what I'm --what I would like to know is just your overall -- and I don't know how much flexibility you have with -- with giving an opinion, but I wanted to --just want to be real comfortable, because, obviously, with this -- I think, you know, fire safety is an enormous component, as you mentioned yourself there. You know, we have heard stories over the years -- obviously, sprinklers are a big issue, but heard stories over the years where a place like this, you know, where there has been terrible tragedies. So, I just want to make sure that the Fire Department is -- is comfortable with the -- the layout, the access, capacity, and all that. Bongiorno: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, the way this sits -- so, my -- the things I potentially -- I initially look at is access, water supply, and just kind of the overall layout to make sure that we have full access to everything that we are looking at. So, as far as the internals of the building, I didn't have any comments on it, because that will all be handled through the plans process when they submit their -- their plans. So, our-- our plans reviewers through the building department we will go through the interior to make sure that everything meets building codes, everything meets fire code, you know, it's got the proper number of exits, we have got proper exiting for up on the mezzanine, you know, they are not putting flammable materials on the walls. That's all the kinds of things that they will be looking at as far as the interior of the building and the capacity of the building as well. Because depending on how they lay out the building with either standing room only or if there is tables and chairs or if there is just chairs, that capacity is going to change depending on how it's laid out. So, that 500 number that -- that Joe threw out could change and it most likely will, depending on how they present the plans to the city and how the layout and seating is going to be, because that dictates capacity, the occupant load of the building. Cassinelli: I guess with all that said and as --you know, as you are involved in the process of all that, are you fairly comfortable with -- with the Fire Department's ability to respond to any emergency, as long as you have your input when they are laying out the proper exits and all that, are you -- are you and the department comfortable with response to them and availability to get there and deal with any situation? Bongiorno: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli, honestly, the -- the only thing that I brought up as a concern to Joe and the owner was the parking situation, because, you know, we didn't know at the time what the occupancy load of this building was going to be, we weren't sure now many parking spaces were going to get used. There is other Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F49 Page 46 of 90 businesses, obviously, in this complex and so that's why we were looking at do they have a parking -- a cross-parking agreement with the people next door to make sure that the overflow parking is allowed to be, you know, captured in the next parking lot over, so we are not blocking fire lanes and anything like that. That was my biggest concern. Cassinelli: Thank you. Bongiorno: You bet. McCarvel: Thank you. And we have the applicant present. Would you like to begin your presentation? Tsai: Can you hear me okay? McCarvel: Yes. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Tsai: My name is Brian Tsai at 3085 East Ustick Road here in Meridian, Idaho. That's the project site. I thought for a long time about how I would start this presentation until recently I received this fortune cookie that said your contributions to your community can be felt near and far. I'm Brian Tsai, I'm the owner of The Oasis, and the reason I'm here tonight is after pouring my heart and soul and every penny I have had into this project, I was very disheartened to see the letters of opposition for something I have spent almost my entire life putting together as something for the entire community to enjoy. This project is a culmination of over a decade worth of ideas and that includes every penny I have made in those last ten years and, then, some. Half of that time I spent as a state trooper near the United States and Mexico border. I lost count of how many bodies I have moved or how many times I have heard bullets zipping past my head, knowing it was full well probably meant to end my life. It's a sound that you will never forget. So, I left that life behind in pursuit of a lifelong passion for music, to turn a bunch of ideas sketched across the endless napkins into something tangible and real. A multi-purpose venue that can be enjoyed by all ages, family uses, walks of life and the community as a whole. Just to reach this point in development I have already taken a second position lien on my house, received high interest net leases on equipment and, then, additionally, signed that collateral just in order to secure this lease for the building. They say nothing great comes without great sacrifice. Having been born and raised in Boise, like Commissioner Holland, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Grove, I, myself, am an Idaho native. So, when I say I grew up in this valley, I saw and experienced everything it had to offer for music, arts, entertainment and nightlife. As far as Commissioner Holland, your role as the city of Kuna's director of economic development, as well as the Boise Valley's Economic Partnership and a Boise native yourself, you understand first how -- firsthand how much a benefit a music event alone can bring to both a city and the surrounding community. As you would say in your mantra, you never stop learning, you never stopped doing, and you never stop giving. Now, why did I think this belonged in Meridian? I could have easily paid in rent half as much and put it in another city. I believed that was because Meridian was the most premier and upscale area that could accommodate a venue that was intended to be just as nice. When I met with an advisor from the Small Business Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F50 Page 47 of 90 Administration, it turns out he was well connected in the music industry and had e-mails from the city -- then City Council of Meridian all the way back to 2010 asking if he knew anyone who was interested in building a venue in Meridian. These lead up to the recent years -- for example, when former Meridian Arts Commission Member Hilary Blackstone, advisory board of the City Council, and now who works at the Idaho State Department of Education, wrote a letter to the coordinators of the Tree Fort Music Festival and asked them what it would take for a company to build a venue in Meridian, because it had the potential to bring millions of dollars of revenue on top of coverage for arts and entertainment of all forms. Now, Commissioner McCarvel, your role in the Boise Convention and Visitor's Bureau, I'm sure you understand how much attraction would come to the Treasure Valley and Meridian specifically to have a truly world class facility in the area. In these folders are letters of opposition that I have -- been sent to the city regarding our application. I have read every single letter twice. It appears the majority of them were copied and pasted messages from the same three people. I sorted them into several folders here just for the reference. This yellow folder here represents all the addressable concerns that have been posed by members of the community and I'm here to assure the community that a project will have no detriment to the community in which it belongs. Is a concern --these are addressable concerns such as noise, crime increase, drunk drivers and, of course, traffic and parking as we have heard throughout the staff report. In our noise analysis we assume that the walls will be made of nothing but a single sheet of plywood, which is, obviously, impossible as far as building construction goes. The chart in our analysis shows that the outside noise will at all times be lower than the ambient sound of highway traffic coming from Eagle Road. Regarding crime for the sake of comparison, in a five year period from 2015 to 2019, which is the most recent FBI crime statistics under the Uniform Crime Reporting report, which is the UCR report, shows in comparison 2,217 incidents of aggravated assault occurred in Boise over that time period. These are incidents which resulted in significantly bodily harm or death, including a fourth multiplier, such as an implement with a knife or a gun. Of those 2,217 only exactly one occurred as a direct result of a bar or club in downtown Boise, where dozens of such facilities exist. This means compared to the incident rate per capita you are six times more likely to be stabbed or shot going about your daily life in Boise versus attending an alcohol serving establishment in downtown. Crime occurs where it's naturally drawn. That's the reason why Beverly Hills has a lower violent crime rate than in midtown Los Angeles. If one incident occurs once every 2,217, that's an anomaly, not a trend. By that same logic we can look at the several armed robberies that occurred in the past month at gas stations and banks here in the Treasure Valley. Does that mean we remove all the banks and gas stations because a violent crime occurred at their premises? Commissioner Lorcher, I believe you are the most recent addition to the Commission, but before -- before coming here you have worked at three different alcoholic beverage brokers. So, you know the alcohol industry. Well, you have also attended events at a number of venues around town, including the Morrison Center. You have stated in your application to the Commission that you encouraged smart growth, which will benefit both existing and new residents, for the business and the community. Having both of those in mind, I'm sure you recognize the immense benefit a multi-purpose venue of this type can provide for the entire community. Regarding DUI crime in my law enforcement career, I personally arrested over 200 DUI drivers. Of those, since we actually track where those Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F51 Page 48 of 90 drivers are coming from as part of our interview process, only two or three of those originated from bars or clubs of any kind. The other 198 or so, rounded for the sake of estimation, came from private residences. The reason for this is because those who visit establishments to consume alcohol -- almost all of them have already made arrangements in advance to get home safely, either through a designated driver or a ride sharing service of some kind. This, however, is not the case when they are forced to leave a private residence. And, lastly, of the traffic concerns, which were mostly resolved by reducing our planning capacity by half, the city planning staff, as well as the fire marshal and the Meridian Police Department, agreed in consultation that this would alleviate, if not significantly remove any issues with the parking or traffic. As noted in the staff report we have provided over 450 percent more parking spaces than what is required by code. So, four and a half times the required amount. At this intersection with two major arterials, even if all one hundred vehicles left the exact same time, it could be possibly cleared out in a single cycle of the traffic control signals. Now, we are certainly not the first. There are several bars on this mine drag of Eagle Road that are close -- then close at the same times as our project, if not later. A drive down Eagle Road shows the commercial use as far as the eye can see. There are approximately a dozen licensed liquor establishments within less than a mile of our location, including at least five to ten more that were added in the City of Meridian in 2020, with no marked increase of DUls by percentage and in total there are already 61 other liquor licenses that are currently in operation in Meridian. We are just asking to be number 62. This red folder, approximately 80 to 90 percent of the opposition's letters were letters that didn't address any particular concern, but stated they were opposed to the project because it went against their family or moral values. Now, if I don't like vanilla ice cream I don't go out and try and get everyone else to hate vanilla ice cream, I just try -- or I don't try and go get companies to stop making it, I just don't eat it. Similarly, if not perhaps, but when somebody wants to build a strip club in Meridian, as they have in Boise, in no way would it affect my family values or my personal moral stance, because I don't allow them to. Personally I don't morally agree with strip clubs. It doesn't reflect on my personal values, because I don't attend them. And, finally, this folder here I labeled within radius, because this is the radius defined by law as the area of potential impact. The state law designates as 300 feet. The City of Meridian has increased that and designated that to be 500 feet. These are the letters that were received within that radius. Which means when I cross referenced the letters of objection from the list of owners and their residents on file with the city, discovered that not only did not a single one of the opposition actually live within the lawful zone of impact, a smear campaign was presented by several of those opponents, intentionally spreading fear and rumors regarding our facility. Some of the residents that are living in the area that support the project, including five of which who were -- live within this radius, said that they had received flyers on their doorstep claiming that our facility was intended to operate as a strip club, including outdoor music and lights that would be distracting, and others that claimed that we had paid to promote prostitution from our facility. None of which could be further from the truth. When I reached out to some of the citizens who had written letters of opposition, they were surprised to discover the real practices of our business and responded to me saying that they didn't actually oppose our project, but only wrote the letter because they were instructed to. The fact that our opposition would go to such great lengths to spread misinformation to demonstrate the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F52 Page 49 of 90 character of their intentions. The bottom line is this. Idaho Code Section 67-6512(a) of the Idaho Local Land Use and Planning Act states that the permit may be issued provided if conditionally permitted by the ordinance, which it is, and submitted to the -- subject to the conditions of the ordinance in which Meridian Unified Development Code 11-4-3-10 meets all the requirements of not being located within a church or educational institution and, in fact, absolutely nothing is located within 300 feet. Over a four full football field away, which is the radius designated by the Idaho law for potential impact regarding conditional use permits. Now, several dozen experts and consultants at the city's planning staff wrote their staff report that this permit approval would be in compliance with over eight different requirements for that approval. That appears at the end of the staff report and added that the project -- and I quote will add to the city's commercial base and will likely be a higher benefit to the users of future Villa Sport and residents to the southwest of this site. The proposed business offers a new commercial use, not only to this area of Meridian, but to Meridian as a whole. End of quote. They added in conversation that much of the city staff, including the planners, love the proposed use and, indeed, sincerely want it in the City of Meridian. In addition, the project promotes the Action Item 6.01 .02(d) in the Comprehensive Plan to develop indoor or outdoor multiple use facilities for a variety of recreational, educational and cultural sports purposes and uses. Commissioner Holland, I watched the previous Planning and Zoning meeting. You stated in the last hearing that the determination of conditional use should primarily include if the use fits the Comprehensive Plan. You have heard how the staff report demonstrates that it does and, additionally, promotes the intended action items by the city as a whole. The report goes on to state that our project -- and I quote: Gives Meridian residents more opportunity to share in music and art and potentially bring new cultural experiences to Meridian through this business and value. Also in the last hearing I believe it was Commissioner Seal, who is not in attendance with us today, has stated as a city we are trying to grow up and we need more businesses and we need more places of employment to exist. We are starting with the addition of at least 30 jobs supporting all local businesses and musicians as a whole. I'm not sure who would be against a minority owned business trying to open during a pandemic when the global music industry has lost over a trillion dollars in revenue at a time when over 150,000 bars and restaurants have permanently closed their doors as a result of COVID. Now, having been a minority business owner for nearly a decade, I experienced discrimination in seeking loans, filing applications, securing leases. These are all occurrences that are well documented nationwide. I refuse to sit back and be stepped on by opposition whose personal or business beliefs perhaps might stand on businesses being owned solely by white two parent nuclear households. Statistically speaking Idaho has one of the lowest rates of minority owned businesses in the entire country. It appears at the bottom five of the entire 50 states. All I'm asking for here is a chance to start a business. Of the few people who chase a dream of something they have always wanted to do to bring something to Meridian that has been missing for decades and provides a massively positive community opportunity, but financial and economic growth as well. This provides growth for both citizens and government, which, in turn, increases available funds for school, education, and other community programs. In addition to the letters of support that have been sent in, we have received several hundred messages, each with a unique reason for each individual of the importance of such a venue and why music is important to them. I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F53 Page 50 of 90 included them here. It's over 16 pages with at least ten or 12 messages per page of those supporters. Our Facebook page, despite having no advertising done, has already amassed over 600 followers based on the excited word of mouth alone from local residents. Now, in reality, less than 20 percent of our operations can be considered nightclub use. That's where we dispel a lot of the problems and the stigma surrounding facilities that are purely nightclubs. In fact, we have booked over ten couples, many free of charge, to have their weddings and receptions at our facility. We are putting both the Idaho Humane Society and the Meridian Canine Rescue on our calendars, opening the venue to pet adoption events, welcoming all ages, including kids and family events. A representative of the Meridian Canine Rescue, just a couple miles away from our site, stated -- and I quote: They are very grateful for the opportunity to use our venue space. The Idaho Humane Society stated they appreciated us bringing such an important and much needed space to the Boise-Meridian area, since they were not able to reach out to Meridian due to the lack of Meridian's venue spaces. We have several local dance clubs to be featured at our space and excited to bring dance styles, including hip hop, ballroom, and country western. These groups span all ages, including a local swing dancing group comprised primarily of age 60 and over members. We are even working with some local high school cheerleading groups, so they can host their seminars and meets at our venue as well. We have also reached out to the Meridian Arts Commission and offered them the use of our space completely free of charge for any of their future uses. As Commissioner Yearsley said in an October 7th, 2013, introduction, he called Meridian -- and I quote: One of the greatest cities in Idaho. The number one in Treasure Valley and we are not going to be a bedroom community anymore. End of quote. And you can't be the greatest without having a single venue of any kind for the arts. In total, based on our estimated expenditures, labor, and operating costs, we have already pledged over 20,000 dollars of free venue use to the City of Meridian, several nonprofit organizations and community uses that include both child and teenage programs due to the multiple use nature of the building. Almost done. A developer once told me that many groups interested in booking before you even open is a sign that the community as a whole is highly supportive of your project. I would like to thank the Commission for their time and I would ask the Commission member make a motion for approval, including, in closing, only to point out that there would be no outstanding reason, lawful or otherwise, not to approve the permit at this time. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland, you have come off mute. Holland: Was it Brian is your first name? Tsai: Yes, Commissioner. Holland: I'm sorry, I didn't catch your last name, but I -- I appreciate you taking some time to give an overview for us. I am curious if you can talk a little bit more about safety for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F54 Page 51 of 90 us. That's probably one of the biggest concerns we have seen. But what are some of the safety protocols you are proposing that might help mitigate some of the concerns the community is going to be bringing forward tonight? Tsai: First thing I will address is the issue with capacity, just as that was posed as a question just kind of right off the bat. We use a system that's created by a company called Token Works. They are the same company that makes the identification authentication programs and the machines that they use -- that the TSA uses at the airport. So, they scan the ID from top to bottom, they verify the age and that the ID is actually authentic using a number of different techniques that are forensic based on certain states. That system as a whole, then, links to a network of other known -- like potentially known offenders that exist within the system. So, if you -- if this person -- typically people who create violence, people who have inappropriate conduct, people who are -- who commonly drink too often, these are people who have not done that for the very first time. They have typically been to other venues before, therefore, if they get kicked out or if they get flagged for follow up or they get blacklisted from a venue, we will know that immediately upon entering of their attempted entry into our facility and we could deny them entry into the facility prior to that point. As far as the other safety issues are concerned, we have -- and it's posted on our website, we have absolutely zero tolerance for any type of inappropriate behavior, overconsumption of alcohol, or any of these other things that are typically associated with somebody going to a facility that's just a nightclub and, then, getting a little too out of hand. Among these things, for example -- well, let's say -- well, how would you do this versus a regular bar and I believe I have this in my follow up rebuttal as well, which is that a normal bar their only way to prevent overconsumption is by not over serving. That falls onto the bartender and their training to recognize the signs and symptoms of potential intoxication and, then, stop it before that actually happens. However, the bartenders they are attending the bar, they are not there to tend to the rest of the business. So, it can very -- very easily slip through their observation that this person might go out into the parking lot and drive away drunk. The way we have mitigated that is through our plan not only having the security staff posted at the entrances and the exits, but to have our actual bartenders and service staff trained above and beyond what the City of Meridian requires in order to recognize the signs and symptoms prior to them even leaving the building and if need be they -- we can arrange for them to have safe transportation versus just letting them out of the parking lot and, you know, whatever happens from there. I hope that answers most of the things. I know there is a -- there is a whole lot of things that can go around the concept of safety and just as a -- as a base principle I suppose I would say that during any of the times where typically more incidents happen, which is admittedly, you know, later in the evenings, more towards the night times, we do intend to have our security staff at the doors screening every person that comes in for any potential weapons or alcohol that they would like to bring in. Holland: Thanks, Brian. That's it for now for me. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F55 Page 52 of 90 Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I'm just curious on -- there is lots of three acre parcels throughout the City of Meridian that can be developed. What drew you to the corner of Ustick and Eagle? Tsai: I have actually been looking at sites for over two years before we had ended up picking this one. There was a selection of about eight different sites that were available for commercial use. Unfortunately, based on us being a startup business in this particular realm, a lot of those weren't able to cater to being built to suit buildings, so to speak. We were able to find this particular developer that was very open to our concept. My -- my broker is actually here in the room today. He -- he basically beared with me over two years of picking -- trying to pick through these different sites. Six of them were rejected immediately based on incorrect zoning. As you know, the City of Meridian has 15 different zones, only four of which require alcohol and this use of any kind, and, then, the largest scale of them being the C-G or the general commercial. So, based on those restrictions we were able to narrow it down to this particular site, which was to us an ideal location, because it was situated just north of The Village where it was this up and coming prominent entertainment corridor that's recognized across the entire valley, but at the same time maintains that kind of buffered zone between any type of residential impact and is only -- only buffered -- I should say only abutted on other -- all sides by only other commercial zones. Lorcher: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Brian, first of all, I appreciate your passion and your preparation. It blows me away and I think probably the -- the rest of the Commission as well. I want to say up front something I'm going to say here, that if I misinterpreted what you said I'm going to apologize up front, but I'm a little bit offended that you would come out and -- and possibly indicate that we might reject this based on race or minority status. That's -- that -- that got me and I want to tell you that's not how I view things. I think you know that this is just the nature of the business, it's probably a bit of a hot topic, and -- and has nothing to do with -- with anything else. That said I have got a couple of quick questions for you. Are you okay with the recommendation of the reduced hours? Tsai: Yes. I almost said yes, Your Honor, but that's just a habit. Cassinelli: Are you okay with the -- with the reduction in -- with the capacity recommendation by staff of 500? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F56 Page 53 of 90 Tsai: Yes. That was actually our recommend -- or our kind of agreement with the actual planning staff that -- as a -- kind of working together we came down to -- to that number. Cassinelli: Okay. And, Madam Chair, I have got a couple of other quick questions if I might as well. McCarvel: Sure. Cassinelli: Parking. Have you talked with the -- with the Villa Sport people? Because I'm guessing that overflow parking might go into their parking lot. Have you had a conversation with them and can you elaborate on that if so? Tsai: I'm actually not entirely familiar with that, just because I'm only dealing with our project as a -- as a specific, but I understand that our developers are working with them with that. There are just a handful of issues, because some of those permits have -- or -- or may have already expired, but I believe they are working on that in order to work on some type of cross-parking agreement. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, finally, if you can -- can you kind of give me a little bit better understanding, because I didn't go to the Facebook page or anything like that, of the -- the overall -- you mentioned some of the people that you might want to -- that you have invited to utilize the club and I think that's great as far as opening it up to different groups in the community. You mentioned all ages. But can you kind of give a little bit -- a little bit better -- you have already ruled out the strip club aspect, but can you give me a good understanding of what the club will be? Tsai: Sure. So, to me -- I mean oasis, frankly, is a very common name. I found it to be immensely appropriate for this area, because a typical oasis is a -- kind of like a desert setting where water is congregated and, then, subsequently palm trees and animals and even people have gathered in that area as kind of like a watering hole. I felt that to be very appropriate since Idaho here we are in the middle of a desert and, then, we are building this kind of beach theme facility right in the middle of it and that's what I imagined as our -- as our facility, the reason we -- you know, we are -- I have poured the millions of dollars into this facility and, then, the lease and all the obligations that go along with it. It's just because, you know, I want people to walk in -- you know, there is very few people in this world who don't like the beach. I want people to walk in, I want -- I want them to be amazed that -- you know, the amount of technology and lighting that we have installed in this facility to make it truly multi-purpose. The kind of floor-to-ceiling palm trees. The mezzanine areas. The type of the multi-use from that. To give you one example of how that could apply to all ages would be to say -- for example, I work with one of the owners of Dirt Road Dancing. They are -- they are the guys who kind of host all the local dance classes at various facilities around town. In fact, he's actually teaching a class tonight, which is the reason he wasn't able to attend. But when they teach those classes they are typically situated at places that are 21 and up. For example, like the Buffalo Club, they are not going to invite kids in there to join in those classes. However, if you are endorsed under the Idaho State -- the liquor license as a multi-purpose venue that allows us to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F57 Page 54 of 90 designate certain 21 and up locations. You -- either within the facility or as hours as a whole and that allows us to bring those instructors in, not only for just 21 and up crowds, but also for all ages, including kids and children -- or kids and teenagers as well. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair, thank you. Question for you, Brian. With what I posed to the city staff was what is the plan for outdoor gathering for patrons of the establishment? Tsai: Okay. Sorry. I forgot to address that as part of that portion. But as -- at this time we have no plans for any type of outdoor music or patio space -- at this time I should say of any kind. As far as the concern regarding, you know, a smoking area we have intended to designate kind of like that -- I believe it's the west end of that building where they have left us a pad that could be potentially used as patio space in the future, that's right next to that kind of roll-up door structure there is a set of double doors there. Starting out for our intended uses we don't have -- plan to have any outdoor activities, lights, music of any kind, but we may designate that area as kind of like a smoking area, so they are not kind of, you know, just loose and running around in the parking lot and, then, have to get back in. Grove: Okay. Thank you. That's one of my concerns just in terms of, you know, that -- people are going to be out there doing that and so if they don't have, you know, lines and places to follow, it makes it a lot harder to keep that noise abatement in control. Also just in -- I -- I understand -- it's a little off topic I guess, but Commissioner Cassinelli's comment, I understand what he's saying. I personally did not hear it that way. So, know that there is multiple ways that people heard the -- the response that you had in your opening piece. Tsai: Yeah. And I apologize. That was in no way directed towards the Commission itself. That was more of a response to the smear campaign that we were up against. McCarvel: Okay. I think I did have a question. You have got -- it wasn't -- this -- staff has recommended that you and the landowner obtained cross-agreements with the adjacent properties for more available parking. Has that been successful or where are -- where are we at on that? Tsai: I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not -- I'm -- you know, a lot of the reason that a lot of this stuff got kind of done out of order, just because I'm not a land planner and we weren't able to hire one for this project, so as far as I understand that, they are -- they are currently working on it. I'm just -- I'm so far on the -- so far down on the totem pole, so to speak, of what the developer has as far as agreements that I'm not sure where they are on top of that. It was my understanding that the parking ratio itself would be adequate in conjunction with our operating hours and the extra parking spaces, that four-to-one ratio Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F58 Page 55 of 90 would be adequate based on maximum capacity events. The reason that would be a lesser concern, so to speak, is that the majority of our operations will be far below the maximum capacity. These are things like private events, small wedding receptions, that type of thing. It would be on the rarity that we would have a maximum capacity event that strains the limits of the available parking. McCarvel: Okay. And I think staff had also asked that you address how do you intend on enforcing the limits without requiring the fire and police constant presence. Tsai: So, that Token Work system, the one that integrates with all the other facilities of a similar type and that will store with a list of blacklisted names or anything like that, that keeps a very specific and tight count on the actual ingress, because every person that enters the facility is -- passes through that -- that station as part of the screening process and, additionally, that's where we check for weapons, illegal drugs, illicit materials, anything like that and it's for that reason that we can constantly track and monitor how many people are in the facility at any time. McCarvel: Yeah. Because in just reading the reports and everything, the capacity -- your original narrative you had almost -- you were anticipating a thousand patrons and quickly agreed down -- all the way down to 500, so -- and now you are saying that it probably rarely will even be at 500. So, I'm just trying to get a grip on where you are really at on -- Tsai: The reason I originally picked that one thousand capacity number is just because, you know, a lot of this information is second or third hand to me. A lot of it I just have to learn on the fly. So, for example, I took comparisons of the actual capacity versus parking space versus occupancy numbers of -- for example, like the Revolution Concert House, the Knitting Factory downtown, the Buffalo Club, various, you know, venues spread across the Treasure Valley. Based on there standing room only regulations a maximum capacity events, there is really a cap off on some of those, I assumed a number of about one per -- or, sorry, one person per every eight square feet, which was, you know, threshold of standing room only and I would base that figure based on that number of our available floor capacity versus square footage, but when I realized that that number wasn't congruent with the other approved uses of those facilities in town, that's when I agreed to cut that capacity down significantly in order to accommodate the actual size and space of use. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Brian, can you address -- I think in -- in a situation like this one of the concerns out there is -- it's -- it's noise, it's drunk behavior, it's fights, those sorts of things. A lot of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F59 Page 56 of 90 that doesn't necessarily tend to happen inside and if it does usually those people are bounced. What kind of security would you have in the parking lot area? Tsai: And that's an excellent question. Thank you for bringing that up as well, Commissioner. I did have that in my original narrative, as well as the revision. That's part of our security plan is we do intend to have staff not only within the facility, but also conducting periodic checks of the parking lot, as well as the perimeter of the facility as a whole. That came up very early on in our planning process as a concern of, hey, there is going to be people who have -- are at various levels of alcohol consumption congregating in your parking lot specifically after you have closed for business. How are you -- how do you intend to address those concerns and we addressed that using those security staff that not only checks inside, but also outside the facility and -- and mitigate -- I guess mitigate those circumstances to prevent any type of excessive noise or potential for violence and that -- at the same time they can also check for any -- anybody who intends to drive after they have had too much. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: It looks like we have no more questions for the applicant, so I will turn it over -- we will start the public testimony. Tsai: Thank you. Weatherly: Thank you, Madam Chair. First is Jeffrey D'Andrea. McCarvel: And please state your name and address for the record. D'Andrea: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Jeffrey D'Andrea. 2347 East Wigle Drive, Meridian. 83646. McCarvel: Thank you. D'Andea: While I appreciate Brian's drive and desire and all of his work that he's put into this project and his background -- and his background in the music, I, too, have a background in music. I'm a drummer. Played in many bands. I love the music and everything else. I don't think some of our opposition to this is about that and for him to actually say that some of us had low moral character and nefarious agendas towards him -- I haven't seen that and I live in the neighborhood. So, if those flyers went out to somebody, I didn't see that and I actually take offence, because I have some actual, you know, opposition. I don't understand why a traffic study was not done when it's a right-in and right-out and we know that Meridian -- McCarvel: You can't --just -- D'Andrea: With a right-in and right-out, we know that Eagle and Meridian -- excuse me -- Eagle and Ustick Road are very busy and I know the hours are late, but if you have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F60 Page 57 of 90 come by there, you live in that neighborhood, there is many a times where the Ustick light at Eagle is backed up past the other light that's at that next road, even up to 8:00, 9:00, 10:00 o'clock at night. Now you are going to have more people turning off of Eagle to go into -- because there is not going to be an -- an entrance off of Eagle from the northbound traffic, they are going to have to turn onto Ustick and, then, turn down into the -- you know, that street and, then, hopefully, with that egress that they mentioned coming in, yeah, that will be there, but still I don't understand why a traffic study wasn't actually part of this. Also with the parking he mentioned that, you know, with the four-- one-to-four ratio, that's four parking spaces -- or, excuse me, the 500 people with a hundred parking spaces -- you know, 125 parking spaces, you know, that's four, when we look at that where are the rest going to park. He hasn't looked into have they gotten the agreement from those people that are just south of them to have overflow parking and, if not, are they going to be parking in that high density residential area on the side streets and stuff like that. How is a -- how are they going to stop that from happening. I'm sorry, I wrote down a lot of notes during his talk and I'm just trying to go over most of them. So, I will say I appreciate Commissioner Cassinelli's response to him using race, creed, and marital status -- is kind of -- you know. And I know it's not important, but it's just playing to the times and it has bearing -- no bearing on this proposal whatsoever. I believe the Meridian Council and the Meridian Planning and Zoning will take everything into consideration as they need to for the project and he mentioned that at this time we do not have outdoor music planned. Well, can this be mandated, that they don't have outdoor music planned. Also in the proposal at the beginning when they said you won't be able to see it from the neighborhoods, well, with outdoor people it's not the seeing so much, it's the hearing and the noise that the traffic and those in the parking lot make that can be disturbing. What is going to change that? Also his last comment was on -- that they would have people monitor the parking lots for behavior that they don't want inside the club or outside the club. How often will that be, you know. And, then, to have -- early on when they gave the proposal -- when staff gave the proposal it was mentioned that mostly the citizens would have part of the obligation to contact police and stuff like that, while we work very closely with our law enforcement in our community, I'm not sure that setting up a new building and a new -- whatever you want to call it -- place that automatically puts the citizen in -- kind of in a proper position to say, hey, we have got to be in charge of enforcing law around here by calling is an appropriate thing to do. McCarvel: Thank you. D'Andrea: Is that my -- my time is up? McCarvel: Yeah. That was your bell before. D'Andea: Okay. I didn't hear a bell. I'm sorry. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate your time. McCarvel: Thank you for staying. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F61 Page 58 of 90 Weatherly: Madam Chair, next up is Darien Renee Gustafson. Okay. Next up is Michael Ebeling -- Ebeling. Sorry. Ebeling: My name is Michael Ebling. 884 North Quartzsite Avenue, Kuna, Idaho. 83635. So, I would like to thank him for his community service as an officer. That's really awesome. And, you know, we all heard about all these different -- the studies about what can happen with nightclubs and stuff, the crime rates. People will say all the different stuff and there is arguments both ways. You know, it's sad to see, you know, there is going to be like so much increase in police patrols, prostitution, drunkenness, drug addiction, fights, gangs, vandalism, rape -- like these are all things no matter what side of the political aisle you are on you should be concerned about, but I mean this is just a study -- it kind of -- it's easy to -- you know, that's not me, that's not going to be us, but I can speak for myself, I grew up in Portland and I got addicted to drugs and alcohol and the nightlife and I spent all my money all the time in nightclubs and bars and that scene and had it not been from my work about nine years ago moving to Meridian where I got off of drugs and alcohol, I found a church instead of a nightclub, I got saved. I'm sober for nine years, roughly, and I think had it not been for that I would have just been stuck in that lifestyle forever, you know, in Portland and I was able to save up and I was able to buy my first house in Kuna. I got married and now I'm looking forward to my children and what are they going to have to deal with and I just see Meridian turning into Portland and Portland is renowned for all the things that Meridian is not known for and, you know, okay, it's only number 63 for the alcohol permit and, you know, it's only one more. But we need to draw the line. You know, there is enough options for people who want to drink. That's great if you want to do that, you know, but where do you draw the line at, you know, so that's all I have to say. Thanks. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next up is Kyle Scheffler -- Scheffler. Scheffler: Hello. McCarvel: Name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Scheffler: Yeah. Sure. My name is Kyle Scheffler. My address is 2003 North Ninth Street, Boise, Idaho. So, I am in support of Oasis. I'm in strong support of this. I'm actually the owner and operator of the Treasure Valley's newest community radio station 103.1 KFFI FM and the reason you haven't heard of us is because we are not on the air yet. We hope to be on the air within six months. Our station will be located in Boise, but we will reach the entire Treasure Valley. So, I believe that I am a person in the community with a strong interest in supporting people like Brian who are trying to bring art centers to where I believe it's sorely needed. It doesn't really exist that much outside of Boise and it seems like 20 percent of the activities or less is going to be considered -- this is not really just a nightclub, it sounded more like in community events center. Now, for a nonprofit, I -- we don't get any of our funding from the city, we don't get funding from the state or anybody, we pretty much fundraise, so by the community for the community, you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F62 Page 59 of 90 know, that's what that means when I hear of -- in a proposed venue owner offering their venue to nonprofits to the city for free, that's pretty -- that's -- I think that's pretty remarkable. Not to compare Big Al's to what this is going to be, but when Big Al's was coming were they offering, you know, free space to nonprofits and things like that? I doubt it. Maybe a discount at most. And I know firsthand how expensive it is to rent out event space and it cuts into the overhead of the causes that charities are trying to promote and just to address the gentleman before me with all due respect, if preventing a nightclub from opening is going to be the make or break of you using drugs or drinking, why not stop at nightclubs. We should be, you know, well, why don't we close liquor stores, too, and any stores that sell tobacco, which is also going to kill life. Thank you. McCarvel: Before we go on, I think let's keep comments to the proposal and not the personal feelings. Let's move on. Weatherly: Thank you, Madam Chair. Next is Kelli Russell. Russell: Hello. My name is Kelli Russell. I live at 1530 West Ann Taylor Street, Meridian. 83646. Madam Commissioner -- Madam Chair and Commissioners, thank you for this opportunityjust to make public statement. I also agree that I appreciate Mr. Tsai's service as a public -- as a police officer. I know that's a hard job. I appreciate what he's done there. I live in Meridian. I'm in the events industry and I can very much appreciate the need for event locations in Meridian and how the industry itself has taken such a hard hit and I appreciate Mr. Tsai's risk that he is taking and the way that he wants to bring some space -- some event space to this -- this city. I do have a few concerns that are logistical, as well as what has been said already. Apparently it's ACHD that does the traffic and those kinds of things, so I can take it up with them, but I do agree that Meridian tends to throw up buildings and think about traffic later. So, I just wanted to make that statement. I drive twice a day past this area and it's always bottlenecked and even at night it does have quite a bit of traffic still. I also just wanted to speak to the housing concern, the noise abatement. An event center I believe could be different than a nightclub situation and I -- if I'm understanding correctly, this is about a conditional use permit that goes more towards a nightclub. If I lived in that neighborhood I would definitely be concerned about safety, about noise, about people wandering into my neighborhood. I know that that's not the only neighborhood, that there is several popping up all around. That's just the nature of the city. So, specific -- specifically to the conditional use permit, just with the -- the understanding of that, if other venues like Boise State's Stueckle Center that's very much towards events and weddings and those kinds of things in nature have really served a great purpose and brought a lot of great things to our community, if this location is also something that can be used in that way, I believe that would be a great addition to our community. However, the nightclub model that it is leaning towards does concern me a little bit just due to the nature of the lateness and the traffic and being out mixing with alcohol and those things and so I just wanted to make those points known and, like I said, I will be contacting ACHD about my other traffic concerns. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Tsai, for what you are doing to bring business to the city and I just appreciate what you said tonight. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F63 Page 60 of 90 Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Joyce Mauck. Mauck: I'm Joyce Mauck and I live in a close by neighborhood at 4031 East Conklin Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And good evening, Madam Chair and the Commissioners -- the Commissioner here. I have some concerns about this. I love music. I love going out and having a good time, but I have serious concerns with it so close to so many residential areas. The traffic -- Eagle and Ustick is one of the most dangerous and -- and heavily trafficked intersections in our area and -- and the fact tonight when I heard there was no traffic study done, that really shocked me. So, that's a huge concern. There is very serious accidents that happen there and I do believe it is one of the most dangerous intersections. Parking concerns is another one and, then, when I heard the four-to-one ratio that was another concern of mine. Safety issues. I heard him say that they were going to work -- or in the statement in the beginning when he was outlining everything on it that they will work with the police and the neighborhood watches. So, to me if they already know they have to work with them so closely that that's concerning to me, too, because I think a venue like this could increase DUls, things like that, the drunken driving, the violence and things like that. So, that's a concern for me and I'm an Idaho native and I -- like I said, I -- I love the music and the arts and all that, but I don't want to see this going so close to our neighborhood and other neighborhoods. I think there is better places for a venue like this and I do think people that wrote in their concerns I think they -- they need to be valued for what they wrote in and although a lot of them are probably sounding a lot alike, it sounds like up here, too, we all have a lot of the same concerns. So, I don't think you can dismiss those and I think one thing when I have come to these City Council meetings I have always thought Meridian does a really good job of looking at what is best for our community and I really appreciate that. So, thank you for taking the time to really look at everything on what's truly best for our city. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. And I think I will segue right off of that, because we have looked at all of the public testimony that was sent in and we do acknowledge that most of the concerns revolve around the traffic and the parking and the noise and so if you -- we are happy to hear everybody, but if we -- if you have new concerns other than those, I think the Commission is prepared to discuss those issues, so if you have new concerns, please, step forward, but if we are at the point where we are repeating those same concepts I think we understand those and as well the people who are for it that are loving having the potential of event space and a music venue in Meridian, I think we understand those. So, we will go forward with anybody else who wants to comment on anything else. Weatherly: Thank you, Madam Chair. Next is Terry Silsby. McCarvel: Name and address for the record, please. Silsby: Yes. Terry Silsby. Address -- dwelling or business? It doesn't matter? McCarvel: It doesn't matter. Silsby: So, mailing address in Meridian is 104 East Fairview. 83642. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F64 Page 61 of 90 McCarvel: Okay. Silsby: I have had -- I have grown up here in Meridian and I have spent a lot of years traveling up and down Eagle Road. I understand the area and I had a great deal of pleasure in working with Brian in finding that location and in working out the lease and working with him in the business plan and as you can tell from your visit with Brian about what a big pleasure it is to be involved in a business planning environment with him. He has got a great scientific mind and he is a great addition to our community. I do want to say I spent some time in right of way working in various corridors with the State Transportation Department and the Ada County Highway District as a -- working right-of- way projects. I do understand the issues of traffic in and out and ingress-egress. You have got the highway -- state highway issues, the -- the Ada County Highway District with its transportation department itself, you have got several different entities dealing with -- with the thoroughfare there. So, that is an issue that I think can easily be addressed, but what people don't realize is a lot of the traffic patterns that they are seeing here now is as a result of traffic being redirected onto the road from other areas that have been under construction and, then, on top of that they are adding different access to the freeway and things like that, so that -- and widening roads, so it's taking the burden off of Eagle Road. So, over time I see long term that there is going to be a change in traffic patterns and, then, relief of some of the pressure, but on top of that I think it's important to realize that -- and for everybody to look at this, that area was designated commercial long before the residential areas came in. So, while I agree some of the traffic issues need to be addressed and will be and I think are already being addressed, albeit fairly slowly. There is another thing I would like to make a point. If-- if-- if it was Barbacoa or the Yard House or other well known restaurants that also serve alcohol that were wanting to locate to this position and add a music venue, I don't know that we would have had exactly the same opposition to this, because those are well known names and people understand that they are a very high quality event. Brian has worked hard to look at having a professional chef involved, a very high quality event both for restaurant and to have the clientele appreciate and experience something that is going to be a quality and become something that they want to have their family members involved in as well. I have no problem planning in the future to bring my family to this environment when my daughter is 16, when she's old enough I'm planning to bring her there. I'm a member of the country swing dance community, if you will, and those are some of the friendliest, most agreeable people that you will ever meet, and he is going to be bringing those people to that environment. A lot of us travel great distances so that we can practice what we call the art form of swing dance and it's fun and I think a lot of the people here would also eventually participate as well. So, you know, that I'm in favor of this, but I also wanted to mention some of those points and -- and I think that there is already seven -- five or seven alcohol serving businesses in The Village and we haven't seen a lot of the problems that people have been bringing up. And one more point. I did talk to someone who is in a subdivision roughly a mile away and they have had someone put in their subdivision newsletter and broadcast that trying to create opposition for this event and so there does appear to be an organized attempt to try to suppress something that I think is a great addition to our community. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F65] Page 62 of 90 Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Zach Yates. McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Yates: All right. My name is Zach Yates. 814 Sage Creek Road, Nampa, Idaho. I'm in support of my friend Brian here and I would also like to -- as far as music goes, like I'm a really big fanatic for it as well, but I'm also wanting to venture out and -- and also expand my abilities to -- I guess maybe like DJ'ing, for example, but also get more of a taste for other artists as well. So, I think this -- I think this venue that he is developing and putting under construction is a really big influence for a lot of smaller artists to help get their name out. It is really hard to -- unless you are like really well known on major radio stations it can be really hard to get your name out there. But also as far as like the alcohol side of things, I was like he -- the gentleman earlier mentioned his restaurants, they serve it anyways. They have to have a license for it. Even event center areas or places that hosts events, they got to have that license anyways, because people are going to have that option. I mean it's like -- it's no different than any other event center around that would cater to maybe like parties, charitable programs, or even weddings. So, I just wanted to share that and show my support for my friend Brian here as well. So, thank you. Weatherly: Dave Sattler, would you like to testify? Sattler: Hi. I'm Dave Sattler. 2060 East Lobelia Street. 83646. So, as a small business owner myself I think it's important to be clear here that though there may be some time and space given to community organizations and nonprofit entities, that is not your business. I know as a small business owner you cannot operate for free. So, I think to say that you will be rarely at capacity, I think that's a little misleading, because your profit generating activity is your nightclub and I think it's a little mischaracterization to say that this is a music and arts venue when all of that is done under community engagement and free use of space, which is a nice gesture to get the conditional use permit, but is not driving any revenue for you, which, in my opinion as a small business owner, means that will go away. I think that friends and business partners as your supporters is also I think a little illustrative of the lack of support that those who live within any proximity to your business is lack of a support. I think that free is not an expression of community support. So, in my opinion, Council or Commission I think -- although that's awfully nice of him, that is -- that is a kind of gesture that does not generate any profit and thereby I wouldn't be surprised if it goes away. Knitting Factory parking is all over Boise. I think that the staff's opinion of four to one as an acceptable parking ratio for a nightclub I think is maybe a little bit inaccurate, as most people that attend to restaurants, which is what that ratio is based on, come together in a vehicle and it is my concern that that will be inaccurate or inadequate for the 500 plus individuals they plan on having there between the hours of 4.00 and 1.00. Also based on a -- also I would -- I am one of those 200 letters that was submitted. It was not a form letter. It was as though shared concerns do not mean form letters or copied letters. I do not feel that this fits the bill of a mixed use regional use. Based on surveys that I have provided in my testimony that I submitted, it is abnormal for mixed use regional designation to provide a nightclub establishment to fulfill that criteria. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F66] Page 63 of 90 In fact, in that survey, which, again, you can find in my provided testimony, it is common among major cities for there to be a distinctive designation for nightclubs because of the noise, their proximity to schools, public places, congested traffic and drunken behavior. So, there is also a correlation in nightclub drinking versus restaurant drinking. Restaurant -- or drinking is allowed in a mixed use regional, but I will note that research has indicated that nightclub drinking leads to more criminal behavior and an Oregon State Patrol study in 2006 said that ten -- their top ten locations for drunken behavior were those who had just recently visited a nightclub. That's, again, in my testimony. You can see that. They actually ended up conducting a sting that summer to address six of those in particular. So, while we are making the distinctions between restaurants providing alcohol and nightclubs providing alcohol, there is a researched, well documented basis for difference in behavior from those coming from those two establishments. McCarvel: Okay. Can you wrap up your thoughts. That was your bell a few minutes -- a minute ago. Sattler:: Sure. I think that the other--the other thing that I would say is -- which has been noted here, Eagle Road is, obviously, already a very busy place. I think that there would be a better location for this business to actually do better than within two miles of seven elementary schools, four middle schools, and one high school. My children are pedestrians on that street and 42 percent of Meridian fatalities happen on that stretch of road within two miles of the proposed location of this nightclub and I'm concerned that with almost half of our fatalities coming from that stretch of land, increasing that type of behavior and that level of attendance puts my children and all the other thousands of children within two miles -- just two miles of the proposed location puts -- increases greater -- greater risk to our community. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Eric Sherman. Sherman: Hello to the Commission. My name is Eric Sherman. I am a local business owner in Meridian and I'm at 3340 North Eagle Road, which is directly adjacent to this proposed venue and I am not, for the record, Brian's friend, although I have met him when he came to my business to let me know about the proposed business that he was making. I actually started my company because of music. I have been a concert goer myself since I was 14. 1 can tell you I have been to hundreds and hundreds of concerts, I have been to a concert on a cruise, I have been to so many concerts and -- and just music is a big part of my life and a big part of my life with my wife and I am a father of three. I am a Christian. I live a good life. I work hard for my family. I moved to Meridian because of the slogan. I'm not sure if it's still the slogan, but I believe it was built for business, designed for living was what drew me to Meridian and the key word there is living. Not existing, but living. And I think that we do have a lack of places that can house the right type of scene, but local music is important. It's important to a lot of people. I actually employ someone that is in a local band that opens up for really really big bands. He opened up for a large band in Boise's just before COVID and the -- the passion that these Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F67 Page 64 of 90 people have for their art is insane and if you are -- I'm not a musician, but these -- they -- they work so hard and they do all these things and if they don't have the right platform they cannot go anywhere and that -- Kyle there that I just met a few minutes ago, he said that when he was here at the stand and a lot of the things he said were awesome and he took a lot of steam out of what I was going to say and, then, also Terry, he touched on pretty much all the other things. I do want to talk about the traffic. Okay. So, I think have a little bit of a unique platform, because, guess what, I have been there for six years on that intersection. Every single day, day in and day out -- you can ask my wife. She doesn't like it. But, anyhow, yes, there is traffic there. There is a lot of traffic there and I can name about three or four more spots where the traffic's worse in Meridian and the traffic is bad. However, my store until COVID closed at 7:00 p.m. and so I would literally leave at 7:05, 7:10, and by then it was pretty clear. Okay? So, now that we have changed our hours to 6:00 o'clock, I do hit a little bit of traffic. I was actually late for this meeting because of that -- that said traffic. It's there. It exists. I think that it needs to be talked about and I think that -- I think that Brian -- I have met him literally one time and, then, I saw what he proposed here today and I think that with the preparedness that he's shown I would -- based on just that alone I would want to -- I would want to be a patron of his business, understanding that I would be safe and that I would have a great experience in whatever he's doing, because he's that passionate and that -- that prepared. McCarvel: Okay. Sherman: So, thank you for hearing me out. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Christen French, would you like to speak? Josia Savino, would you like to speak? Savino: Hello. My name is Josiah Savino. My address is 8598 West Wall Drive, Boise, Idaho. I have been in Boise nine, almost ten years now, and I'm a musician, singer, songwriter and when I moved to Boise the first thing I did was look for the most talented artists and collabed with them and I have been doing that nonstop sense. What I found was people would say, well, why don't you perform more and I would say, well, where would I perform. There wasn't any venues that actually had space for audiences that people were showing up for and, obviously, the marketing wasn't great here, great promoting, so I was pretty excited when -- unlike the other 600 people online when I heard, oh, there is going to be an event center, there will be a nightclub, and an event center, where I can do both and everything in life has a balance. I actually don't drink. I don't support drinking. But I still love to dance and like this last two weekends ago I went downtown, had the time in my life. I didn't touch alcohol. I -- I danced and had a great time with friends. So, I just think it's important to understand that you can have an environment, but everything in life has a balance; right? So, this event center can do remarkable things. You guys heard some of his visions and, obviously, he's passionate, he is going to be creating, working, you know, giving everything he can to create the most amazing experience, which sounds like no one else has done here, which is exciting for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F68 Page 65 of 90 me and also I spent the last two years of my life making an app. What is the app's vision? Is to create community. How do you do that? What do you like to do is the question of the app and you have a map and it shows activities in your area and I think that an event center like this would be great opportunity for -- for places to meet, even outside the club. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we are ready to move to our online persons. Randy Black, see you are on the telephone. I'm going to go ahead and unmute you here. Black: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Black: This is Randy Black. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead. State your full name and address, please. Black: Randy Black, Jr. Address is 10789 West Twain, Las Vegas, Nevada. 89134. I'm the managing partner of the Villa Sport property on the adjoining site and, Brian, I would love to commend you on your presentation. I have done this for 30 years. That's one of the best most thought out presentations that I have heard. So, you are clearly a great business operator and take this seriously. I think that this event and the venue is a warranted benefit to the city. Still a lot of concerns. I can tell you that we have been kind of half talking to the Wadsworth guys. Our big concern is traffic circulation, late night policing, parking lot cleanup, bottles, trash, et cetera, and I think that site on the corner with the amount of square footage that's planned on the 3.4, 1 believe it is, acres is a very serious parking constraint that can be mitigated through hours of operation, et cetera. We do not have any agreement for any overflow parking, nor has one been proposed. We -- we would certainly entertain the thought of that concept. We would have to clear it with our tenant and make sure that they are A-OK with the use. We have a fairly detailed lease/policing cleanup maintenance agreement, et cetera. So, while we are not opposed to it, there is a lot of hurdles to get through to clear that part in the event there is a capacity event that occurs on site, so that we can accommodate all of those patrons. So, I would tell you that we are music lovers as well. I can see the need for this. Event space is at a premium. There is nothing available when you look in Meridian. So, while it's a warranted need, there is still a fair amount of those type of related items that would have to be addressed for us to be able to support it as adjoining property owners. But I think the use is compatible with an intersection of that type and volume. There is very limited access on Eagle, so a traffic study would without question be needed to determine how to address all of those issues and we would be willing to work with Brian on at least discussions on how we can handle this overflow portion, but I'm here to tell you as of now we don't have any proposals on the table and have had only passing conversation with Wadsworth, which I wouldn't put that on Brian, because if it meets code I could see the user here and the business owner thinking that was potentially sufficient, but the reality is we know for bigger events you have got to have something organized where --we have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F69 Page 66 of 90 495 parking spaces next door, but a fiercely protective tenant of their use of that. So, we would be happy to work with the applicant in this, so that we could potentially address that portion of the requirement, so that that box could be checked and, then, the rest of them could be addressed as Council sees fit on the balance of those questions. And I hear the bell, so that's -- that's all I have. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Black. Black: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Jon Hastings. Jon, one moment, please. Hastings: Good evening. Can you hear me okay? McCarvel: Yes. State your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Hastings: I will show you my video just for the fun of it. My name is Jon Hastings. 2973 North Eagle Road, Suite 110, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. 1 wasn't planning on testifying tonight, but I did see the applicant's presentation. I will echo the previous caller that I felt that it was a -- a well thought-out presentation that Brian had. He did show an empty folder for the vicinity properties and I -- I own the commercial building that's about 350 feet away to the south of the project and I did write a letter in there. I just felt like I should be in the blue folder, Brian. But, anyway, I had a few concerns that I wanted to bring up as a fairly close business owner and commercial -- commercial property. One, I know parking has already been talked about. I feel like people, when they park, will take the path of least resistance and so I certainly think that people coming from Ustick will enter the project and park in the designated parking spots. I have concerns that the people coming in from Eagle Road through the roundabout and, then, between the residential properties and -- and my property off of Cajun there will kind of park in the path of least resistance and not in the parking spots designated for the project. I also have a concern about just late night traffic and -- and loitering in general. I understand the applicant's desire that that will be kind of policed from sweeps of the parking lot and things like that. I just don't know how that's enforceable and kind of what the plan would be to enforce that in the long term. Things like outdoor security, drunk driving, how do we -- what assurances do we have beyond we have a plan to mitigate that. And, then, lastly, just as we have talked about Eagle Road access is difficult and so people leaving the venue will lots of them go to Ustick via various methods, but I have a concern that they will exit via Cajun Drive between the residential property and -- and our property there and, then, try to navigate the roundabout in the residential area to get to Eagle Road and do that after having had some alcoholic beverages and -- and I think that the idea that it's not a big deal to the residents in that area -- I just don't see that, because I think that you are going to have late night traffic navigating that space in the residential area and so those are my concerns. You know, I also agree that I think that this would be a great thing for our city, I just don't know that -- this location doesn't make a lot of sense to me for it based on those concerns and some of the other concerns that I have heard today and so I wanted to express my opposition. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F70] Page 67 of 90 McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Hasting. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Jon Hoeger. John, one moment. Hoeger: Madam Chair and Commissioners, can you hear me okay? McCarvel: Yes. State your name and address for the record. Hoeger: My name is Jon Hager. I live at 3664 North Summerpark Place in Meridian, Idaho. About a half mile from the site. I agree with Commissioner Cassinelli that race has nothing to do with this. I was born in Venezuela. I have married an Argentine American. We run a woman-owned business together that employs 46 people in a very similar square footage and we pay good salary. While race is irrelevant to the conversation, I believe that employment is. The applicant has made claims about who he is going to bring. You know, any other business is going to add jobs to the economy. Any other business is going to be able to probably provide more jobs. Thirty jobs in 7,000 square feet isn't a lot of job density. What any other business as well, but what we missed from discussion tonight is objectifying and demeaning women. I'm also concerned about the inconsistent marketing and this should be a concern to the Commission as well. My letter to the Council that I submitted before this meeting included screenshots encouraging men to be dressed in business attire, while women were encouraged to wear sun dresses or their best beach attire. I have five daughters and the objectification of women and inconsistency of the business model stated and they are against the stated mission and the objectives of the City of Meridian. Again, I will refer to my letter, which is part of public opinion. Charging 15 dollars for men and five dollars for women to enter is a common tactic that nightclub uses to attract more females whose sexual parameters are loosened through alcohol consumption. The recipe is a notoriously predatory environment with increased sexual assault, rape, and substance abuse. One of my five daughters catches the bus less than a thousand feet from the site and this marketing element has been changed since some of the opposing views have been voiced in the community. So, my question to the Council and to the Commission is what does the deliberate change of marketing say? What about the website now--the website that now claims that there is going to be free weddings or that it's saving puppy dogs, which are things that it didn't say before. The weddings are free because he's going to be serving alcohol. What do the themes on the applicant's Facebook page when he said that the actuality was that he had 15 letters in support for every one that was against, when the actual count is 165 against to 34 that is for. What else is being misrepresented by the applicant? We have seen some other examples of this with the blue folder that was just mentioned by Mr. Hastings, who owns a business so close. So, when the applicant says that our questions -- those of us who are in opposition, that it should question the character of our intentions, I ask the Commission to stand up and question the intentions of the business model. On the same Facebook page he has also been deleting comments that were in opposition. He has been trying to silence the opposition. So, let's be clear. This is not an event center, it's a nightclub. It's not a restaurant. I will note that restaurants, like Barbacoa and Yard House, do not charge their female patrons less than the male customers. So, let's call a spade a spade. And, yes, there has been an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F71 Page 68 of 90 organized effort against something. That point should resonate with the Commission. An organized effort is not a bad thing. Organized efforts and grassroots politics are what this country is founded on. Frankly, it should raise a warning flag to the Commission that the community is not generally in supportive of this and I call on the commission to represent the communities that they serve. I'm also concerned about the thousand people that's now down to 500 people and no problem, now it's rarely going to be 500 people. I would say that either the applicant doesn't understand what the business model is or he is not telling the truth. Those are two major concerns I think that the Commission has a responsibility to look at and try to understand what the ultimate goal is of this. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Camille Schildan. Camille, one moment, please. Schildan: Hello. McCarvel: Camille, state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Schildan: Hi. I'm Camille Schildan. I currently reside at 13963 West Hartford Drive, right off of Eagle Road, and I have to say The Oasis sounds fantastic. I think it sounds like a great place to have an enjoyable time. But my opposition in for that -- in previous statements this evening where it was stated that only 20 percent of the night -- that the center would only be 20 percent nightclub and all the rest of these other events that, you know, were mentioned to be free, how is the applicant going to be able to receive a return on investment if you are only using the space 20 percent of the time for what you intended it and the rest of it. And so it -- it kind of seems a little masked over, the statements as to what the real use is. I do think it would be a great place to have an event center. If it could -- I have been on the website, The Oasis website, and it does talk about doing some -- you can have dance recitals, just great things on there that I think would be great for the community and a great place, but the location I feel is completely inappropriate due to all of the reasons stated beforehand and I would also like to acknowledge that there are inconsistencies on the website. I have been watching it a couple times and it has now changed again to list like the free weddings, which wasn't on there before, and it was mentioned that we were hiring a -- that they were planning on hiring a chef. Nowhere on here on the -- does it mention anything about serving food. It does talk about serving five different cocktails each week, which could be fun, but nothing about being like a restaurant area and, then, I guess my other thing is if this place is so great and we are only using 20 percent of a nightclub, why don't we just take away the nightclub portion still allow it to be designated as the art museum and event center, something to promote music, but, then, just say, okay, well, alcohol consumption is maxed out at this and, you know, closing hours are midnight every night or something in aggreeance to try and come to a compromise anyway. So, greatly appreciate all of your time and especially how late this is going. That's my comments. McCarvel: Thank you. Is that it? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F72 Page 69 of 90 Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's all I see. McCarvel: Okay. With that -- you know, I think we are about ready to move forward. think the Commission has a good grip on the items that have been mentioned and I see a couple more hands being raised, so if you have something new to contribute we would welcome hearing that, but if you are agreeing with people that have already spoken, I think we can move on. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I apologize. Jeff Vrba, I see you online. I apologize, I missed that you had signed up earlier. One moment. My apologies, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Jeff, if you would unmute and state your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Vrba: Hello, Madam Chair and Commission. This is Jeff Vrba. Address is 3005 North LeBlanc Way in Meridian, Idaho. I live in the Jackson Square Subdivision. I'm the vice- president of the HOA here. We are located directly southwest of this facility that's going in. A couple things other than what most of the other people mentioned that I wanted to bring up was we had that meeting earlier this year here with them over at the pizza place. It was discussed at that time about their restaurant that they had in their facility and it was mentioned to us that it really wasn't a restaurant per se, it was -- they were going to be serving little fast foods for like your taco night -- or a little taco night if they are having a taco thing going on, rather than a sit down restaurant in there. I asked about if I could bring my family over there would I have to be a cover charge to get into the restaurant to eat and they said -- that's when they mentioned it was not full fledged restaurant, a sit down type restaurant to eat in. So, between that and what's going on here -- also in their conception floor plan, the one we saw earlier in the year where the Jamba Juice is at on the west side of the building, he said that was going to be a parking area, so -- for the Uber and ride share cars to come in to be able to haul the patrons out. Now, I see with the new floor plan there that's where they are going to have the smoking area. That's where they are going to have all this. So, the ride shares that he was saying they were going to be using -- that most people would be using going there, there is no place for them to park. Where are they going to be parking at now? The other item that they brought up during that other meeting was that they interviewed a bunch of the homes and areas around here and the people were so excited about that facility going in, because they could walk there. Okay. Most of the places around you got to cross Ustick Road, which is 45 miles per hour if the lights are green. You got to cross Eagle Road, which is 55 in that area if the lights are green. Do you want somebody under the influence of alcohol waiting for the stoplight to turn so they can walk across the road if they are crossing at the intersection, instead of jaywalking, and all of a sudden I'm just going to run across, I don't want to wait. Someone's going to get hit in that intersection. We have already had one death there within the last couple of years where somebody's standing on the corner and was run over and killed and they weren't under the influence, neither was the driver that hit them by accident. They also mentioned that they were going to have security outside all the time, not just randomly throughout the day checking stuff. My concern with that is is once -- if they are not making the money they are expecting, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F73 Page 70 of 90 who is going to get cut? Those security people that are going to be out watching that parking lot to make sure that the people are leaving -- making sure that the people aren't raising a ruckus out there or getting in a fight, the ones that they threw out. I live right around the corner. I do not want to see the extra traffic coming through my subdivision and items like that. And I agree with everything else that's been said earlier, too. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Joe. Joe, one moment, please. White: Can you hear me okay? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Weigt: My name is Joe Weigt. I live in 1598 North Leslie Way in Meridian, Idaho. Madam Chair and Commission, I appreciate your time this evening. I know it's getting late. I will be brief. I live directly west of the proposed facility and I do also find it offensive that my letter was not in that blue folder. I know all of my neighbors. I know where Mr. Vrba lives. I have not found anybody within that vicinity who is in support of this. I own a small business in the city and recently a dance company was put in next to us and when they ran out of parking space for their facilities they would try to park in our facility, making it difficult for my -- my business to function. I don't see how this can -- how logistically this can work. The reality is as the -- as his business model changes and his needs change, there are going to be some serious traffic concerns and serious parking concerns and the community around him is going to have to bear the brunt of that punishment. It's not fair to the citizens to have to police that and also put undue load on our Police Department, who already has to deal with the other things they are doing to keep our community safe, and now they are going to be driving around having to issue parking citations and trespassing and all these other things that -- that really we should not have to deal with around here. I'm not opposed to his idea. I think he is a -- he has got a good head on his shoulders, I think he is going to do well where ever he puts his business. I just think this is the completely wrong location for it. I thank you for your time and that's all I have. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is C. Kynaston. One moment, please. McCarvel: Ms. Kynaston, if you would unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. There you go. Please state your name and address for the record. We can see you have unmuted, but we cannot hear you. I apologize, I don't think your microphone is working on the device you are using. You are unmuted, but we cannot hear you. If you would like to type your concern. Okay. Kynaston: Hello? Can you guys hear me? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F74 Page 71 of 90 McCarvel: There you go. Kynaston: I can't tell if anyone can hear me, hon. McCarvel: Yes, we can hear you. Please state your name and address for the record. Kynaston: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Yes, we can hear. Kynaston: Anybody? McCarvel: We can hear you. Kynaston: I can't figure out if they can hear me or not. McCarvel: Okay. We can hear you. Kynaston: Hello? Can you guys hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Kynaston: Oh. Okay. McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record, but I don't know what you guys heard and didn't hear. Kynaston: All right. I guess I will start over. So, my name is Carolyn Kynaston. 3725 North Neith Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Joe Dodson in his presentation of this in the very beginning made the comment that there is a ratio in support of this plan of 25 percent when you are counting the public participation and 75 percent is against and I just want to be clear that the numbers are exactly 154 are against this project, to the 32 who have written in as public testimony and that percentage is 80 percent against and 20 percent for. There is a lot of us who do not want this coming into our neighborhood and we are concerned with not just the business model or the business practice, but the business owner. He has shown repeatedly self interest and a lack of concern for our neighborhood and a lack of concern for the truth and he is constantly changing what he has to say about his business to meet the requirements that will just get it approved by the city. If you follow his Facebook page he made the claim of 115, when at that moment when he made that claim, it was actually 42-24, a ratio of two to one against his business, not in favor of it, and now the ratio is substantially larger, about five to one. His website changed from being objectification of women to totally removing that section, as Jon Hoeger spoke of earlier. We feel like he is doing all of this just to get the CUP approved and, then, it will be back to the business how he originally intended as soon as he has that CUP approved. He has declared that our property values will raise, when in actuality it will lower our property values significantly, and he claims it's a benefit to our schools Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F75] Page 72 of 90 and it is not a benefit to our schools. He claims it will be a boon to our city and the people who live here definitely do not feel that way and it's going to be bringing in outside clientele, people who don't live here, who don't care about our neighborhoods, coming in and trashing our neighborhoods as they attend this place, get drunk, and go home and he claims his family values are the same as ours and we completely disagree. His family values are nothing like ours. He said to people who are opposed to him that our decisions to be against him were made in haste and that if we were against him and his nightclub that we haven't formed our own opinions. He also claimed that there were letters sent out to the neighborhoods that talked about prostitution and strip clubs. I received one of those letters and it didn't have either of those words in there. So, based on his track record of not telling the truth I can see him making up these things to support himself. And -- oh. As well as the testimony that is in his -- his folder of all the people who have written in to support him. Where is that support on the actual website? Where is the actual data? Because the actual data shows only 32 people have written in support of his project. I'm really -- McCarvel: If you could wrap up. Kynaston: -- really upset about the idea of citizen enforcement of compliance. You are giving me a full-time job without pay to go to -- to this establishment and make sure that they only have 500 people -- McCarvel: If you can wrap up your thoughts. Your three minutes are -- Kynaston: -- and an EDM drug culture. Do you guys understand what an EDM drug culture is? This isn't just a -- McCarvel: Okay. Are there anymore people who would like to speak on this application? If not, I will ask the applicant to come forward and you have -- is it ten minutes to address the concerns of the public before we move -- before we have any questions or move to deliberations. Dodson: Madam Chair, I had a couple of points I wanted to make in response to that -- that the applicant can't, just because he doesn't know the code like I do. McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Okay. First was there were some questions, even from the Commissioners, regarding outdoor activity for the outdoor entertainment. Our -- the same code section that's referenced for the indoor activities in the music venue is applicable for the outdoor. That has specific hours as well, which is limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Obviously through the CUP if future outdoor services or uses were to be proposed those could be limited further than that, but I just wanted to note that it already was limited within the code if it were to happen in the future. But, again, he is not proposing that now. Secondly, I completely understand the traffic concerns there and if I -- you have no idea how much I would wish that the city had more control over the roads here, but, unfortunately, that's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F76 Page 73 of 90 not the way it goes. I did want to share my screen real quick. Just to reiterate, there were some concerns about only having one access point in and out and with -- that would be the right-in, right-out access to Ustick, but with the construction of the access point to Cajun Lane they will have another access out to Eagle Road. I know that there was a comment about only having one. Second to that I do have a condition that they work with the Villa Sport applicant, which apparently one of them was on the call tonight, and they would also help work with them to get a cross-access here, which they already have the agreement, but the driveway itself is not constructed yet. So, to get the driveway constructed earlier, sooner rather than later. And, then, I also didn't reiterate where the ride share was. I wasn't sure if the applicant was going to speak to that, but it's hard for staff to enforce that, so I didn't find it necessary to put that on the site plan, but the applicant has stated that these uses --these spaces on the west side of the building would be used for the ride share, the pickup area, that they could restrict on site for that. Secondly, with the outdoor area that, has to be -- it can't be located within 50 feet of any property line. There they would have like ten feet right here that would be allowed to have it at all. So, they are going to run out of room to be -- and it is prohibited at all within 50 feet. So, I just wanted to touch on those few points that are related to code that the applicant wouldn't be able to touch on. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Tsai: Okay. All right. I know it's late, so I will be as quick as I can. As it's said, Socrates gave long speeches and his friends killed him, so -- these are just some graphics that I have printed off regarding some of the points that -- of the concerns. When we did our noise analysis I actually went out there with a spectral meter and stood along Eagle Road to compare the sound of the Eagle Road traffic in order to get these numbers. What I had mentioned earlier, the actual STC sound rating of just a single piece of plywood is what I base it off of, because there is a lot more to commercial building walls than just a single piece of plywood. That would yield our exterior sound pressure -- pressure as they designate in what's called Decibel A weighted, at one feet from the building about 75 decibels and, then, that is what this diagram shows, it's called the inverse square law and how that works is sound dissipates as a square of the ratio of this doubling of distance from the actual source. So, what that represents is here in the graph, the doubling of the distances, out to the closest property line you could show about 256 feet the pressure would be about 43 A weighed to decibels. What does that actually mean? Here is another graph. Forty-three A weighed decibels will put up just about here and that's just above what would be the volume of a very quiet whisper and above -- and just below that is the rustling of leaves will be the perceived sound effect at -- even before the actual first house and, keep in mind, there is -- you know, if -- and this is assuming even the Villa Sport never comes to fruition. Regarding the property values, this is actually handy, because a gentleman presented this on the last Planning and Zoning hearing and I printed it off, which is things that drag down the value of your home and you will notice that neither crime nor any of those make an appearance on here. Most of the things are like hospitals, power plants, cemeteries, homeless shelters, that type of thing. The biggest -- biggest difference I noticed about our overwhelming number of supporters -- and the reason I say that, those numbers exist in the opposition, because many of them have actually written Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F77 Page 74 of 90 into the city multiple times. That's where those counts come from. In fact, there -- if you were to look through them line by line -- how I did it is I took an iPad and I just went through and I circled and numbered every person that had submitted multiple times. Some people have actually submitted eight times by the same person and, then, they are using those as counts of opposition. The biggest thing I noticed amongst the difference between the supporters versus the opposition is their reasoning. We estimate now that we have at least 25 to 30 supporters for every one person that's opposing it. Those are based on the numbers that we received off of our Facebook page, coordination, and, then, just word of mouth. Now, of course, I don't have any actual numbers to document these, an actual study. On top of the -- those are on top of the dozens of various businesses, groups, nonprofit organizations, wedding couples, associations and musicians that were excited to use our facility. These are things I believe in as a core concept to our business. We are not doing these just as a facade in order to obtain a business. That's just not how I operate my business practices. But as you know with your experience here on the Commission, supporters rarely promote their voice. The person standing on the corner with a megaphone usually isn't the one yelling, boy, we really want another Walmart here. People have been pent up with COVID restrictions for over a year now and they just want a place to let their hair down and dance and socialize again. The letters that both the city and I received were from people who were unique stories of why music was so important to them. They talked about that time that they had lost a family member and it was this song that they had remembered that pulled them out of a very dark place. They talked about the time that they got engaged and realize that this song was playing on the radio. They talked about the time that they were in a grocery store and randomly bumped into the person that turned out to be the love of their life and this song was playing on the speakers inside the store. Every one of their stories were unique and they support our project because they wanted to and not because somebody told them to. While those opposed to our project have very real concerns that have the potential to impact the community, such as drunk driving or traffic, you can see with our comprehensive analysis in both the original narrative and what we presented here today that we have worked diligently to ensure that none of these concerns have an impact to the families of Meridian when compared to the massive benefit in both economics and overall need this community as a whole has asked for for over a decade. We expect to pay over 6,000 dollars a month for insurance to operate as a multi-purpose venue. So, we are not here just to serve alcohol and let them leave. When compared to over a dozen licensed establishments in the area our insurance would never allow us to operate in a recklessly or an unsafe manner. The only way a bar would prevent real concern such as drunk driving to occur would be to prevent overserving. This is something I mentioned earlier in my -- it seems like a while ago now. On the other hand, we have the ability to post staff at the doors, seeing patrons as they enter and exit, training bartenders and staff above and beyond what is required by law and the combination of all those circumstances will allow us to effectively present -- prevent nearly all incidents of drunk driving should they occur from our facility and this hearing is to really discuss the potential impact of an alcohol establishment to our neighbors in the immediate area. Somehow this wasn't a concern to all --to those opposed to our project when this very same committee approved the permit for the Villa Sport with an outdoor pool, a swim up bar, outdoor speakers, all less than 30 feet from the closest house. Our facility is ten times further, 1/12 the size, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F78 Page 75 of 90 and has zero outdoor activities of any kind. Now, when I met our neighbors by handing out the neighborhood meeting invitations in person, many of them spent time to ask me about the project, because they were excited to have a place not only to attend to event and socialize without having to go downtown, but also a place to get good food later at night. Most of them told me flat out they would not be attending our neighborhood meeting, because they supported the project. Now, many of our supporters tonight weren't able to attend because they are still at work. Now, we don't have the same noise concerns as the complaints some have pointed out, like the Revolution Concert House, because our sound system is not engineered to be as loud as possible. It's designed for clarity, while still allowing patrons at the rear of the building to carry on a conversation. We demonstrated that using sound scientific principles that even with zero soundproofing the outside noise of our facility when measured to the closest house would always be less than the sound of the ambient traffic from Eagle Road and even if the Villa Sport never comes to fruition, which would act as a massive steel and concrete sound barrier, our neighbors would never realize our facility in an operation unless they constantly thought about it. Now, at the end of the day this project is about one thing. The music. The rare thing in this world that doesn't care what age, race, gender or religion that you are and unlike those categories, music only serves to unite people and not to divide them in any way. Thank you, again, for your time and we ask for your approval for the project. McCarvel: Any other questions from the Commission for this applicant? Mr. Yearsley, you came off mute. Did you have a question or a motion? Yearsley: Now, I don't have any questions. McCarvel: Okay. If there is no other questions for the applicant or staff, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for item H-2021-0004. Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: So moved. Grove: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Mr. Yearsley, were you wanting to start us off? Yearsley: Sure. I -- I have to admit I'm a little conflicted on this one. I understand what he wants to do and I don't think it's a bad thing to do. I am concerned about how close it is to residential. He -- he keeps stating that it won't be -- the noise won't be greater than Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F79 Page 76 of 90 the road, which the road noise is pretty bad by itself and, you know, I have never been to a concert that -- let's turn the volume down. So, I'm still concerned that the noise from the music will be loud and even if there is a concrete block in front -- to block that noise, still -- you will still hear that noise. We lived over off of Eagle and -- and Victory and we still hear the noise from the speedway. So, sound does travel well. So, I am concerned. My two big concerns are the sound and the parking. Where he doesn't have the other agreements in place I'm a little concerned about that. I would prefer to see those agreements in place. First a cross-access easement on the other properties as well before considering approval. And that's all I have for now. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland, you are off mute. Holland: I am off mute. I am the same. I am a little bit conflicted on this one. So, in general I think we all like music. I don't think that's the question. I think the challenge is location and making sure that this specific spot meets the needs of the Comprehensive Plan. You know, I think to places where music venues work really well -- I have been to Nashville many times, it's one of my favorite cities. Part of the reason that the venues there work for their nightclub atmosphere where they have lots of dancing and lots of music is that it's mostly in their urban core where it's very walkable and they have got easy access to get kind of in and out of places. The challenge I think with this specific site is its proximity to Eagle and Ustick. I think if it was a proposal within The Village I would feel differently about it than I do where it's at on Eagle and Ustick. If it was somewhere downtown I would feel different about it. Maybe even different in Ten Mile Crossing, because there is more walkability and connected pathways. So, if I was in the applicant's shoes I would say -- I certainly see Brian's enthusiasm and I appreciate and -- and encourage him to continue exploring this project. You know, I think he's put a lot of effort and a lot of really good comprehensive thought into it. I -- I think he definitely did some research when he was putting together his presentation to us, but for me it really comes down to the challenges of the location itself and making sure that we make that in the right spot. If it was just a restaurant being proposed that had alcohol being served and it was a place that happened to play music, I don't think I would have the same concerns. I think it's the nightclub atmosphere, which, again, I'm not opposed to having in Meridian, I think nightclubs are a great option for people who want to go out and dance and I don't think that we are opposed to dancing, we are not opposed to music, it's about finding the right location and I have concerns with the right-in, right-out and the way that traffic would flow in and out of this complex, that there could be some impacts on the residential community nearby. So, I would encourage the applicant to look towards maybe talking with the folks at Brighton who put in a request tonight for 83 commercial lots in the Ten Mile area or maybe looking at The Village or maybe looking at potentially a downtown property if they wanted to find an option and that's my initial thoughts. But, again, I -- I could be swayed hearing other thoughts from the Commission, because I -- I am torn. I don't want to say no to -- to new music venues and business opportunity, I just want to make sure it's the right place for the Comprehensive Plan and in the best interest of the city. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F8o Page 77 of 90 Grove: Madam Chair. I think Commissioner Holland summed up a lot of how I feel about this as well. Definitely torn. Personally I would love to see this downtown, but that's just a -- a personal preference probably on some of that. But looking at the criteria and the staff report for what we are to base this decision on, just kind of going through the eight points starting on page 18 of the report, and, you know, as I tick down the list, you know, for the most part it's coming up yes in terms of meeting those criteria. There is a few that I think deserve a lot of discussion, but there is going to have to be some very clear basis of what we are looking at I guess in terms of how we are making our decision and that's a little bit different than something that's coming in and asking for a rezone and -- and platting and all those types of things and so the -- the challenge -- and that's why I kind of asked Joe at the beginning what is the criteria that we are judging this against. I think taking the fact of what's been presented versus the -- a motion of what's been presented, is going to be key to coming to a good resolution on this application. So, I'm torn and I don't necessarily have a set vote yes or no yet, but I just kind of wanted to throw that out there as we started discussing. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Okay. Concerns. I -- I don't know if I'm -- the internal noise I don't see as a -- as a huge issue. To me it would be -- it would be issues out in the parking lot. That's why I did ask the applicant about what they were going to do, you know, for that and the plan might be to have security out in the parking lot, but is that going to happen. I think the parking lot and out behind the building are where issues might happen at, you know, 1:00 in the morning and some of this stuff I'm speaking from personal experience way back in the day. Traffic. My concern there is is -- it's Cajun Way. I think if this were -- if this were -- were in an area that wasn't so constrained, it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be a big deal, I -- but this is a very -- again, I mean every time we get one of these in-fill things they are difficult. Throw us an in-fill deal like this that -- that has the use that it is, with a nightclub, makes it even a hundred fold. But if there were a real easy way in and out -- I'm not worried about the traffic at 1.00 in the morning, people leaving. I don't think that -- you know, that's not going to be an issue. There won't be cars on Ustick or Eagle. That's not the issue. So, I'm not super concerned about that. It's the -- it's -- it's how they are getting in and out of this space and using Cajun is -- that's a tough one, because, then, it -- that funnels people into that neighborhood behind there. If you have had a couple to drink you may not know which way Eagle Road is when you go through a roundabout and get twisted around, into the neighborhood and wind up hitting a parked car. Those are -- those are not -- those are -- there are narrow roads, narrow streets through there, so they are not -- they are not the normal -- normal width there. So, that's a concern. My other concern -- I don't think there is enough parking personally. I think the -- I think the numbers that we are looking at are -- are -- are a little bit under I would say. I think -- you know, I mean you look at employees there is -- on a Friday, Saturday night, 20, 25 employees based on everything they will have going on there, that -- then they will all come in one car -- in their own car. I don't see people piling in four and five to a car to go to a nightclub. It's going to be -- it's going to be three, probably, on -- on average going in there and certainly, you know, on the way home maybe you will utilize ride share, but -- but I don't know if there is enough parking. My two biggest concerns Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F81 Page 78 of 90 would be the traffic that this would funnel out through the neighborhood and parking and right now they don't -- without -- if there were an agreement with Villa Sport -- but Villa Sport is going to be open until midnight on these nights, too. So, I don't know how open Villa Sport would be to allow parking. So, those are my -- my concerns and I just think it's maybe in this situation trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. I would love to see it. So, let me get back to that. I would -- you know, it may not be my -- my cup of tea, but -- but I think it would be a great -- a great asset to Meridian. I just don't think it's the best location. Maybe if they came in first and other things were built around it, it's -- again, trying to get it into this in-fill project just doesn't fit with the traffic. To me with the traffic and the -- and the parking are the big stickers I have. McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I do, Madam Chair. I mentioned this at another Planning and Zoning meeting. Where there is a piece of dirt in front of your subdivision, unless you own that piece of dirt we don't always get a say of what it's going to be. We know it's going to be commercial, but it could be anything -- it could be anything and just because we might not be the patrons of it, is it our judgment to say that it belongs there, it doesn't belong there. So, I think because there is not a good neighbor agreement between the other businesses at this point in time and where there is going to be overflow parking in order for all of these businesses to work together, if that could be resolved I would support a conditional use permit. I don't -- I'm not worried about the noise. He is going to build a building that's got to be airtight and there is not going to be children walking around at 1:00 o'clock in the morning or even midnight and traffic will be -- can be negotiated. But unless he is a good neighbor and has that agreement -- I used to own a tow truck company. We used to pull people off of other people's parking lots all the time. You are looking at a minimum of anywhere from 125 to 300 dollars. If you walk out of your club and your car's not parked where it's not supposed to be and that's a huge, you know, financial concern, because you are just creating enemies instead of having good neighbors from whomever you are going to be. So, that would be my concern at this point in time. McCarvel: Yeah. I think I will chime in. I -- I love the idea of this. I think, again, the applicant has, obviously, done a well thought out plan. I think it's something that would be beneficial in the City of Meridian. I am concerned that this exact spot is the right spot for it and I guess I'm looking at the reason it is -- it requires a conditional use permit is -- was given to us by staff in their narrative -- it's the indoor recreation facility is principally permitted in the C-G zone, unless it incorporates a music venue and is located within a thousand feet of an existing residence. It, then, requires a conditional use permit and that's just for -- because, then, you have got to lay some common sense eyes on it and say is -- is this a fit and at just a little over 300 feet, instead of a thousand, I think that's a concern. And the bigger concern in my mind is the parking. The math just doesn't work on that and I would agree with Commissioner Lorcher, that, you know, if there was an agreement in place for the parking that there weren't going to be constant issues, I think we are -- we are setting up, you know, creating bad neighbors amongst the business owners if that can't be resolved before this goes in and I agree. Unfortunately, this is the last thing in. You know, the building has already been approved. This is a conditional Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F82] Page 79 of 90 use for the building. You know, if it's not this it will -- you know, it will be something else. It will be more stuff, like the Jamba Juice. But I think we are setting ourselves up for bad business neighbors if they don't -- if we allow this to go through without the parking being resolved. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just looking at -- from what I'm hearing from everybody else, there are some items that we have concerns about. You know, the two things that I see with it is we give him a continuance for a month and have him, you know, try to identify parking and try to get those agreements in place and other conditions or I'm hearing a denial is kind of what I'm hearing and so I'm kind of curious to where people -- really, I'm -- I would actually lean to a continuance for a month to give -- you know, give him an opportunity to work through some of that if he can. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I would -- I would be in favor of doing a continuance versus a denial. I think that we can definitely set some very set pieces of what -- what we need to see different on this. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: One other thing that just -- that just kind of popped into my mind that came up in the very beginning of this with regards to parking. If -- you know, even if it's -- the capacity is limited to 500, if fire code caps at it 700, if some of those numbers have been through there, you know, I mean how do you stop it at five and that -- not that the capacity inside would be an issue if there is room, but that goes to the parking. So, even -- I think if we -- if we continue it based on parking being one of the issues, I think we really need to see -- we need to see some real rock solid agreements, because, obviously, if that's what we are going to do we have got to give the applicant some guidance here. Some just rock solid, you know, that he can come back and say I have got -- you know, I have got double the amount of spaces available to me in this -- in this area or whatever the number--whatever the number might be. I just -- because I could easily see the capacity going above 500 if the Fire Department has 750 and, again, one of the questions I asked early on is how do we -- how do we control that and -- and whatnot. So, it's -- that's a difficult thing to do. I think the applicant will probably say with the -- with the technology they are using at the door with scanning, you know, you cut the number off, but who is to say if there is a line outside and people want to come in you don't let him in if you -- if you are still under the fire code, because who is going to -- who is going to walk through there and try and count people that are moving. I think we just got -- he has got to plan for more than ample parking. I don't think it's near enough. So, the thought there on that capacity number. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F83] Page 80 of 90 Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm still a little bit worried about the traffic flow in and out, especially with the residential streets that's there. The -- just the proximity of this to that residential and wish that I could pick up this project and move it to The Village or move it downtown or move it to Ten Mile, because I think it wouldn't be a question for me at all if that was the case. So, I'm still worried that if we extend it another month we give maybe some false hope that we might be able to accomplish what we are hoping to, but I don't know that finding enough parking is really going to fix some of the challenges of the way traffic is going to flow in and out of this site. So, that's still a concern of mine. I -- I want to reiterate I like Brian's enthusiasm. I like his energy. I like the concept of having a music venue in writing. I think it would be a nice amenity to have. I'm just -- this is not the place I would pick to put it. I -- if it was a restaurant that had music that would be a different story. But when it's a nightclub and you have got later operating hours and we do have Villa Sport that's got similar operating hours, I don't know that you are going to be able to work out a parking agreement that makes us all feel comfortable. So, I would hate to give false hope, but if the Commission would like to -- to move to continue it, I'm more than happy to give the applicant a chance to try and come up with coming back to us and I would say -- there would be three things I would ask him to do is, one, work out a parking agreement, make sure that they can show that he can meet their demands. Two, maybe come up with some sort of circulation plan of how they advise their patrons to come in and out of the site and, three, that they would maybe work with the Meridian Police Department on kind of a safety plan and protocol. I think that that was certainly a concern we heard from a lot of people, that when -- when they think of nightclubs, just making sure that they feel comfortable. I know from personal experience -- we have a nightclub we have worked with in Kuna and when the police department has a good relationship with the bouncers that work for the facility and they work collaboratively on coming up with a safety plan, it works much better for the community, so -- Lorcher: Madam Chair? Holland: I hope that helps us, but -- McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I would agree with a lot of the things that Chairman Holland said. I would like to see a -- a solid good neighbor propose -- you know, plan in place and would, you know, support a continuance so that he would have time to be able to consult with Villa Sport and the other businesses around there, so that they have good neighbor relationships. Because that would kill the business right then and there. Grove: What -- what parking totals would we be looking at? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F84] Page 81 of 90 Lorcher: Commissioner Grove, I don't know if it's so much as the totals as people just figuring -- if it's a continuous parking lot, they can go wherever they want. For example, when I had the tow company we worked out of Garden City and people would go to the Revolution Nightclub, but park in the Dairy Queen. Well, the Dairy Queen didn't want them. So, as soon as they would park there we would tow them. Like I said, at 300 dollars a pop every time. So, I think the -- the lines aren't really specifically drawn if they are all connected, especially with streets on either side. But if there is a good neighbor agreement between all the different businesses, then, you don't have to worry about that and that's going to save a ton of people a ton of money if you hire a tow company or security to be able to do that every night. I mean -- and that just -- that just makes everybody mad. I mean I can't tell you -- we never towed anybody and they came away happy, so -- especially after a night of drinking and they are like where the heck is my car. So, if to have an event like this where it's going to be a music venue and people are just going to go where they need to go, having a good neighbor policy for parking is going to be imperative for him to be successful. Grove: Madam Chair? Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't necessarily disagree with that. I think, though, in terms of telling the applicant, you know, not just saying you need to have an agreement in place, but give him some target numbers for him to say like, yes, we have an agreement, but we only got five spots, that doesn't really go to what the nature of the need is here. So, I think we need to probably put some parameters around that just -- Holland: Madam -- Grove: -- so that we have something to gauge against and the applicant has something to, you know, work towards. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Madam Chair. Right now I believe they have 125 stalls available; is that what we heard? Four to one? McCarvel: Yes. Holland: So, if that's the case and we feel like a three-to-one ratio would be better, that would be 166. 1 think if we could say that they could meet 166 available parking stalls maybe that would meet that ratio or we could say 150. But maybe that gets us a little closer. Cassinelli: I think that's a good target. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F85] Page 82 of 90 Parson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Bill. Parsons: This is Bill. So, if you look -- if you look at the conditions of approval that we have in place, we are asking the applicant to establish a shared parking agreement with Villa Sport. I'm looking at their approved site plan and they had over 500 stalls and that's why when you are talking -- that's the concern that we had as staff is, yes, although the code requires one per 250, the code allows you to put more restrictive requirements on a conditional use permit and so in our -- when we were analyzing this -- I have dealt with that residential portion of that subdivision throughout the -- my tenure with the city and we put in speed humps -- or speed cushions in that private street because of the cut-through traffic from Jimmy Johns. There has -- there has been a lot of -- a lot of history that's gone on with that residential development just with the commercial along Eagle there and so that's why when Joe and I analyzed this project it was -- to me what makes it work is that this area is just underdeveloped right now. If Villa Sport was in and that drive-through that you acted on this evening was in, all of a sudden we are talking five or six hundred parking stalls and we have different -- multiple ways of getting in and out of here and that's really what Joe and I tried to lay out for you in the staff report. The only way this business is going to work is if there is cross-parking, because, you're right, you are going to create that situation where you are going to have business owners fighting against one another or having private property and no parking signs going up in the parking lot and we are just going to create a code enforcement nightmare for ourselves and all due respect, I love the -- the passion that the applicant has had, too. It's just sometimes -- you know, we are tasked with providing safeguards on the conditional use permit. So, don't think -- you know, even continuance out, I think that's a great idea to do that and try to get some -- see if we can solidify some of those shared parking agreements. I think that's really -- really critical. Him addressing the police and getting that safety plan, I like that suggestion. And also have him share with us how we plans to incentivize that Uber and Lyft drivers to come use patrons -- or people want to get discounted if they carpool and we just don't have a lot of these details. So, continuation is one avenue. The other thing is if you just don't think you can get there, you can again -- it's your-- it's your purview to deny it, but giving him directions on how to gain an approval. But he has the ability to appeal it to City Council. That's an option in the code. If -- if he doesn't agree with your -- your conditions or your decision, the applicant has the right to appeal that or go through City Council review, just like Villa Sport did. So, there is some options for you. But certainly from -- from my perspective this Villas Sport project needs to happen in order for this -- this area to work. A hundred and twenty-five parking stalls is just going to be pretty light. So, let's give him some time. At least I was happy to see the landowner for Villa Sport was on the line tonight saying that he's willing to work with Brian. I think that was a small sliver of hope to help him get some additional parking to help what he's trying to achieve here. But to me that's really -- we have got to have all these property owners working together and as you know that can be difficult sometimes. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F86] Page 83 of 90 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, if--what would --what would the applicant need in terms of an agreement with these other property owners that would -- that would really make sense. I mean it just -- I mean I'm not talking -- yeah, you know, you can use our parking spot on a -- on a cocktail napkin. That's, obviously, not good enough. How much detail are we -- are we talking about here? Is it -- would he get a number of spots from a -- from one of the neighboring locations? What would -- you know, from your experience what -- what exactly would he need. Parsons: Well, anytime we get a -- get a written agreement for a project I always send them up to Ted in Legal, because I want him to make sure we are on solid ground, because I want them -- a lot of times these agreements have language in there that they can terminate at anytime and we want to make sure whatever we are agreeing to or whatever they are agreeing to, that it kind of stays in place for that business owner. But typically we can't always control a private contract between property owners. So, that's why we have tried to structure this approval to say, you know, coordinate or work with that property owner, establish a shared parking agreement. I don't have a site plan to share with you. I have the Villa Sport site plans pulled up, but to the south of this building in this multi-tenant building that we are talking about this evening, there is probably a hundred stalls to the south of them that I would think realistically the applicant should -- could or possibly negotiate use of that parking and, then, also that multi-tenant building with the drive-through this evening had an additional 32 stalls. So, we are looking at potentially doubling the parking just near the vicinity of this -- this building would I think help -- help this applicant tremendously to just provide some additional parking. I don't think he needs to go -- that drive aisle that comes off Ustick and ties into Cajun, anything kind of west of that, you know, Villa Sport, I think it probably preserves their interests there. It's just everything kind of south of this existing site that -- I think the negotiations need to happen and try to figure out how -- how they can come up with a game plan to get a shared parking agreement in place and a month may allow the applicant time to do that. I don't have a magical number for you. That's -- that's why we said work out an agreement and let's see if that's a good compromise. But I think at least getting more than what's out there is probably a good compromise. Baird: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? A concern that that just brought up is -- you know, you -- Bill, are you saying it's a private agreement between two individuals. If -- McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli, our legal is ready to advise here for a second. I think he might answer your question. Cassinelli: Okay. McCarvel: Thanks. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F87 Page 84 of 90 Baird: Thank you, Madam Chair. That's what I was hoping to do. We look at cross- parking agreements the same way we look at cross-access agreements and in a cross- access it's like you can use my property, I can use your property, we can -- you know, free access in and out. Most cross-parking agreements just say this is my lot, this is your lot, people -- your people can park in mine, my people can park on yours. So, if you are going to do that you are going to need -- the Commission needs to identify which lots. Is it just to the south or does it include Villa Sport. Do you want everything -- I mean this is what a shopping center does is that every single business shares all that parking and I think that might be what you are looking for. As to the form of the agreement, they are recorded documents against the land. We would look to make sure that it runs with the land. So, if the owners change the property -- or the cross-parking stays in place. So, yeah, those are the type of things that we would --we would review for and we are happy to provide. I can't draft it for him, because I can't be his legal counsel, but I can show him what we have approved in the past. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Yeah. Can the Commission see my screen? McCarvel: Yes. Parsons: So, this is -- so, here is where The Oasis or the building that Oasis is looking to locate on. So, here is what I'm talking about and there is -- here is all that parking to the south and, then, here is the drive aisle that comes off of Ustick. So, I think -- I don't -- I don't imagine Villa Sport is going to have too many people late night working out that will be using this parking and probably be more in this area here and they also have this out lot over here. But, again, if Villa Sport is willing to allow cross-access and -- or shared parking across all of this area, then, that works as well, too. But we don't know until at least Brian has that conversation --the applicant has that conversation with the gentleman that spoke this evening and what they can get worked out. Cassinelli: I would be willing to -- to give them that opportunity. My concern would be on a -- on a -- on a parking agreement would be if -- you know, if the -- if it was Villa Sport, just -- I don't know the name of the other development there, but if it was Villa Sport and every -- you know, every Friday morning, Saturday morning, Sunday morning that Villa Sport comes out, the parking lot is -- is a mess, it's got trash all over it, they may terminate -- decide to terminate that agreement and then -- and, then, we are in a bad spot. Now we have really got a -- then we really have parking issues. And, again, I would be willing to give the applicant a try on it, but I look at this -- I mean if you -- if -- you know, I know it's tough to find a spot in Meridian right now, but if -- you know, if he found a spot with better access, better parking, he can even up his capacity, then, to 700, a thousand, in a different location and -- not that I'm saying I'm not going to try and talk him out of this location necessarily, but, you know, I see almost more positives somewhere else. But I would be willing to certainly continue it to see if -- if they can get some -- get some agreements. I would want to see the agreements. I think we -- not just a verbal, yeah, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F88] Page 85 of 90 we got an agreement, I think it would be something that we would need to review and see how rock solid it is. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think that there is enough voices that I have heard of people wanting to give them a chance to come back to us that I'm going to make a motion that we reopen the public hearing for H-2021-0004 for The Oasis for the purpose of setting a date to continue this application to make some requests. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open -- reopen the public hearing for H- 2021-0004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: While we have got the hearing open, do we want to just set a date or do we want to ask the applicant what date he thinks he needs? Holland: Madam Chair, I was thinking May 6th might give them enough time, because if we do the date before that it might be too tight to work out a parking agreement like that. But I wanted to see what staff thought and see if the applicant might be open to doing May 6th. McCarvel: I'm getting a nod from the applicant. Dodson: Madam Chair, staff would agree with that as well. McCarvel: Okay. May 6th. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: What -- if you are going to speak you need to come up to the microphone. And just to the date. Tsai: Oh. Okay. That should be adequate. Sorry. McCarvel: That's okay. Tsai: I was going to point out something that was -- a lot of the parking was covered in the narrative with the analysis that we did, regarding ride share ratios and the comparison of another -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F89 Page 86 of 90 McCarvel: And I think the Commission has decided that -- Tsai: Okay. McCarvel: -- it's not adequate. Tsai: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't know if that was -- that was -- McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, we have decided it's not adequate -- adequate and we want to -- I think we are at either denial or continuing to see if you can resolve the parking issue. Tsai: I certainly appreciate the chance to be able to try and work that out. McCarvel: Okay. Tsai: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: You want me to make a stab at it? McCarvel: Sure. Grove: Madam Chair, real quick. McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead. Grove: Commissioner Holland, could you maybe in the parking piece of it make sure that -- I know it's been talked about, but just since we are going to have it brought back, make sure that the ride share parking or ride share access piece is very clearly addressed. Thanks. Holland: I will try my best. I'm going to go slowly so you can all correct me if I miss something. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue application for The Oasis, H-2021-0004, for the hearing date of March 18th, 2021, to the hearing date of May 6th, 2021, for the purpose of allowing the applicant to help resolve a few issues for the Commission, which include, one, working with the Meridian Police Department on creating a safety plan and protocol and helping to follow any advanced guidelines that they might like to see for this establishment. Two. That the applicant would work on a circulation plan and a ride share promotion plan to help enhance safety of the development, making sure that there is dedicated space for ride share parking and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F90 Page 87 of 90 that they would come back with some enhanced notes for us on what that could look like. That they would put together a -- work towards establishing a shared parking agreement with their neighboring business owners and that we would be seeking to see a minimum of at least 170 stalls -- I'm going to throw a number out there -- that could help service this establishment and that -- that they would provide a copy of that agreement to the Commission for our review. And that they would come back with a visual of how that parking agreement looks and what their suggested circulation plan looks like for the facility for customers coming and leaving. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to -- Holland: Oh, can I make a modification? McCarvel: Sure. Holland: I forgot one note. I would also move that we are not reopening the conditional use permit for public testimony, but that we are specifically opening it for the items discussed in that motion made. Grove: Second stands. Cassinelli: Can we do that? Baird: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: The second part of that? Baird: I was going to chime in. I understand the intent of what was just stated by Commissioner Holland. When you reopen the hearing for specific issues and new information is provided to you and there will be new information on the safety protocol, the circulation plan, the ride share parking, and the shared parking agreement, those four issues the public would be allowed to comment only on those. No -- no repetition of what you have heard tonight. You have narrowed it down to these things and the applicant gets a chance to present what he's found and the Commission and the public get a chance to comment and he will get to rebut just like tonight. Those issues only. Holland: I apologize and thank you for that clarification. I meant to say that we would limit it to discussion around those specific items -- that we would limit public testimony to those specific items. So, I would modify my motion to say that, again, we would limit public testimony to be related to the four items that we asked them to come back to us with. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F91 Page 88 of 90 Grove: Second still stands. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue The Oasis, H-2021-0004, to the hearing date of May 6th for the items stated in the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We will see you on May 6th. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 8. Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh, Commissioner Holland, I know exactly what you are going to say. How does the rest of the -- I will say it for you. How does the rest of the Commission feel about opening the next item or are we out of gas? And I guess I -- before we have that discussion, I will open it up to Madam Clerk to tell us what's on the next agenda before we make that decision. Weatherly: Thank you, Madam Chair. Our next meeting is April 1st. On that meeting there are currently three hearings scheduled. One is a conditional use permit for an drive- through. The other is Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation Annexation. And the other one is a conditional use permit for multi-family development, as well as a preliminary plat. The second -- oh, my apologies. Mr. Johnson just pointed out we actually have an additional hearing that night on 3175 North Ten Mile, which is a rezone. On April 15th there are currently three hearings. One is for annexation and a preliminary plat. Another one is a modification to the conditional use permit for Pine 43 Apartments. And the third is Roberts Annexation for annexation of two acres. McCarvel: Given that what would the Commission prefer to do this evening? Yearsley: I say April 1 st. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Agreed. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F92 Page 89 of 90 McCarvel: Okay. I think all it would take would be a motion. We would need to continue item -- where did we go? Lost -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair, do we need to check with the applicant on that -- on those dates? McCarvel: Who do we have her tonight for Skybreak? Madam Clerk? Yeah. I don't -- yeah. If the applicant is online, please, raise your hand. Otherwise, we are going to assume you are not here anyway. So, could I get a motion to continue item H-2020-0127, Skybreak Neighborhood to the meeting date of April 1 st. Yearsley: So moved. Cassinelli: I would make that motion if we are able to put them first on the agenda for new business. McCarvel: Absolutely. Holland: I will second that. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue item H-2021 -- or, I'm sorry, 2022-0127 to the hearing date of April 1 st and be the first item on the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: One other -- Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Holland: Second. Cassinelli: I got a question -- I got a comment before we do that. McCarvel: Are you serious? Cassinelli: Do we want it -- it's just a quick one. Should we make a time limit of going into a new item? McCarvel: I think we have kind of done that on the fly. I think it will depend on what's -- you know, at the end. But I think we have kind of established that this last couple of times. Yeah. I don't think -- I mean I don't think we want to get into that. We never know what Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F93 Page 90 of 90 -- I mean the next week's going to get even worse. So, I think we have kind of established a routine here that if it gets starting a new one past 11 :00 we kind of take a look at it. Cassinelli: All right. Then we have a motion on the floor. Holland: It still stands. McCarvel: It has been move -- moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:29 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 4 1 1 12021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 4 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the March 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 4,2021 F66 Page 62 of 62 Lorcher: I second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:36 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 3 I 18 12021 ANDREW SEAL - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 67 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Kiddie Academy (H-2021-0003) by neUdesign Architecture, LLC, Located at 3335 E. Victory Rd. Item 2. F 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 1DAH0 DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Daycare Facility(UDC 11-4-3-9) for Kiddie Academy,Located at 3335 E.Victory Road in the C-C Zoning District,by neUdesign Architecture. Case No(s).H-2021-0004 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: March 4,2021 (Findings on March 18, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4,2021,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4,2021, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). Kiddie Academy-H-2021-0004 Page 1 Item 2. 69 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of March 4,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § I I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of March 4,2021,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two(2)year period. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521,any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of March 4,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). Kiddie Academy-H-2021-0004 Page 2 Item 2. 70 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 18th day of March ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson,City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 3-18-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). Kiddie Academy-H-2021-0004 Page 3 Item 2. Exhibit A STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/4/2021 L Legend DATE: I�l U Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 3 ® SUBJECT: H-2021-0003 r _ a The Kiddie Academy LOCATION: 3335 E.Victory Road j ® ' M, m� I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant,neUdesign Architecture,requests Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 7,926 square foot, single-story daycare facility on approximately 1 acre of land on Lot 3 of The Shops at Victory plat in the C-C zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.06 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-use Community Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial—Daycare Center Lots(#and type; One (1)building lot bldg./common) Phasing Plan(#of phases) One (1)phase Neighborhood meeting date; # December 21, 2020;no attendees I of attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-08-007; PP-08-006; CUP-08-011; ALT-08-012; A-2015-0061 and DA instrument#111032845. DA restricts hours of operation on this property from 6am-10pm. Page 1 Item 2. ■ B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No—Staff letter • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access to Victory Road via an existing driveway (Arterial/Collectors/State connection near the northeast corner of the site.No Hwy/Local)(Existing and other road improvements are proposed or required. Proposed) Stub Cross-access to adjacent parcels is already in place Street/Interconnectivity/Cross with the existing Development Agreement Access Existing Road Network Yes Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 0.6 miles from Fire Station#4 • Fire Response Time Within 5-minute response time goal C. Project Area Maps .Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend MU, Legend Project Location Project Location C ium ensl e e . ResidentialMU-C \C Liu r 9 9 .. MU-N Low-Density Residential `mod .Zoning Map Planned Development Map Page 2 Item 2. F 3 Legend =p R= C- 0 Legend 0 Project Location e L_0 Project Location e R-8 City Limits RUT Planned Parcels Rr8�C-G ' Q RUT Rl R-15 °O G_ RUT R-$ RUT RUT R-15 RUT �� 4 R-= CIE III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Amanda Bidwell,neUdesign Architecture—725 E. 2"d Street,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Jason White,WL Victory Crossing,LLC—8385 W. Emerald Street,Boise,ID 83704 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/12/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 2/9/2021 Site Posting Date 2/22/2021 NextDoor posting 2/9/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /elan/elan) The fixture land use designation for this property is Mixed-use Community—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N)areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four Page 3 Item 2. 74 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The proposed use of a Daycare Center(more than 12 children) is a community-serving use that fits within this future land use designation as it can serve both the immediate area but also the nearby community at-large. When analyzing projects within this designation, the other uses provided nearby and within the same designation area should also be taken into account. Of this mixed-use area, a majority of it has not yet redeveloped from county residential uses. The commercial subdivision that the subject site is a part of contains a Rite-aid and one additional commercial lot that is not yet developed. This MU-C designation also exists across Victory Road where a higher density multi family development has been approved and is currently under review for their administrative approvals. With the existing residential to the east and south of this development and the possibility for more commercial uses further north along Eagle and within this future land use designation, Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the MU- C future land use designation. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /ccoompplan): • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips,and enhancing overall livability and sustainability" (3.06.02B).Adding a daycare use in this location introduces an additional use to immediate area. In addition, this property has direct pedestrian access to the adjacent subdivision to the east, therefore promoting overall sustainability and the benefits of having a supportive commercial use nearby residential. • "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas" (3.06.02C). The proposed daycare is not near an employment center but is part of a smaller commercial subdivision. Furthermore, the remaining undeveloped Mixed-use area north of the subject site could also contain employment opportunities making the location of this daycare to those future employers equally important. • "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B).Despite the subject property being within a mixed-use community designation, this area of MU-C is relatively small in size and is separated from the rest of this designation by an arterial street, Victory Road. This separation makes it more feasible for smaller-scale commercial like that of the proposed daycare. In addition, this property has direct pedestrian access to the subdivision to its east providing convenient pedestrian access to the adjacent residential development. • "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D). With the proposed landscaping and landscape buffer, and easy pedestrian access, the proposed use should be both buffered and integrated into the existing neighborhoods. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject site has some partial improvements from its original approvals in 2005 including an access to Victory Road,parking spaces adjacent to the street, and existing cross-access and cross- parking agreements. There are no other existing structures on this site. Page 4 Item 2. 75 D. Proposed Use Analysis: A Daycare Center(more than 12 children)is listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a conditional use in the C-C zoning district. See narrative included in the application for more specific details on the proposed use from the Applicant's perspective. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility,the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children,is the determining factor. The Applicant's narrative states the maximum number of children at the facility is 158 children. The building will have multiple rooms for different age groups. In addition, a maximum of 21 staff members will be employed here during peak hours throughout the day. 2. On site vehicle pick up,parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The Applicant has revised their site plan to meet this requirement. The revised site plan shows additional parking on the north side of the building and to the west of the building. Between these western parking spaces and the building is the discharge area for children. This drive aisle is shown as a one-way pick-up/drop-off area for parents that goes from the south to the north adjacent to the west facing daycare center. The Applicant has proposed the one-way drive aisle in this direction with the anticipation of a majority of the future children coming from subdivisions to the south of the property and the shared access along Eagle Road, shared with the proposed development, via an approved cross access agreement. The parking area specifically for this lot is proposing 30 parking stalls, of which 18 will be brand new to the site. However, the subject property has a shared access and parking agreement with the rest of the Shops at Victory commercial subdivision, noted on the approved plat. The adjacent drive aisles appear to be 25 feet wide, meeting code requirements for a two- way drive aisle; the Applicant will be required to show compliance with the parking lot standards at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal. With the proposed parking and the revised layout showing a true pick-up/drop-off area, Staff finds the proposed use and site design will provide for safe discharge and pick up of children at this business and is enough for the proposed use and submitted maximum capacity of 158 children. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. Staff recommends a maximum of 158 allowable clients at any one time unless the maximum occupancy is limited further by fire or building code; Staff has written a condition of approval commensurate with this recommendation. 4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The Applicant has agreed to comply with this requirement in their narrative. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence,the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. The subject property has limited hours of operation of 6am to IOpm due to a provision of the existing Development Agreement. The Page 5 Item 2. 76 Applicant has stated in their narrative that they intend to operate within these hours and is not seeking to change this DA provision. Staff has included a condition of approval related to the proposed business hours. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district,the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title.Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet(100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. NA B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot(6')non-scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The submitted landscape plans show a 6'tall steel tube fence proposed along perimeter of the play areas. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet(6')high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. The play equipment being proposed is not known at this time;Applicant will comply with this requirement if any equipment is ever proposed. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk.Not applicable, C-C zoning district. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The daycare center will be in a new building that requires Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review approval prior to building permit submittal.All UDC dimensional standards appear to be met with the submitted site plan but the Applicant shall comply with the required dimensional standards at the time of CZC submittal. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Direct lot access is provided via a driveway connection to E.Victory road,an existing arterial street. Further cross-access is provided to the west through the rest of the commercial subdivision which provides an additional arterial access to S. Eagle Road. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): The proposed building is shown as 7,926 square feet,requiring a minimum of 16 parking stalls. 30 parking stalls are proposed to meet this requirement in addition to having an existing cross- parking agreement with the adjacent commercial lots to the west.All parking and parking lot landscaping meet UDC standards. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There is an existing five-foot(5) sidewalk that traverses the site from the Astoria Subdivision to the east. There is also existing attached sidewalk along E. Victory road. A portion of the sidewalk traversing the site is proposed to be removed to accommodate the new daycare facility but is shown as connecting to the required sidewalk surrounding the entire building and will provide access to the parking around the building. UDC requires that new commercial buildings provide 5-foot wide sidewalks from all public entrances to the arterial sidewalks. The submitted plans do not show this connection and the most logical and feasible place for this to occur is by continuing the sidewalk within the existing landscape buffer along the east boundary. Staff is recommending the site plan and landscape plan Page 6 Item 2. ■ are corrected at the time of CZC submittal to show this sidewalk connecting to the existing sidewalk along Victory Road. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The project requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to adjacent residential uses and is already in place with previous approvals. This landscape buffer is shown to remain on the submitted landscape plans. All other landscaping proposed is for the parking lot landscaping and appears to meet UDC standards. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): There is existing 6-foot vinyl fencing along the property boundary that the Applicant is showing to retain and protect. The Applicant is proposing new 6-foot tall steel tube fencing to enclose the play areas as discussed in the specific use standards section above. The existing and proposed fencing meets UDC standards. L. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): All new non-residential buildings require Administrative Design Review(DES) approval prior to submitting for building permit. The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations including color elevations. The submitted elevations appear to meet architectural standards by providing varying roof heights,two different field materials,building modulation, and accent materials providing fenestration for the building. The building is shown with stucco and wood field materials providing for earth tones and differing transitions between the proposed building modulation. Staff will analyze the elevations in more detail with the future required DES submittal. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on March 4, 2021.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Amanda Bidwell,Applicant Representative b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Amanda Bidwell:Vijay Llavarasan.Applicant d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Other locations where this Applicant is operating daycares: b. Kids to staff ratio—Applicant stated they will abide by the State regulations. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 7 Item 2. F78 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 2/17/2021) 0 s Q ne design ' 9 ---- — ------ ,2TF2ds1 M,ldian.ID E3642 1- 20SB34.2324 CO CONSULTANT ti a Af I tLFP.F �ti — IR' < Q w j � p Q Q v Q Q & J ' 0 i } ❑ n Q Q RUFFAIE I PROMSIONALSFSL 10 10 KIo❑ order Q� EL �z \` PO - cLeeT Pe�ia�. .ice —Sr - ! 44 N% __, SITE PLAN I 1 L J SITE PLAN-NEW _O A-101 Page 8 B. Landscape Plan(date: 2/24/2021) Cm LU ffid LU LU CL ENIM RKLU Fo zq IL Page 9 Item 2. ■ C. Conceptual Building Elevations(date: 2/18/2021) W � Efl a n � a z O � O O , i ii r Y n � o c HI n 40, VIJAY ILAVARASAN -7ICD �0'P o KIDDIE ACADEMY - i"j� �O =„s ��j� r scvicicv�ru.nekmiaN.i�aewz - - Page 10 Item 2. 81 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. The Applicant shall comply with all existing conditions of approval and Development Agreement provisions(AZ-08-007; PP-08-006; CUP-08-011;ALT-08-012; A-2015-0061 and DA instrument#111032845) 2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for Daycare Facilities. 3. The maximum number of allowable clients(children)at the facility at one time shall be limited to one hundred and fifty-eight(158)unless building/fire code limits this further;the more restrictive number shall apply. 4. The daycare/pre-school shall operate between the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm per the recorded development agreement. 5. The Applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 6. The site plan and landscape plan shall be revised prior to submittal for Certificate of Zoning Compliance to show the continuation of sidewalk from the building to the existing sidewalk along Victory Road in accord with UDC 11-3A-1913.4. 7. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review approval from the Planning Department. 8. All existing landscaping on-site shall be protected during construction; if any is damaged or removed, it must be replaced prior to obtaining certificate of occupancy. 9. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. 10. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 11. 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. 12. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use, satisfy the requirements,acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F.4. B. Central District Health(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=221698&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty C. Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aVx?id=221993&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Page 11 Item 2. 82 D. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222751&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=220295&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Ry IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site appears to meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the C-Czoning district for the proposed use and will be verified upon CZC submittal; therefore, Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed daycare center will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide a much needed service for area residents with easy access to and from the site. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Commission finds the operation of the proposed daycare should be compatible with the residential and commercial uses in the close vicinity and the existing and intended character of this mixed-use area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed daycare complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII as required, Commission finds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Because the site is already annexed into the City and these services are already being provided to the surrounding buildings, Commission finds the proposed use will be served adequately by all public facilities and services. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Commission finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Page 12 Item 2. 83 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic may increase slightly in this area due to the proposed use and clients dropping off and picking up children, the proposed use and effects were planned for with the design of the discharge area; therefore, Commission finds the proposed daycare should not be detrimental to the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features in this area and finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 13 Item 3. 84 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lost Rapids Drive-Through (H-2021- 0001) by Lost Rapids Development, LLC, Located on the West Side of N. Ten Mile Rd., North of W. Lost Rapids Dr. Item 3. F85 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment within Three Hundred(300)Feet of a Residential Zoning District for Lost Rapids Drive-Through,Located on 1.61-Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District,by Lost Rapids Development,Inc. Case No(s).H-2021-0001 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. March 4,2021 (Findings on March 18, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4,2021,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0001 Page 1 Item 3. 86 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of March 4,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of March 4,2021,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of March 4,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0001 Page 2 Item 3. 87 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 18th day of March 92021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 3-18-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2021-0001 Page 3 Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A C� E IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT f D A H 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/4/2021 Legend DATE: Iff Project Lacfli�on TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0001g9h �M Lost Rapids Drive-Through—CUP LOCATION: W. side of N. Ten Mile Rd.,north of W. Lost Rapids Dr. (Lot 13,Block 1,Lost Rapids Subdivision—Parcel #R5330761300),in the NE '/4 of Section 27,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of a residential zoning district on 1.61-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.61-acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant with a drive-through in a multi-tenant building Current Zoning 1111rm General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards, flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 11/24/20;2 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2018-0004(DA#2018-079970,Lost Rapids-GFI Meridian Investments II,LLC);FP-2020-0045 Page 1 1 1 1 {'{ in L 11 11 11.' IIII III -NCH E CHINDE - =_ uup111p1111I1r luuxll gllp +•uulrauu� Ipl :,_l-�::[_ -411 III�=Y111111 - .uulll J-■uw xuu� - -•i`2= - _ _ _ �.. T In.n 7lxule�• III--111 1 1 III'=_= Fad■uw uul■ 7 ,h.. .I aw, IIIIII III ii11-11■11 _ - 1..4„ ., �= 11 -IIII■ II }III="" I IIII - '.5 Ililf ."}; pII�IIII II IIII r y --- : 1 IIIIL. # _itl■Ira NI �I;, � �� II■_�1IIIN . _ "' I 1 ■ ,_: -� xlll a nl Iln � �!' -- a� ��:2-=I III I11x I:�. _ ■ = .'J ' -T --� a�.IINIIfi■i� __!' �� _. 11 ' `,5 II�_ J.-. ... _ __- 'I t y r�_ ,��_ ■�11 IIIII IINI - �` BENIN Doff" II inn II uu I IIIIIIM1 IIIINI I no II s w IIIIII mini I IIGII F. IIII . 1 1 � IIII IIII 17I III■:1 � _r.'IIIII I �'� r - 1 IIII -�■IINIIII I a IIY■1 11 -IIIIII 1 IIII a L 7 4k HIIII : II■ III NII : Ira r=2�� IINII rill a NINE IIIII ■ IIII - IIIIIII :IIII .._ IIII :ill III -.�.�1 in 11 I ONE ■ IN c� I I IIIIIII III. , II■Ii1N111I.- III III 1il NIIIIII � i ■ _■IIIII CH: E 1 u u ='_iili 3 ii' ii�:: -2°' wiU1�Ip1111111_ I�uuuall gIIP IIIIIIII I •uulrauuI qI IIII I ul II: __ _—_ w YIIIIII ■unw} Lw z I S, NORMS, w uuu 7 =_IIIIII III - __ .=r1 -��11 ■IIII _ 1-11■1 1„ ' IIIIIII II IINII�i II - 'IIIII■•1�� 111 IIII511, ? u111N III III IIII - IIIII- 11 IIIII ��■ ___ a 2_ 1 uxl now IIIIII II ■I■1 r y �11■Ir a NI a_ 1 Id-a--• • -NIII I� I.�■ .1■�1 I 1 ■ ___ '44 1i11 __: t n1�.11 IaII1 u1I rIIaII IIII II III IN I ■ = I IIIII- IIIII IIII ��T�III - � 1■ ■a IIIII=I I+- 1= ■ 1 11111�=Iw uu loll milliluuull mug,. I uuu a p= unI I■■ I inIIIII IIII III III a■ 1�11 ��Ii uw MINI _ _: ■1 • i� ■u■1 IIII �z IIL uuuu u■ uw ■■ ,1 �IHA = uuun a■w I noun uuntl I■ IIIIIIIIr■ INII IIII 1 : II■ II _II - IIIIIIII . : III�ry II 11 -- uu■■■ 1 11 11 NIIIII I a ■u■- IIII ■II � 1 IIII as IINIIII I IIY■1 11 IIIIII I■L INI IIII III ryllll : II■ III ■1 _ II■■ LLJ� IIII III 1 ■r i on IN �112 - 0 in 1 1■ +1■1 IINIIII 1■1 I ■ IN i III 1 : IIIIIII IINII 2: IN I au: _■ii uuI ■:iiil :IIIIw 1 1 , ■ , milli • II I ■ . I I I I I i I i IS Item 3. EXHIBIT A 90 C. Representative: Derek Gasser, Lost Rapids Development,LLC—74 East 500 South, Ste. 200,Bountiful,UT 84010 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/12/2021 Radius notification mailed to 2/9/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 2/23/2021 Next Door posting 2/9/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is within 300-feet of a residential zoning district,which requires Conditional Use Permit approval(CUP)per UDC Table 11-2B-2. The residential zoning district that constitutes the CUP requirement is located to the southwest of this site where Lost Rapids Apartments are approved and in the development process. There are also residential uses and zoning to the east across N. Ten Mile Rd. but because the uses are separated by an arterial street, these are not a factor in the CUP requirement per UDC 11-4-3-1 M. Specific Use Standards: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. A site plan is required to be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Staff's analysis is in italics. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; At 259'+/-from the drive-through window to the nearest drive-aisle that serves the row of parking in front of the building, Staff believes the stacking lane has sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive aisles by patrons. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designed employee parking. Although the stacking lane isn't a separate lane from the driveway that provides access to the site and access to parking, more than 13 vehicles would have to be waiting in the stacking lane before it would block access to the parking area (based on 259%20), which the Applicant doesn't believe will be an issue due to the types of restaurants being considered for this tenant space. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and Page 3 Item 3. F-91 EXHIBIT A The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is proposed. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is visible from N. Ten Mile Rd., a public street along the east boundary of the site,for surveillance purposes. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required. The proposed restaurant is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 Restaurant, which requires at a minimum, one (1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space,a detailed parking plan is required to be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with UDC standards. Access: One driveway access is proposed to the site via the north/south driveway along the west boundary of the site from W. Lost Rapids Dr. from the south; a driveway access exists via N. Ten Mile Rd. on the adjacent property to the north. A reciprocal cross-access easement exists for lots in this subdivision as noted on the Lost Rapids subdivision plat(note#12) and in the Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(Inst. 2020-071547). Parking: 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 9,392 square foot(s.f.)multi-tenant building is proposed with 2,596 s.f.proposed for the restaurant tenant. Based on the requirement,a minimum of 23 spaces are required; a total of 77 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. The recorded Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this development establish cross-parking easements for lots in certain groups within the development(Inst. 2020- 071547,Amended Inst. #2020-171404). This lot(Lot 13) is grouped with Lots 14 and 15 to the south and shares a perpetual,non-exclusive cross-parking easement with those lots. A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with the aforementioned standards. Pedestrian Walkways: A pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site plan from the perimeter sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Rd. to the main building entrance as required by UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,the walkways are required to 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.The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. Staff recommends a pedestrian walkway,minimum 5-feet in width,is provided to the sidewalk in front of the building from the sidewalk along the west boundary of the site; and along the north boundary of the site between the sidewalk along Ten Mile Rd. and the sidewalk along the west boundary of the site for safe pedestrian access. The walkways should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface as noted above. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.B in planter islands Page 4 Item 3. F92] EXHIBIT A within the parking area as required.A minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided along the perimeter of the parking or other vehicular use areas as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 8C.1. This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the Director where there is a shared driveway and/or recorded cross-parking agreement and easement with an adjacent property. Because there is a recorded shared access and cross-parking agreement between this property and the property to the south(Lot 12),the Director waives the requirement for a buffer along the southern boundary of this site. This will allow the trash enclosure to be located as close as possible to the southern property line and should reduce conflicts between trash trucks servicing the dumpster and vehicles entering the drive-through if service occurs during business hours of the drive-through. The striped drive-through lane should also assist in directing drive-through traffic outside of the area needed to service the dumpster.A hammerhead turnaround is depicted on the site plan that has been approved by Republic Services. Street buffer landscaping, including a sidewalk, along N. Ten Mile Rd. was installed with development of the subdivision. Because the drive-through lane and back of the building(with mechanical equipment)will be highly visible from N. Ten Mile Rd.,Staff recommends additional landscaping(i.e. coniferous trees/bushes)is provided within the street buffer along to screen this area and these functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. Mechanical Equipment: 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. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of wood siding on the top portion and stone veneer on the lower portion of the building with glass store-fronts and a combination of flat and pitched rooflines. Final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The trash enclosure is proposed to be constructed of split-face CMU in a color to match the building. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: 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 the conditions in Section VH, UDC standards and design standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on March 4,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Derek Gasser,DFG Development b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Derek Gasser,DFG Development e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None Page 5 Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. The Applicant requested the condition requiring pedestrian walkways along the west and north property boundaries be waived based on the pedestrian circulation plan included in the Development Agreement which did not include walkways in these locations. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Consideration of the Applicant's request for removal of pedestrian walkways. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. The Commission required the pedestrian walkway along the west boundary of the site but did not require the walkway along the north boundary of the site. Page 6 Item 3. EXHIBIT A F94] VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 2/25/2021) SM DATA MT 171- LOT 13 UNfff 1. r -------------- tD?TP;MAL SWE Fq-M .......... E TRASH ENMOSUM MEVArK= MW Page 7 Item 3. EXHIBIT A 95 B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 2/26/2021) I I =wwc.oumw n.o.Q w.m xu wwm.o.w �i.`���% ��° I � �E E ��•em.or ar���.m '-_n®uw�mmumi ocz �vvm'�i.r�n I I (D I —'—I �6 7 m m Q LANDSCAPE PLAN e m w PROECT C1LL IAB1 _•,••• LGMlLT INFORMATION STREET BUFFERS * STREETMEES�I PER M LF) PARAING WREIG ne. PARgNG C011NISw km BUFFER WIOTHS'RETWEEN 1 — M raw m TREE SPECIES M I%P'R w MMI TION REQUIREMENTS /,,^ _ c uo Page 8 BuildingEXHIBIT A C. Conceptual Ogg 77 Page HA�yEST _�BAKERY�CAFE �� 1 • Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2018-079970,Lost Rapids-GFI Meridian Investments II, LLC)and associated conditions of approval(H-2018-0004; FP-2020-0045). 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(s),and window location shall be depicted in accord with UDC 11-4-3-IIB. b. Depict bicycle parking as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. c. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces, the walkways shall 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. d. 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. e. Include additional landscaping(i.e. coniferous treesibushes)within the street buffer along N. Ten Mile 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. £ Depict a minimum 5-foot wide walkway from the sidewalk along the west boundary of the site to the sidewalk in front of the building; a*d along the neAh betindafy of the site between the sidewalk along Ten Mile Rd. and the sidewalk along the west betmdary e the site. The walkway shall 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. 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 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. 6. 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://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.ory/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=2 2 2 7 69&db id=0&rep o=Meridia n C ky Page 10 Item 3. 98 EXHIBIT A C. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciiy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223051&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciiy.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222667&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinklDocView.aspx?id=222166&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222736&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. 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. The Commission 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. The Commission 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 VIII 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII 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. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. Page 11 Item 3. 1 EXHIBIT A 99 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use 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. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission finds 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 12 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Hearings Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 18, 2021 limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units.4A.b which -3F-allow such in three (3) locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 114A.6, which prohibits common driveways off private streets, to -3F-Alternative Compliance to UDC 11and,Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two (2) gates; driveway lots, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the existing home). Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common 15 zoning district;-8 and R-Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R AERIALZONINGFLUM AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 14 Areas of Service “Time is Tissue” 17 enforceable. notApplicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue because it will be age targeted, but unless deed restricted this is Some quality open space, but much of the open space being credited not useable even if it meets minimum requirements. Although Fire says they can serve, they have expressed concerns. community and providing necessary infrastructure. e ablsafe routes and access, encouraging safe, physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikepurpose pathways, ensuring -to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multidoes not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods –Narrow private streets with no sidewalks Located on the fringe, only adjacent to City limits in portions, not an infill development. 8 would suffice.-15 when R-Higher density zoning for lower density area, lower density zoning for higher density, rezoning to RInadequate transition of lots to the southOnly one access road for all but 15 lots, and applicant has not demonstrated legal access for the 23 lots at Phase 9.City. Criteria include whether the complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the The applicant is requesting the City annex and serve this property, presently in the County. Staff recommends DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION AERIALZONINGFLUM AERIALZONINGFLUM C40-RG-CG-CG- FLUM The Oasis Proposed– Changes to Agenda: None Item #4: Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) Application(s):  CUP Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.18 acres of land, zoned C-G, located south of E. Ustick Rd. on the west side of N. Eagle Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Vacant undeveloped land, zoned C-G South: Drive-Thru restaurant (Jimmy John’s), zoned C-G East: Eagle Rd., commercial businesses, zoned C-G West: Vacant undeveloped land approved for Villasport, an indoor/outdoor recreation facility, zoned C-G History: This property was annexed in 2005 with a DA. The DA was later amended in 2019 to exclude this property which is now included in the Villasport DA. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) Summary of Request: A CUP is requested for a drive-through within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment (Jimmy John’s directly to the south), which requires CUP approval per UDC Table 11-2B-2. The use is a 2,250 square foot coffee shop and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 for Drive-Through Establishments & 11-4-3-49 for Restaurants. Staff has reviewed these standards and finds at over 400’, the stacking lane should have sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive-aisles by patrons and will hold approximately 21 vehicles. The stacking lane is a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking and does not conflict with the drive-through to the south and is not located adjacent to a residential district or residence. An escape lane is proposed. The drive-through window is visible from the public ROW for surveillance purposes as required. Parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards – restaurant require a minimum of (1) space per 250 s.f. of gross floor area; other commercial uses require (1) space per 500 s.f. To ensure adequate parking is provided in the event other tenant spaces are occupied by restaurants, Staff recommends parking is provided at the standards for restaurants for the overall site which would require a minimum of 30 spaces – 32 are proposed. The DA for the Villasport project which also governs this site, requires all of the frontage improvements (i.e. landscaped street buffers, stst sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, etc.) to be installed with the 1 phase of development – the Villasport project is anticipated to be the 1 phase; however, if this project ends up developing first, it’s responsible for these improvements, including those off-site. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi-tenant building shell that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of formed metal wall panels with metal flashing, brick and a glass store-front with a flat roof. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Tamara Thompson, TLG – 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-2021-0006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 18, 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-2021-0006, as presented during the hearing on March 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0006 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: TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) Application(s):  Rezone  Preliminary Plat  Development Agreement modification (to be heard by City Council – does not require action by the Commission) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The site for the proposed subdivision consists of 132.42-acres of land, zoned R-40 and C-G, located east of S. Ten Mile Rd. & south of W. Franklin Rd. History: The proposed plat encompasses land that was annexed with the Ten Mile Center, TM Creek East, Calnon & Bainbridge Franklin projects. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial; MU-COM; MU-RES, HDR; MHDR Summary of Request: The applicant requests a rezone of 40.98 acres of land from the R-40 & C-C to the C-G zoning district; 3.9 acres from TN-C & C-G to R-40 district; 0.65-acre from R-8 & TN-C to C-G; and 0.53-acre from TN-C to C-G. The smaller areas proposed to be zoned C-G will “clean-up” the zoning in this area where it’s irregular & doesn’t follow parcel lines and/or proposed streets. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-40 south of the Ten Mile Creek will be an extension of the R-40 zoning that exists to the west & will allow for the development of additional MFR uses with CUP approval. The proposed zoning and use is consistent with the underlying MU-RES FLUM designation; the target density for this designation is 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The FLUM designation of the abutting property to the west is HDR which also allows for MFR uses at a target density of 16-25 dwelling units/acre. FLUM designations are not parcel specific & an adjacent abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used. Because the HDR designation allows for a higher density, Staff recommends this designation apply to future development of this property since the density will be higher than 12 units/acre if apartments are developed on the site similar to those to the west (i.e. TM Creek East Apartments). Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing DA’s for Ten Mile Center and Calnon; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects other than a conceptual street layout for the Ten Mile Center property. The larger area to be rezoned to C-G between Franklin Rd. & the Ten Mile Creek is designated on the FLUM as mostly Mixed-Use Commercial (MU-COM) with approximately a quarter of the area on the west end as HDR. As noted above, because the FLUM is not parcel specific and allows for abutting designations to govern, Staff recommends the abutting MU-COM designation to the east apply and govern future development of the western portion of this site. The proposed C-G zoning district is an appropriate zoning choice for the MU-COM designation, which allows for a variety of uses including: commercial, vertically integrated residential, live-work, employment, entertainment, office & multi-family. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing DA’s for TM Creek East & Calnon; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects. In the absence of a conceptual development plan, to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category (i.e. commercial, residential, employment) are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation, Staff recommends a conceptual use plan (i.e. bubble plan) is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions. The Applicant submitted a conceptual use plan this afternoon as shown; staff has not had adequate time to review this plan to determine consistency with the Plan. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 83 \[74 commercial & 9 high-density residential (Lots 16-24, Block 3)\] buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 & C-G zoning districts; the plat is proposed to develop in 6 phases as shown. Phase 1 consisting of MFR apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16, Block 3 is currently under construction and almost completed; no development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase 2 commenced last year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts. The development of Phases 3-6 may vary in area and sequence based on product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor which includes a 10’ wide segment of the City’s multi-use pathway & the relocated Von Lateral, which will be deeded to NMID. There are no existing structures on this site. Wayfinder Ave. & the western portion of Cobalt in front of TM Creek East apartments has already been constructed outside of the subdivision process and are not consistent with the street sections designated on the Street Section Map in the Ten Mile Plan; however, they do comply with ACHD standards and have been approved by ACHD. These street sections were constructed as standard street sections with 2 travel lanes, a center turn lane, bike lanes & no on-street parking. S. Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Rd. to the roundabout at the SWC of the site was approved & constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. The eastern portion of Cobalt to New Market/Benchmark & the extension of New Market/Benchmark from Franklin Rd. to the southern boundary of the site is proposed with the subject plat and has not yet been constructed. Staff recommends New Market/Benchmark is constructed a residential collector street in accord with Street Section D in the Plan, with on-street parking along both sides of the street; Staff did discuss this with ACHD and they are supportive of this design. Because Cobalt is already partially constructed, Staff did not recommend any changes to that street. There are (2) driveway accesses proposed via Franklin Rd. with the plat – one to the east and one to the west of New Market/Benchmark. These accesses require a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 which limits access points to arterial streets unless otherwise approved by Council. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required between all non-residential lots within the subdivision. Written Testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Development – response to the staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval per conditions in the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0074, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 18, 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- 0074, as presented during the hearing on March 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0074 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: The Oasis (H-2021-0004) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of a portion of 3.26 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick Roads, 3185 Ustick Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – Ustick Road; C-G zoning and commercial development  East – Eagle Road; C-G zoning and commercial development  South – Undeveloped C-G zoning (being presented tonight); further southwest is the Jackson Square subdivision  West – Undeveloped C-G zoning (Villasport site) History: H-2019-0082 (DA Modification to remove the subject site from an existing DA and enter into a new one specific to this site; DA Inst. #2019-121599); H-2020-0104 (Pre-plat approval to subdivide property into 5 lots); A-2019-0376 & A-2021-0010 (CZC for parking lot, landscaping, and other relevant site improvements); A-2021-0012 (CZC and Design Review approval of the building proposed to house requested business). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Regional Written Testimony: As of 4pm there were 225 pieces of public testimony – Those who support project note a desire to have a music venue for entertainment here in Meridian instead of in other cities. Those who oppose the project note concerns over increased traffic, overall safety, drunk driving, parking count, and how it would degrade the moral character of the City. Summary of Request: The subject property was annexed in 2003 as part of a larger annexation area (AZ-03-018). There was a Development Agreement (DA) associated with this annexation which was modified in 2019 to remove this property from that DA (H- 2019-0082) and enter into a new one serving just this site (DA Inst. #2019-121599). In December of 2020, the land owner (not the current Applicant) received preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property for future ownership purposes. The subject project is proposed within a new multi-tenant building on one of those lots. The subject site is part of a larger Mixed-use Regional area that includes the commercial developments to its north, northeast, east, and the Villasport site to the west. A project of this small size is not intended and cannot comply with all of the mixed-use regional policies and goals. However, in conjunction with the existing and approved uses in this general area, the mixed-use policies have been met. A few of the comprehensive plan policies that Staff found relevant are as follows:  Diversify Meridian's economic base to establish and maintain a self-sustaining, full-service economy.  Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments.  Enhance crime prevention awareness through the education of neighborhood watch groups, multi-family property management companies, homeowners' associations, and other organizations.  Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. In regards to the last policy noted, there is no neighborhood directly adjacent to the subject site but the closest home is approximately 330 feet from the southern property line. Future commercial buildings and parking lots will separate this project from this existing residential to the southwest. With the recently approved CZC and Design Review approval for the multi-tenant building, the approved landscaping meets all code requirements and helps to beautify the property while offering an appropriate visual landscape buffer to the closest neighborhood to the southwest. Likely, the subject site will not be directly viewable from the nearest residential neighborhood once other properties redevelop in the near future. The parking is located on the interior of the overall property which will be largely screened by buildings and landscaping from adjacent properties, usually one of the most noise inducing elements of a commercial site. Other general comprehensive plan policies were discussed and analyzed within the staff report but is in no way an exhaustive list of applicable policies either in support of or against the proposed project. The approved building that would hold the proposed use is constructed with a modern and urban design that should integrate with the overall design of the other commercial buildings within this commercial development and with those adjacent to the site. However, according to the Applicant, the real buffering of the proposed use comes from within the building where there is proposed soundproofing materials, techniques, and technologies. When it comes to the screening and buffering of the building and use, Staff finds the proposed landscaping and internal building materials to be sufficient; this does not mean issues like parking and capacity are addressed with the landscaping and soundproofing. The administratively approved building, Eagle View Retail Center, will be approximately 8,300 square feet in size with two tenant suites. The Oasis is proposed in the larger suite at an approximate size of 7,000 square feet and the building and use meet all of the code required dimensional standards. The proposed business is a combination of a nightclub and music venue which falls under Drinking Establishment and Indoor Recreation Facility uses within the development code, respectively. The indoor recreation facility use is a principally permitted use within the C-G zoning district unless it incorporates a music venue and is located within 1,000 feet of an existing residence which then requires a conditional use permit; as is the case with this application. A drinking establishment is a conditional use within the C-G zoning district. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval for these two uses to reside within one building and one business, The Oasis. It is anticipated that directly south of the approved building there will be additional landscaping, a larger parking lot, and a drive aisle. This parking lot and landscaping received preliminary approval with the Villasport applications. Main access to and for this development will be via a shared driveway connection to Ustick Road limited to a right-in/right-out access—the land owner is currently constructing this shared driveway access for their development because this site is developing before the Villasport project and ensures there is more than one way to get to the entrance of the site. This drive aisle will connect to N. Cajun Lane to the south. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and therefore no stub streets are proposed. Instead, there are private drive-aisles as are standard for commercial developments. The Applicant has an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties (Inst. #106169335) but this agreement does not currently include a cross-parking agreement. In addition to the shared drive aisle that abuts the property to the west, The Villasport site improvements and recorded cross-access agreement will include an additional Ustick Road access point further west, N. Centrepoint Way. These access points to the arterial are long approved for the site. Staff finds there is adequate and safe access to the site at full build-out and also with only the most adjacent Ustick access in conjunction with the drive aisle connection to Cajun Lane and then out to Eagle Road. However, to help mitigate any residential cut-through traffic this Applicant and land owner should work with the Villasport Applicant to construct a driveway through their site in-line with where they plan to construct one in the future. This driveway would provide a more direct means of accessing Centrepoint Way and the existing traffic signal at that intersection without having to use the roads adjacent to the residential subdivision further to the south. ACHD is the leading agency on access points and traffic mitigation for the City of Meridian; because peak traffic times should not be drastically affected by the proposed use on any access point, ACHD did not require a Traffic Impact Study for this application. Even with the assumed capacity of 1,000 persons in the initial submittal this was not required and restricting the capacity to 500 persons should help with the traffic concerns of this type of use. Further analysis regarding access should be addressed to ACHD. Staff also agrees that at peak hours of business (after 8pm) access to the site should be improved as adjacent traffic levels on Ustick and Eagle should be much less than at 5 or 6pm. With the proposed uses of a music venue and nightclub, capacity and hours of operation are integral factors in determining the compatibility of the uses with neighboring and planned development, both commercial and residential. The Applicant proposes hours of operation for The Oasis as 4:00PM to 1:00AM on the weekdays and 4:00PM to 2:00AM on the weekends. For reference, the Villasport site is approved to remain open until 12:00AM, midnight which would cover a majority of the same operating hours proposed with this application. The Oasis is further away from the existing residential than Villasport but this does not mean any negative impacts are automatically alleviated. Therefore, Staff recommends weekday (Sunday thru Thursday) hours for The Oasis be limited to 4:00PM to 12:00AM and weekend hours to be limited to 4:00PM to 1:00AM. These hours of operation match or closely match the closing time of Villasport which makes it more compatible with that use and nearby residential development. These limitations are one less hour than what the applicant requested. In order to meet UDC minimum parking requirements for the approximate suite size of 7,000 square feet, a total of 28 parking spaces should be provided (this is a ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet of the gross floor area – ratio requirement for restaurant use). With the approved CZC and the additional spaces on the site specific site plan, 102 parking spaces are proposed on-site and would likely be used because there is an existing cross-access and cross-parking agreement in place for the site. Both the land owner and Applicant understand the entire site will likely be used for parking for the proposed business. The approved plans do not show any parking along the future northern commercial lots and the land owner has guaranteed that those spaces will be built prior to this use commencing. Depending on how the parking is configured on the north side of the site, there is physical room for approximately a maximum of 37 additional parking spaces at the required 9 feet of width and including four landscape planters in line with code requirements. Again, this is a maximum but does show additional parking spaces will be provided on site beyond what is currently being shown. Because of the anticipated parking issues for the proposed uses, Staff has recommended the Applicant and land owner obtain a cross-parking agreement with the adjacent properties to the south and to the west to increase the amount of available parking for the proposed use. In addition, a minimum of 125 total parking spaces shall be constructed within Eagle Commons to obtain a parking to patron ratio of 1:4 in accord with previous approvals. The Applicant’s original narrative estimated a capacity of approximately 1,000 patrons for the 7,000 square foot tenant suite. After receiving a conceptual floor plan, preliminary discussions with Fire plan reviewers discussed a maximum capacity closer to 700 persons; the exact number for maximum building occupancy cannot be known until architectural plans are submitted with building permit submittal at a later date. However, through the CUP process, capacity can be limited further. Because of the issues outlined, Staff recommends capacity be limited to no more than 500 persons to include employees. Employees will likely take up parking spaces for the entire hours of operation so they should be included in the maximum capacity. Staff arrived at this number because it is the same ratio as the minimum parking ratio for the proposed use, a 1:4 ratio. 500 persons and 125 parking spaces equate to one (1) space for every four (4) people. It should be noted that enforcement of any capacity limits will be difficult for the City. The Applicant should discuss how they intend on enforcing these limits without requiring constant Fire or Police presence on-site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit because the proposed use meets or exceeds minimum code requirements as 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- 2021-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 18, 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-2021- 0004, as presented during the hearing on March 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0004 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: Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) Application(s):  Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district;  Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the existing home).  Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two (2) gates; and,  Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6, which prohibits common driveways off private streets, to allow such in three (3) locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 80 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 7020 S. Eagle Rd. & 3487 E. Adler Hof Ln. (east of S. Eagle Rd and south of E. Lake Hazel Rd). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Mostly within unincorporated Ada County, except The Keep is being developed to the west and Pura Vida Subdivision is being developed to the northeast. Boise Ranch Golf Course is to the east. History: The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020 (H-2020-0079). This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all of it single family detached. This proposal was scheduled for the October 15, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Following staff’s report to the Commission recommending denial, the applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family attached units in the northwest corner of the project. Staff has noted on two pre-apps and multiple discussions that staff did not support this project as proposed, as will be discussed. At the time the staff report had gone out for review, staff had not received updated comments from ACHD or West Ada Schools. Staff relied on the analysis from the previous proposal, which was virtually the same except for 24 more lots and a small part of this project being attached homes. West Ada’s most recent correspondence has given slightly less students that would be generated and a change in schools. In regard to ACHD, some improvements have since occurred along S. Eagle Rd as part of The Keep since ACHD’s October analysis. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: 6 acres +/- are recommended for Low Density Residential at the SW, the remaining 74 acres is recommended as Medium Density Residential. Written Testimony: At the time of the staff report, only one comment had been received, 10 additional letters have been received since this time. – issues expressed are transition in density, R-15 zoning being inappropriate, lack of sidewalks to fit in more houses, inadequate green space, “fringe development”, school capacity, road design, and proposed usage of Vantage Point Rd. Notes:  Zoning and Transition in Lots o The applicant proposes R-8 on the western portion of the site, and R-15 zoning on the eastern portion of the site. o R-8 requires 4,000 sq. ft. lots and a 40’ lot frontage, R-15 allows 2,000 sq. ft. lots and requires no lot frontage. o The applicant has requested R-15 zoning in order to be allowed private streets that would not be allowed by R-8 zoning. o All of the development as proposed would meet the minimum requirements of R-8 zoning. o As proposed, the zoning would zone the denser portions of the site to the less dense zoning, and the lower density portions of the site, to the higher density zoning. o Staff also has concerns with the transition of lots.  To the southwest, the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6,000 – 6,500 sq. ft. The applicant has noted in a response letter that future development in the unincorporated land directly adjacent would likely develop at a density of 8,000-9,000 SF lots at a density of approximately three units/acre although the FLUM recommends <3 du/acre in this area (> 14,520 sq. ft. lots).  At the middle south, the development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in Vantage Point, but still proposes lots of 5,000 – 6,000 sq. ft. The road and park would help with a buffer, but there would still would be 2-3 houses adjacent to the houses in Vantage Point that are on one acre lots. At the southeast, larger lots are proposed at approximately half acres, but the lots are rotated such that the adjacent properties in Vantage Point would still see 2-3 houses along each of their lot lines (except for the most southeastern lot). Staff appreciates that applicant proposes to limit houses to one story in this area.  Staff notes the applicant correctly mentioned staff had called this area Phase 9, whereas the southern boundary consists of Phase 9, Phase 4 and Phase 7. o Since the time of the staff report, the applicant has submitted drawings proposing additional screening and buffering in this area. The Planning Commission should determine whether the applicant has provided an appropriate transition.  Fire Access o The Fire Department has noted this development can be serviced by the Fire Department, but has noted the following concerns:  A large subdivision with only access out to Eagle Rd.  Fire would prefer a connection to Lake Hazel to the North, but found that the preservation of the Southern Rim prevents such an access.  The west end does fall within the 5 minute response time, but the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5- minute response area and the nearest station has a low reliability rating. This would improve if and when the new southern station is built in 2021.  Fire has also noted the gated areas will cause delays.  Staff would prefer the applicant work with one of the property owners to the north to achieve access to E. Lake Hazel Rd. o The applicant has noted in their March 17 response letter that Pura Vida, Pinnacle and Lavender Heights Subdivisions are all at the same distance or further and have the same reliability as Skybreak, and they were approved. However, staff notes, Lavender Heights and Pinnacle (Apex) both have access from multiple streets (not just Eagle Rd), and although Pura Vida only has access from E. Lake Hazel, it has a development agreement that limits the number of lots that can be built out by phase until there is a bridge built to the east. Pura Vida is also less than half the size of this development. o Applicant submitted a fire phasing plan, which includes 59 lots with Phase One. Only Phase 9 takes proposes access from anywhere other than S. Eagle Rd. Phase 9 only has emergency access, the applicant has not demonstrated legal access. Chief Bongiorno has prepared several slides to discuss at the end.  Access, Private Roads and Gates o As already mentioned, all lots except for 15 in Phase 8 utilize E. Eagle Rd as the only point of access. o Phase 8 cannot be built until Pura Vida builds out. o Phase 9 currently has no proven access. Staff has suggested a bridge across the Farr Lateral. o The applicant proposes 112 lots to be served by private roads and two gates (there are two additional gates for emergency access). o The private roads proposed are as narrow as 27’ and have no sidewalks or landscaping. o These roads would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners in perpetuity, as since they do not meet minimum ACHD templates, ACHD would not accept these roads if there were future financial constraints with the HOA. o Staff does not understand how narrow streets with sidewalks is innovative or preferable to streets with sidewalks. o Staff has asked the applicant to explain why this is preferable other than the ability to increase lots or reduce building costs, and the only explanation is that it provides an intimate setting and there is a demographic that prefers a gated community. o Staff has concerns with supporting this feature without sufficient justification and what precedent it would set for future requests to build inadequate roads. o The applicant requested alternative compliance to allow 112 lots served by 2 gates and 2 emergency gates, and 3 common driveways off a common street. o The director denied the request for Alt Compliance as none of the conditions or finding were met. o Applicant has stated Skybreak’s gated private streets are intentionally designed without sidewalks to prioritize the use of streets for walking, biking and convening with neighbors and that cars are a secondary use. However, given the location out on the periphery of the City, every resident must drive to get in and out of this subdivision.  Parks and Open Space o Applicant states 14.99 AC. (18.8%) is provided. o Parks and amenities include:  ¾ acre tot lot with play structure, climbing rocks, outdoor seating (shown as A)  1 acre open sports park (shown as E)  Pathways along the Farr Lateral and sloped eastern portion (shown as B)  Golf cart pathway  Dog parks (shown as C)  Entry park (shown as D) o Aside from that, much of what they are crediting as qualified open space is buffers along roads, end caps, open space that could not have been used anyway and is not all is landscaped per the UDC requirements. o It is important to note that although the applicant has submitted a chart showing which open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC (i.e. (50' x 100') in area) the applicant is requesting the City annex this property, there are no present City entitlements. o Staff thinks a development of this size (80 acres) should have more quality useable open space, and more of it compiled together and oriented in more convenient locations. o Applicant has submitted a pedestrian circulation plan with this proposal. All the private streets without sidewalks are being reflected as pedestrian connections. o The Planning Commission should decide if this project provides appropriate open space and amenities.  Staff recommends DENIAL of this proposal. o Staff does not believe this proposal substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the City.  Only one access road for all but 15 lots, and applicant has not demonstrated legal access for the 23 lots at Phase 9.  Inadequate transition of lots to the south  Higher density zoning for lower density area, lower density zoning for higher density, rezoning to R-15 when R-8 would suffice.  Located on the fringe, only adjacent to City limits in portions, not an infill development.  Narrow private streets with no sidewalks – does not Comprehensive Plan policies for a walkable community.  Although Fire says they can serve, the have expressed concerns.  Some quality open space, but much of the open space being credited not useable even if it meets minimum requirements.  Applicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue because it will be age targeted, but unless deed restricted this is not enforceable. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0127, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 18, 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- 0127, as presented during the hearing on March 18, 2021 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0127 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. 100 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) by The Land Group, Generally Located South of E. Ustick Rd. on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 1.18 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Item 4. 1 o1 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) by The Land Group, Generally located south of E. Ustick Rd. on the west side of N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 1.18 acres of land 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: March 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO Av C' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 4. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/18/2021 Legend DATE: f ILIProject La -o-Ron TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0006 HEM 1 , Sadie Creek Drive-Through—CUP - - x LOCATION: South of E. Ustick Rd. on the west side ' of N. Eagle Rd.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 5,Township 3N.,Range 1E. Fm I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 1.18-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.18-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant(coffee shop)with a drive-through in a multi- tenant building Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 1/11/21;3 attendees other than the Applicant attendees: History(previous approvals) A-2018-0361 (ROS#11747,Parcel F);AZ-05-052(DA #108008770,Sadie Creek Commons);H-2018-0121 (Villasport MDA,Inst.#2019-060877—excludes property from previous DA) Page 1 1 1 1 ' Fit.. :. ■�� JFANN.-..:_:i•u11u•■u minim • ` rt' �+ ey1.'i'�` 4!•�L Milliminim I, uuu• x :� _ � i■ _ �IR� �. � •• �. ��1 •mini'- - - � � 'u' _�i; ' mi■mini■- uu'rs• - mini "' " - -�- ■. ,,,,, - :iiiiiw I .may• '�i$. �-� ■�I�'•' _ IIINIII •� 111151 I IIII II, �•�'-•; � - - '+ ��S III =11■ �,.,"�Ihull -�-_ �} 2 ■uuu■ON �,j. •• �ii ' 5•:,, . - {{ M4 � . ■ 11HI11110 _ ■■■■011■ F mill 11 .r 2:: xua■■■ ? � _1 N uuu _ i ;. ... Lim 1111111 ■■■ - 1 1 k•. u1�=1 IIIYI:..� ii IIII• -' + •�J I I :1 "'�11111 � - - -�■� �II 11 _ IIII 11 •••••• IIII 11 1111111 'IIII = 11111� 11111� • •11•■ 111■— •- -N P1111 • IIII' I I -N�11111 ■111 1 111■=� _ Ilr ■:.I�.iiiuu :� _ ::Sii1 •�-I�.uuu■ :� = IIIIIIIIIIIIIII� ■ �... E::Sii1 •11111- _ _ -II i •11111- _ _ 11 �■IIII■- ,u , - _ u,l i �■11111- - _. _ mini q■ =11 miii I= -•� j'' q■ =11 uliii I -I w muwC� - �J��,•,,• ■�h�•'w wuwC� ulxw Monosson MENEM! �- ■iu� -■■u :� ■■u -_ ■ 11HI■11■ �' IIII 11 - ■Iu1■ im Y :17: :C _ ■u■ ■u1■Iu Y �' x11■■ * -1 1 ■=:: x1■■■■■M��� _1 N IIIIII . IIII ■\■ � 1 Gil 1• -1111111 ■�i�' 1 1 11• mil -IIIYI i.1 {yY+��1 IIII ulQl IIIYI i■LL �i1 IIII aura:�q■1 uuia:Mi i 11ii � M IN i Item 4. F104 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to 2/23/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 3/4/2021 Next Door posting 2/25/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is for a 2,250 square foot coffee shop(classified as a restaurant)within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment,which requires Conditional Use Permit approval (CUP)per UDC Table 11-2B-2. The other drive-through establishment(Jimmy John's)that constitutes the CUP requirement is located directly to the south of this site. Specific Use Standards: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. A site plan is required to be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Staff's analysis is in italics. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; At over 400'from the drive-through window to the nearest drive-aisle that provides access to the parking area, the stacking lane should have sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive aisles by patrons. The stacking lane will hold approximately 21 vehicles. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designed employee parking. The stacking lane is a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100)feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is proposed. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is visible from N. Eagle Rd./SH--55, a public street along the east boundary of Page 3 Item 4. ■ the site,for surveillance purposes. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required. The proposed restaurant is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 Restaurant, which requires at a minimum, one (1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan is required to be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with UDC standards. Access: Access is provided to this site from the west via N. Cajun Ln. and E. Picard Ln.,both private streets, across the Villasport property to the west and via E. Ustick Rd., an arterial street, from the north. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is needed across the adjacent properties to the west and north(Parcels#S1105110111 and S1105110030)for access to this site.A copy of the recorded easements should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this project.Both access driveways should be constructed with development of this site along with all of the frontage improvements along E.Ustick Rd. and N.Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the Development Agreement.All off-site driveways and site improvements should be depicted on the plans. Parking: 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. The restaurant space is proposed to consist of 2,250 square feet while the remainder of the multi- tenant building is proposed to consist of 5,304 square feet. Based on the requirement, a minimum of nine(9) spaces are required for the restaurant(i.e. coffee shop) and 10 spaces are required for the remainder of the multi-tenant building. A total of 32 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards on the west and south sides of the building. To ensure adequate parking is provided in the event other tenant spaces are occupied by restaurants, Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring parking to comply with the more restrictive standards for restaurants listed in UDC 11-4-3-49. A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A minimum of one(1)bicycle space is required to be provided;two(2) spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Pedestrian Walkways: A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway with a public use easement and pedestrian lighting is required within the street buffer along S.Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.This pathway is required to be constructed with the first phase of development per the Development Agreement,which will be this phase unless the Villasport property to the west develops first. A pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site plan from the perimeter sidewalk along N. Eagle Rd. to the main building entrance as required by UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,the walkways are required to 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.The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.B in planter islands within the parking area as required. A minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer is required to be provided adjacent to parking,loading or other paved vehicular use areas as set Page 4 Item 4. F106 forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.1; landscaping should be provided adjacent to the drive-through lane along the north boundary of the site in accord with this requirement. The easement for the relocated Milk Lateral should be depicted on the plan to ensure no trees are placed within the easement. The landscape plan depicts the pathway and improvements east of the pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 as"not a part"to be constructed with the Villasport project. The Development Agreement requires all of the frontage improvements(i.e. street buffers, sidewalks,pedestrian lighting, etc.)on this site and the Villasport site to the west along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 and E. Ustick Rd. to be installed with the first phase of development. It was anticipated that Villasport would be the first phase of development; however,if this project ends up being the first phase,it's responsible for these improvements,including those off-site—the plans should be revised to include these improvements. Because the drive-through lane and back of the building(with mechanical equipment)will be highly visible from N.Eagle Rd./SH-55,Staff recommends additional landscaping (i.e. coniferous trees/bushes)is provided within the street buffer to screen this area and these functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. Landscaping is required along each side of pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C; landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the multi-use pathway within the street buffer along N.Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with these standards. Mechanical Equipment: 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. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of PAC clad formed metal wall panels in slate gray with metal flashing and trim in light gray, a mix of white and onyx colored brick and with a glass store- front and a flat roof. These elevations are not approved; final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The trash enclosure should be constructed with similar materials and colors to match the building. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: 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 the conditions in Section VII, UDC standards and design standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 5 Item 4. F107 VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 1/27/2021) Project ImomaRon: THE utNR GROUP a` � - -'I Project Calcu latiorrs PROPOM BIALDiNG IN h- cc f ks.P. s ?•� sl i M....,.a� t 4'• MmorMl L""d Y•�•• a V7 j Ej 0. ti::::. ..„ro.�...a.p..�. ,.i,�en,a n�uo�vmw,n.n®e y Conditional Use Permit-Site Plan I �� C1.00 Page 6 ........... ------------W- -------------- Item 4. F-log] C. Conceptual Building Elevations&Perspectives (dated: 1/19/21 &2/11/21)&Floor Plan(dated: 1/19/21)NOTAPPROVED KE YE 6fkEE ERE NCE NQi6' i 1 2 r� WEP ELEVATION f "" ELEYAiION GHERFLNOiFS _ m��'"�` •'�'"� D4CLIMEHES PHASE PNn�li.Ja.ay'9 2[Y' MAN SOUTH ELEVATION 2z � a o � m �Q w 4 [} W EAST ELEVATION V LL A q I BUILDING ELEVAiIDNS rvw tiacc I ''ww�sw cv.� NORTH ELEVATION A3.11 j Page 8 Item 4. Fl-lo `�■ ■MEFN.FLASHINGANO TRIM . COLOR:NGHT GREY PACCIAOTORMEDMETAL WWIPANELS a COLOR:SLATE GRAY _S INTERSTATE 9RM-ARCTIE WNETE THINMCK _.' .-■ DpCVR1afTRS PHASE .ilxai WEST PERSPECTIVE HEBRON BRICKS-ONY%-IRONEPOi THIN BRICK CLEARANOOIIE➢ALUMINIUM SFOREFRONT ANO ENTRANCES �o CIPPGRL A E GU2MG n J LA2ING O m -----NORT-H WEST PERSPECTIVE- x� �g 1 SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE Y PEPSPKTIVES SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE A3.12 Page 9 -1 1 Item 4. Fl 1 KE YE OlREF ERE HCE HOi�� j � � + � w 1 n i I i L FLOOR PLAN GENERAL HOLES ENIS m.weaeaa..iisxnc.a.a GdCIIM PHAISE $ I TE"W'P4 E I I I — -- --------- I ------------- FLOOR PLAN LEGEN Lawµ h I I I �xw Aux - Q 6 � TE"Nr5Pd E110 ma�vnssi .r..o..wr. m xMxd�r.r...r I a W I I REM T-+ C'f C3' Cep�� oonh .nY b w' #Piro GROUND FLOOR PLAN (D ,��.�`", ,"`�- FLOOR t•LAN A2.11 Page 10 Item 4. F112 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the terms of the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-060877,Villasport MDA H-2018-0121)and the conditions contained herein. 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(s),and window location shall be depicted in accord with UDC 11-4-3-IIB. b. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces, the walkways shall 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./SH-55 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. Depict off-site improvements required by the Development Agreement, including a 35- foot wide street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, an entryway corridor, and a 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Ustick Rd., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C per UDC Table 11-213-3. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required within a public use easement and pedestrian lighting and landscaping is required to be provided within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3 and 11-3B-12C. f. A minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer is required to be provided adjacent to parking, loading or other paved vehicular use areas as set forth in UDC 11-313-8C.1; landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the drive-through lane along the north boundary of the site in accord with this requirement. g. Graphically depict the easement for the Milk Lateral along the north and east boundaries of the site; no trees should be placed within the easement. h. Depict both access driveways to this site via E.Ustick Rd. and E. Picard Ln./N. Cajun Ln. 3. Direct access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is prohibited. 4. A recorded cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be obtained across the adjacent properties to the west and north(Parcel#51105110111 and#51105110030) for access to this site; a copy of the easements shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 5. The driveway accesses from the north via E.Ustick Rd. and from the west via E.Picard Ln./N. Cajun Ln. shall be constructed with development of this site or with the development of the Villasport site to the west,whichever occurs first. 6. All of the frontage improvements (i.e. street buffers, sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, etc.) on Page 11 Item 4. F113 this site along E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 shall be installed with the first phase of development as set forth in the Development Agreement(Villasport—Inst. #2019-060877).If the Villasport site to the west develops prior to this site, these improvements will be required with that development. 7. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 Drive-Through Establishment is required. 8. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant is required. 9. Parking for the overall site shall be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-49 for restaurants. 10. 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. 11. 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. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222991&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) Staff Report: https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223257&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty TIS: https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222928&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=223265&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. 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. Page 12 Item 4. F114 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed restaurant(coffee shop) with a drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII 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 VIII 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. Staff ,finds 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. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 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) Stafffinds 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 5. 115 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from January 21, 2021 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 and C-G zoning districts. Item 5. 116 (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from January 21, 2021 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 and C-G zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING DATE: March 18,2021 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0074 TM Center-PP Ten Mile Crossing—MDA,RZ LOCATION: East of S. Ten Mile Rd. &south of W. Franklin Rd.,in the north half of Section 14,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. } Wgend M Legend �X V. „ Rxca� _o-,a-C� E LL- I --- ; JFT-- Ap I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts; Rezone of 40.98-acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to R-40 zoning district; 0.65-acre from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; and 0.53-acre from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district; and, Page 1 Item 5. F-1181 Development Agreement modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios,different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards,including an increase in height in the C-G zoning district of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. 114002254, 1st Addendum#2016-062220,2nd Addendum#2017-051907,TMC Expansion#2019-011700);TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1 st Addendum#2016-073497,2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin—H-2018-0057(Inst. #2019-077071)]. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 307.72 DA boundary; 132.42 plat boundary;46.06 rezone area Future Land Use Mixed Use—Residential(MU-R),Medium Density Residential(MDR), Designations Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR),High Density Residential (HDR),Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-C)and Commercial in the TMISAP Existing Land Uses Agricultural,commercial,restaurant,carwash,personal and professional service,office,healthcare,multi-family residential Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial,office and high density residential Current Zoning = Mostly C-G with some R-8,R-40,TN-C,TN-R and C-C Proposed Zoning R-40 and C-G Lots(#and type; 83 building(74 commercial,9 high-density residential)/2 common bldg./common) Phasing plan(#of 6(conceptually,based on market demand) phases) Number of Residential TBD Units(type of units) Density(gross&net) TBD Open Space(acres, TBD with future residential development total [%]/buffer/ qualified Amenities TBD with future residential development Physical Features The Ten Mile Creek,Purdam Gulch Drain,Von Lateral and Kennedy (waterways,hazards, Lateral cross this site flood plain,hillside) Page 2 Item 5. 119 1 Neighborhood meeting September 23,2020;4 attendees date;#of attendees: History(previous TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. 114002254, 1 st Addendum#2016- approvals) 062220,2nd Addendum#2017-051907,TMC Expansion#2019- 011700);TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018(Inst. #114045759, 1 st Addendum#2016-073497,2nd Addendum#2017- 113747);Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst.#2014-065514);Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017(Inst.2016-030845);and Bainbridge Franklin —H-2018-0057(Inst.#2019-077071)] B. Community Metrics Description Details ` Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no A full Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required. • Existing Abutting roadways(Ten Mile&Franklin Rds.)are fully improved;Wayfinder Conditions with detached sidewalks exists between Franklin and Vanguard;Cobalt with detached sidewalk on the north side of the road exists from Wayfinder to the east boundary of TM Creek East Apartments • CIP/IFYWP • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Franklin Road to Pine Avenue in 2020. The project includes Bridge#1120. • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Overland Road to Franklin Road and will include a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass. • The intersection of Linder Road and Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6- lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2021 and 2025. Access One collector street access(S.New Market Ave.)and two(2) driveway (Arterial/Collectors/State accesses are proposed via Franklin Rd. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"D" Franklin&Ten Mile Roads(acceptable LOS is"E") Stub Cobalt Dr.is proposed to stub to the east for future extension. Street/Interconnectivity/ Cross Access Existing Road Network Ten Mile and Franklin Roads exist along the west and north boundaries of this site;Wayfinder exists from Franklin Rd.to Vanguard;Cobalt extends from Ten Mile Rd.to midway between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark. Existing Arterial A detached sidewalk exists along Franklin, some buffers;an existing asphalt Sidewalks/Buffers pathway exists along Ten Mile, some buffers Proposed Road No improvements are proposed to adjacent roadways(Ten Mile&Franklin) Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.7 miles—Fire Station#2 Station • Fire Response Falls within 5-minute response time Time Page 3 Item 5. 120 • Resource 76%for Fire Station#2—does not meet the target goal of 80%or greater Reliability • Risk Identification Risk factor of 4—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project(see comments in Section VIII.C) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds • Special/resource An aerial device is required;the closest truck company is 6 minutes travel needs time(under ideal conditions)—Fire Dept. can meet this need in the required timeframe if required. • Water Supply Requires 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours;may be less if building is _ fully sprinklered,which all are proposed to be • Other Resources NA Police Service • Distance to Police 4 miles Station • Police Response 3.5 minutes Time • Calls for Service 577 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) • Accessibility No concerns with the proposed access • Specialty/resource No additional resources are required at this time;the PD already services the needs area • Crimes 67 within a mile of site(3/1/2019 2/29/2020) • Crashes 25 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) West Ada School District Joint School District No.2(dba West Ada School District) has experienced significant and sustained growth in student enrollment during the last ten years.Many ofour schools throughout the district are operating at or above capacity. Based on U.S.census data,we can predict that these homes,when completed,will house 380(=1t homes x 0.8 ner census data) school aged children.Approval of the TM Center will affect enrollments at the following schools in West Ada District: Enrollment Ca aci Miles (Bev.m School) Peregrine Elementary 526 650 1.9 Meridian Middle School 1285 1250 2.7 Meridian High School 2126 2400 1.5 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. Page 4 Item 5. 121 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.96 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with W W Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Colbalt and New Market Avenue,flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction.This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction.Based on conversations with applicant 8"sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality This development will result in a long dead-end water main which may result Concerns in poor water quality. Connecting to the south will eliminate this dead-end and correct this problem. • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •To alleviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12"water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). •Make sure to tie into the existing 12"water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1 Page 5 Item 5. [122] C. Project Maps (Preliminary Plat Boundary) Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend i Legend Project Laca-hor I Projeoi Lnca&m U� 115 igh HighI -D n liif - — Id I Ln MU-Res ' - General II.. Zonin Ma Planned Develo ment Map Legend R- RUT R- Legend IdProjeci LcoafK:�r C R- I - - Prcje fi ot Lima y - L- i City Lin-ik R-1 RUT O C-N I-L I-L — Planned Parcels L- 0- --- R-40 RUT TN- Ir ' - RUT - ----- 40 -C R1 TM- C-C- ~RUT R1 U_7 R RUT I-L RUTS R1� I ri sffl III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Michael Wardle,Brighton Development—2929 W. Navigator Dr. #400,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: SCS Brighton,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr. #400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Brighton 11, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 6 Item 5. F123] DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Investments, Inc. —2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Investments, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 SCS TM Creek,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 Brighton Land Holdings, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 2/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 2/23/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 3/4/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS No changes are proposed to the Future Land Use Map(FL UM) or text of the Comprehensive Plan or the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). LAND USE: Approximately half of the property subject to the proposed new Development Agreement(DA) is designated on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan as Commercial with some Medium Density Residential(MDR),Medium High Density Residential(MHDR),High Density Residential (HDR), Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES)and Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM) [see pg. 111 (D-1), Appendix D]. Development of this area is governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and existing DA's. Seepages 3-5 thru 3-9 in the TMISAP for more information on these specific land use designations. Legend fdP 'ea-Loa fun \ I hAixe KeRsiounnul Cmp o ent IuUI Res .0 �� id ntio i n Generolln ustri High. ens' -sidei Page 7 Item 5. 124 Since the adoption of the TMISAP in 2007,there have been substantial changes to the FLUM in this area. In 2012,an amendment to the map was approved for TM Crossing(CPAM-12-001)that changed 30.5-acres of land from Lifestyle Center(LC), 8.5-acres from Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and 40-acres from High Density Employment(HDE)to Commercial with C-G zoning to accommodate a range of uses including office/professional,hospitality and large& small retailers. A market analysis provided by the Applicant at the time deemed another lifestyle center in addition to The Village at Meridian wasn't feasible in such close proximity. Although future development wouldn't be held to the mixed-use guidelines of the Plan, future development was required to comply with the design goals of the Plan through the DA to ensure consistency with the Plan and the overall area. This area has developed with several multi-story professional office and medical office buildings and is still in the development process.Note: The Commercial land use designation is a FL UM designation in the Comprehensive Plan but not in the TMISAP; therefore, there are no specific design guidelines in the Plan for this designation. In 2015, an amendment to the FLUM was approved for Calnon(H-2015-0017)that changed the FLUM designation on 40.06-acres from Medium High Density Residential(MHDR)&High Density Residential(HDR)to Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM) and 15.49-acres from Medium Density Residential(MDR),MHDR and High Density Residential(HDR)to Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES). In the absence of a development plan, a conceptual use plan was approved with the DA for retail, office and service commercial uses within the MU-COM area and office/medium high-density residential uses in the MU-RES area to ensure a mix of uses is provided in this area consistent with the underlying FLUM designations.No development has occurred yet in this area. Most recently in 2019 with the new Comprehensive Plan(Res. #19-2179),the FLUM designation on approximately 62 acres of land on the western half of the Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments)property was changed from Lifestyle Center(LC)to Commercial based on the finding in the previous market analysis that another lifestyle center couldn't be supported in such close proximity to The Village.No development has occurred yet in this area. Conceptual development/use/roadway alignment plans were previously approved with DA's for the land proposed to be governed by one overall new DA that currently govern future development of these areas. TRANSPORTATION: No road improvements are planned adjacent to this site as Ten Mile Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes, curb, gutter and a 7' wide attached temporary asphalt pathway; and Franklin Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site. A traffic signal exists at the S.Vanguard Way/S. Ten Mile Rd. intersection and a signal has been installed through the poles at the W. Franklin Rd./S. Wayfinder Way intersection—ACHD will hang the mast arms when warranted. Conduit was also installed at the New Market Ave. (Benchmark)/Franklin Rd. intersection with the Franklin Road widening project to accommodate installation of a future signal which is required to be constructed through the signal poles and luminaires prior to signature on the final plat. When ACHD determines it's warranted in the future,the District will complete installation of the signal and put it into operation. Construction plans for the extension of S.Wayfinder Ave.between the two roundabouts within the proposed plat were approved by ACHD on May 26, 2020 outside of the subdivision process and the street and detached sidewalks have been constructed. The plans were approved by the City Land Development Division for consistency with City standards pertaining to extension of water& sanitary sewer main lines and street lights but were not reviewed or approved by the Planning Page 8 Item 5. 125 Division and do not comply with the design guidelines for that street section(i.e. "E") as designated on the Street Section Map in the Plan and as required in the existing DA for Ten Mile Center(see Street Design below for more information). Construction plans for the extension of W. Cobalt Ave. from the Wayfinder roundabout to the east edge of the Ten Mile Creek East Apartment project(midway between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark)were approved by ACHD with that project also outside of the subdivision process and the street and detached sidewalk on the north side has been constructed. These plans were also not reviewed or approved by the Planning Division and don't comply with the street section [i.e. "E" (or"D")] desired in the TMISAP for the east/west collector street connection between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark, albeit further to the south (see Street Design below for more information). Approval of S.New Market Ave./Benchmark from Franklin to the south boundary of the site is requested with the proposed preliminary plat. The existing DA for Ten Mile Center requires streets to be constructed consistent with the applicable street section (i.e. "D") as shown on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP (see Street Design below for more information). Street Network(3-17): The Transportation System Map(TSM)included in the TMISAP (pg. 3-18, shown below)depicts collector streets through this site connecting to existing and future collector streets to the north and south. These street locations coincide with the town center collector streets depicted on the Master Street Map(MSM). Roundabouts are also depicted on the TSM at the Cobalt/Wayfinder and Vanguard/Wayfinder intersections,which have been constructed. i 5 s i i i e �r s Two(2)north/south collector streets(S.Wayfinder Way and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark)are depicted on the plat in locations consistent with the TSM and the MSM; Wayfinder was recently constructed.An east/west collector street is not proposed along the southern boundary of the site because a local street(W.Navigator Dr.)was constructed further to the south with development of the adjacent TM Crossing subdivision,which was deemed to meet the intent of the Map and provide the desired east/west connection. An east/west collector street(W. Cobalt Dr.) is proposed and partially constructed through the middle of this site for a connection between Ten Mile and New Market/Benchmark that is not depicted on the TSM or the MSM,which provides more needed connectivity in this area. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile Area and optimize performance of streets, direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. Access to arterial streets should occur via the collector road system. Wayfinder, Cobalt, Vanguard and New Market/Benchmark are all collector streets that provide access via the abutting arterial streets(Ten Mile&Franklin). Two (2) driveway accesses via Franklin Rd. are depicted on the plat—one to the east and one to the west of New Market/Benchmark on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4,Block 4.The conceptual Page 9 Item 5. F126] development plan included in the DA for the Bainbridge Franklin property depicts the eastern driveway access via Franklin; however,the Applicant states this property is no longer planned to develop in that manner.ACHD has not approved either of these accesses and is requiring a traffic analysis be submitted to demonstrate additional driveways are necessary to serve the site. The UDC's 11( 3A-3)intention is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to arterial streets to ensure motorists can safety enter all streets. City Council should determine if a waiver to the standards in UDC 11-3A-3 is appropriate for the proposed driveway accesses in the absence of a conceptual development plan for this area.These accesses are prohibited unless specifically approved by the City and ACHD. Complete Streets(3-19): Streets should be designed to serve all users—motorists,bus riders,bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities. Bicycling and walking facilities should be incorporated into all streets unless exceptional circumstances exists such as roads where bicyclists or pedestrians are prohibited by law,where the costs are excessive,or where there is clearly no need. The following are features that should be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders,crosswalks,refuge medians,bus pullouts, special bus lanes,raised crosswalks,audible pedestrian signals,sidewalk bulb-outs,street furnishings and on-street parking. The street sections depicted on the plat,some of which have already been constructed,incorporate detached sidewalks/pathways,planter strips and bike lanes along all streets; however,many of the other desired elements are not being provided which are integral to the Ten Mile area and the multi-modal options envisioned by the Plan.A VRT bus stop exists at the northwest corner of Vanguard/Wayfinder; other bus stops are anticipated within the development. The Applicant should address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing)what other design features are planned for internal public streets within this development. Street Design(3-20): The TMISAP includes several street section types for specific uses and conditions based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired parking conditions, specific physical conditions,public emergency access, and streetscape character. Streets within the Ten Mile area should be designed and sized to optimize pedestrian comfort and to facilitate slow-moving traffic. It's desirable that lanes on streets be I I feet in width with the exception of those lanes closest to the intersections with Franklin and Ten Mile Roads which can increase to 12 feet from the point of the intersection with the arterial street to the point of the intersection with another street or access point. The Street Section Map(SSM) contained in the TMISAP(pg. 3-22, shown below)depicts specific street section classifications for each of the streets shown on the TSM based on the criteria noted above for the area. These classifications have both a functional and a design-related classification to balance the design considerations for pedestrians and motorists. a R 1 1 � • r4 i Page 10 Item 5. F127] The Master Street Map(MSM) guides the right-of-way(ROW) acquisition,collector street requirements and specific roadway features required through development. The MSM designates the collector streets within this site as town center collectors,which are recommended to have(2)travel lanes with a center turn lane,bicycle lanes and on-street parallel parking(if appropriate)within a 60-foot wide street section,a 6-foot wide buffer zone and an 8-foot wide sidewalk within 88 feet of right-of-way(see ACHD's Livable Street Design Guide pg. 21, shown below). The ACHD report states the previously approved street section for Wayfinder& the proposed street section for New Market/Benchmark meet District policy and are consistent with the TMISAP and Town Center Collector street typology as proposed without on-street parking and is approved.However, these street sections are not consistent with the applicable street sections in the TMISAP in that they don't have on-street parking and have reduced pedestrian walkways and/or buffers. 2.6 STREET DESIGN: TOWN CENTER COLLECTOR 1 p fl 1 afiri9Steed mPh 4f dib d.4 T lanes 1 _ {li+ rea onI Travel Lanu❑measons I' -- - - Cmt�e Srium lane 11' y� ❑ ons Pgh1Ti,m Lanes Allowed k,heavy taming movemenlsor homy nuckhafic f _, ! ,1 ,„ Melons ofwianai f Aqq Medan Gpenings rocs 4rrets only Block Length intenccmgmee¢slouldb mm 1han // -� O Sg0'apart,(£dmaximum;m'rl-blonkauh ova { rt uemittedonlyfw inte_ngalleys 4 Bicyrle Lanes optiomal,necesaary when part ofa negonaEplan ky ab• IS'when used] /!/ a' g'6 P, ❑n-Street Parking r5•pamllel WJudes gl—on uft).15•w he pmvtdeddbak=na9lad Curb 6'whh15'gurte'wn Pamper Area Vrninlmum recommerded(—ul.rmne and huh mne dine i ns bd..) Sidewalk S'minimum—mmended f} waikmne and � frentagemne dimensions below) Mid-blockoosungs permdtedonly infiomdci>rtcfaulh- !rrcersx!knn contra sgnats,s!ops,ormundabrwts ge Prd—dEold:ng ednfright-of- Plxemem 'Lighting Standards pedestnan and vehickAmdway r to Pedestrlan Zone r rn:ri:r mrvnire m e 'er novm.Pedmtnen ron. rn°mndrraPmPande,u,an«dPederv. �°ij".• ..ur„ c cl km da..,apml�dolunri°dedo.a nredro!r.edm drevro sr a°• g - ^ea arr>e„a��Naru„d.�aeyna �6yade.Ri x +. a1Qa1w.;,eR�.meero^r^a^,��m.enyntx " ee:yhed;n�i.rclwrbuNe.i�„titdne.andsx¢mm_sl r"'"%.u`"' �Cl.,Zane:7.5' requvcmmbarnzrs;w,cayRwmy/CevebpnwnArevMeaddeiond iwo rZ freeoFrigAe-ef-Hwy—re:nerro rreerlondr,yral;<y. - Buffer Zane:4.5' u i Wal rnrec ne:Tminimuommended Frontage Zone:1'pravides buffer from building, The western north/south collector street,proposed as S. Wayfinder Ave., designated as"B" (minor collector street), extends from a future signalized intersection at W. Franklin Road to the south to Vanguard. The portion north of Cobalt was approved with TM Creek subdivision. Per the Map and as required by the existing DA for Ten Mile Center,this street should have been constructed per the guidelines for Street Section E shown below with two (2)travel lanes,bike lanes, diagonal parking and 12' sidewalks with trees in wells (see pgs.3-21 &3-23 in the TMISAP).However,the street section approved by ACHD and constructed is a standard street section with (2)travel lanes, a center turn lane,bike lanes,8-foot wide planter strips,a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on the west side and an 8-foot wide pathway on the east side with no on-street parking, similar to that of major collector street(i.e. Street Section C,shown below)(see street section from the proposed plat and detail from the proposed design guidelines below).Because of the changes to the FLUM in this area from LC to Commercial and this street providing access to the employment uses to the south, which will likely result in a higher traffic volumes,Staff is in general support of the design as constructed.Minor collector streets in the Plan differ from the MSM's town center collector street in that they don't have a center turn lane and have diagonal instead of parallel parking. Minor collector streets serve as the primary retail streets and are pedestrian-oriented and defined by street-level storefronts. Buildings are built to 12-foot wide sidewalks with street trees in wells and Page 11 Item 5. 128 pedestrian-scale lighting. A 5-foot wide dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb;both wet utilities may be located in the street; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Major collector streets provide access from adjacent arterial streets into the employment areas. Buildings on these streets are set back from the street as some distance generally behind a detached sidewalk. The sidewalk may be widened in some cases to extend to the front of commercial retail or higher density residential buildings. � P4ddn9 rpt � LW $t r e a t S e e i I o n E cum-curtals12noB `. r line 77'RIGHT-CAR-WAY ;.,.:•Tic-r. zas'c-Tac z' 2' 5'SIGEWALN �D'PLANTER 8'PLAMER-J 5'SIDEWALK J'1 MAN. SLCPE TO E%IS11NG 4 GIN 6'VERTICAL CURB ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND GUTTER.TYP. COMPACTED SUDGRAOE 3/9--M1--5-AGGREGATE BASE 6-MINUS PIT-RUN SUBBASE STREET SECTION: S. WAYFINDER AVE. SCALE: NTS Page 12 Item 5. F129] Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 Label Physical charalteriaks Typical Commercial i� Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street 5ection, Two-Lane+Turn Tree Lawn:8'to 10' Lane+Bike Lanes •Navigator,east of Tree Grate vanguard Abs •Cobdh •New Market Bicycle Lane •Wayfrnder,south D f E of Tenmile Creek E Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard s H M1 s ± Center Landscaped Median Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The eastern north/south collector street proposed as S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave., designated as "D"(residential collector street),will extend from Franklin Rd. to the south boundary of the site and connect to Navigator Dr. in the TM Crossing project. This street should be constructed in accord with the guidelines for Street Section D shown below with two (2)travel lanes,bike lanes,parallel on- street parking(if allowed by ACHD),8' tree-lined parkways and detached sidewalks per the TMISAP and as required by the existing DA's for Ten Mile Center and Calnon(see pgs.3-21 & 3- 23 in the TMISAP). The street section from the proposed plat and a detail from the proposed design guidelines shown below differ from a residential collector street in that there is a center turn lane,wider travel lanes and no on-street parking.ACHD has approved the proposed design; however, Staff does not support the proposed design as it's not consistent with the TMISAP and the existing DA's and therefore,recommends revisions consistent with Street Section D below with on-street parking. ACHD will have to review and approve revised street sections if changes are required to the proposed design—although on-street parking is desired and recommended,ACHD will need to review and determine if it's safe to provide.Staff discussed the discrepancies between the proposed plat and the town center collector in the MSM and Street Section D with ACHD and was told that although the Livable Street Design Guide allows for parking on a collector street it isn't always appropriate in all locations—because we don't know the end users for lots adjacent to these streets (a conceptual development plan or use plan wasn't submitted) it's difficult to determine if on-street parking will be appropriate. Residential collector streets in the Plan differ from the MSM's town center collector street in that they don't have a center turn lane and have a wider buffer zone. Residential collector streets serve the local access needs of residential,live/work,and commercial activities within a residential neighborhood or mixed-use residential area. Buildings on these streets should have limited setbacks behind the sidewalk and a tree lawn should be provided. On-street parking is allowed.A 5-foot dry utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb;both wet utilities may be located in the street; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Page 13 Item 5. 130 r IF or Rr r t, 61 IV 4t V&allel I rKe I IFJWPne 1 WKIane e Parking R W lane Padirg S t r e e t S e c t i o n Q C irmo-a rb digance Tq'RIGNT-OF-war 23.5•TBC-CL 23.5'CL-TBC as' +5 3.r AW( 5'SIGEAALK B PLANTER 8•PLANTER IG•SIMEWPLK SLOPE TO IXISTING fi YERTIChL GVRB � ASPHPLT PAVEMENT ANO G4TTER,T1P. GGMPACTm SVGGRP➢E 3�4'-MINl15 CRVSHEG AGGREGATE BASE 6'NINVS PR-RVN Sl1BBASE STREET SECTION: S. NEW MARKET AVE. Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 Label Physical Characteristics Typical Cornrnerclal Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street Section, Two-Lane+Turn , Tree Lawn:8'to 10' Lane+Bike Lanes •Navigator,east of Tree Grate Udnguurd yr ■Cobalt •New Market Bicycle Lane ■Wayfinder,south A B of Tenmile Creek 0 E Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard s r r v n• r r a r Center Landscaped Median Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neither the SSM shown above,nor the MSM, depicts an east/west collector where W. Cobalt Dr. is proposed to extend between Wayfinder and New Market although it does depict such further to the south in alignment with the access via Ten Mile Rd. along the southern boundary of this site which was actually constructed further to the south(i.e.Navigator Dr.) as discussed above. This southern section is designated as a minor collector street("B") on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP and as a town center collector on the MSM. The portion of Cobalt west of Wayfinder is designated as a residential collector street(Street Section D)but was approved to be constructed as a major collector street closely aligning with Street Section C due to residential uses not being planned at that time in that area—since that time,the development plan changed and multi-family residential uses have been constructed along the north side of the street,east of S. Innovation Ln. The extension of Cobalt will provide a connection from Ten Mile between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark,which Staff believes provides much needed connectivity in this area. Residential Page 14 Item 5. 131 uses exist and are planned on the north side of this street between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark with future commercial uses likely on the south side. The section of this street east of TM Creek East Apartments has not yet been constructed but the design has been approved by ACHD with the subject plat. Staff is amenable to the proposed design consistent with that constructed to the west. Street Section C,the street section from the plat and a detail from the proposed design guidelines are shown below. The western portion of Cobalt in front of the TM Creek East apartments project was previously approved as part of ACHD's action on that project and has been constructed. r .. Lew X iane Street Secilon C ta�t~ta� 74'RIGHT-OF-WAY 2, 215'T C-CL 25.5'CL-TRC 5 SIDEWALK �B'PLANTER 5 PIPNTER 5'SIDEWALK S 3:1 To LOPE EkISPINGNG 6'VERTICAL CURB ASPHPLT PAVEMENT AND GUTTER.TYP. COMPACTED SUDGRPIIE 3/4'-MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE%SE 6'MINVs PIT-RUN suBaksF STREET SECTION: W. COBALT DR. Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 IS Label Physical Characteristics Typical Commercial Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street Section, Two-Lane+Turn Lane+Bike Lanes Tree Lawn:8'to 10' •Navigator,east of a _ Tree Grate uonguord •Cobdtt •New Market Bicycle Lane ■Wayfieder,south A B �.. of Tenmrle Creek D Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard s < i Center Landscaped Median G� Parallel Parking Page 15 Item 5. 132 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ South Ten Mile Rd., an existing arterial street along the west boundary of the site,is designated as a modified 4-lane parkway("A") on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes and a wide tree lawn and detached trail should be provided as shown on Street Section A below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and should be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. • w w v NAm9W 1ol.b.N SxiMir..s Nerve Nx► WN-I�d N/ka•6' W trn¢ fml� hM Md Street S e c t i o m A &.„+— (Actual road section under design by ITS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ West Franklin Rd.,an existing arterial street along the north boundary of the site, is designated as a typical 4-lane parkway(`B")on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway edge to provide for a tree lawn and detached sidewalk to provide security to the pedestrian as shown on Street Section B below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. i' fr 4 Tr Tr Y.+� rv�yr w� YaNis Yrlw � ti.W w Street Section 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout consistent with the Plan. Public Art(3-47): Public art with a high quality of design should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes.No public art is proposed. Staff recommends public art is provided in the streetscape and within the development in accord with the guidelines in the TMISAP. Public transit(3-25)—Commercial and employment activity centers need access by multiple modes of transportation and should be pedestrian and transit friendly. Public transit is also important component of Page 16 Item 5. F133] residential developments as it effectively decreases parking needs by reducing the number of cars needed for residents. Transit stops should be designed with shelters for weather protection to patrons;the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center.Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter. Valley Regional Transit(VRT)currently has an intermediate stop at Ten Mile Crossing in its Boise- Nampa service. As the project's employment and residential population grows and more of the internal street systems are completed,the opportunity for expanded transit service will also grow. A bus stop has been provided at the northwest corner of the Vanguard/Wayfinder roundabout in Ten Mile Crossing; more bus stops are anticipated as the businesses and residential population in this area increases. In April 2020,the VRT Board approved a new fixed-route connecting The Village at Meridian and Ten Mile Crossing,which is anticipated to begin service in early 2021. The Applicant's narrative states they will continue to work with VRT on additional bus stop locations in future phases of development as the public transportation system expands. These plans should be shared with the City with each subsequent final plat phase. DESIGN: Development of the area governed by the Plan is required to incorporate design guidelines consistent with those in the Plan as outlined in the Application of the Design Elements table(3-49). These guidelines apply to Architecture and Heritage(3-32), Street Oriented Design(3-33),Buildings to Scale (3-34),Gateways(3-35),Neighborhood Design(3-36),Building Form&Character(3-37), Building Details(3-41), Signs (3-46)and Public Art(3-47). The Applicant proposes alternate design guidelines with this application to supersede those in the Plan. These guidelines are proposed to govern site design and development; landscape and hardscape; architectural design for commercial,mixed-use and multi-family residential structures; signage; and streets and pathways. A text amendment is not proposed to the Plan to exclude this area from the design guidelines in the Plan as recommended by Staff. See Analysis below in Section VI for more information. Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities." (2.02.01A) Pathways are proposed throughout the development along at least one side of internal public streets as shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.F.A pathway is planned with future development to the school site to the east for connectivity and a safe route to the school. A multi-use pathway is Page 17 Item 5. E proposed within the Ten Mile Creek corridor as an amenity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial,industrial and residential areas."(4.05.01D) The Ten Mile creek runs east/west through this site and is proposed to be improved as an amenity corridor with a multi-use pathway. • `Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid- mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B) Collector streets are proposed consistent with the MSM. • "Provide pathways, crosswalks,traffic signals and other improvements that encourage safe,physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists."(5.01.0113) Pathways are proposed within the development per the pathways plan in Section VIII.F. Crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals and other improvements to encourage safety should be considered and provided as appropriate for pedestrians and bicyclists. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) A modification is proposed to terminate all existing Development Agreements(DA's)in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one new master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The existing DA's proposed to be replaced by the new agreement are as follows(links to the agreements are included): ➢ TM Crossing—AZ-I2-005 (Inst. #114002254), 1 st Addendum H-2016-0054(Inst. #2016-062220), 2nd Addendum H-2017-0027 (Inst. #2017-051907); ➢ TM Crossing Expansion—H-2018-0122 (Inst. #2019-011700); ➢ TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015 (Inst. #114045759), 1st Addendum TM Creek East H-2015- 0018 (Inst. #2016-037777),TM Creek Addendum H-2016-0067(Inst. #2016-073497), TM Creek 2nd Addendum H-2017-0124#2017-113747); ➢ Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments)—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); ➢ Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and, ➢ Bainbridge Franklin—H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071) The map below depicts the locations and land area governed by these agreements. Page 18 Item 5. 135 r _ NiCL1?1 RD - r a TM CREEK CALNON BAINBRIDGE .i 5f _ - TEN Mllf tENTfR ML ML ir TM CROSSM f TM Crossing I `— Expansion 1 -R4 ,_ PR4sECT OUTUNE3 ARE GENE RnL ACTUAL AREAS 1A Y VARY These agreements include a variety of provisions for development, including standard UDC requirements and provisions specific to each development—some of which have already been complied with, and conceptual development plans demonstrating how the property was proposed to develop— future development is required to generally comply with those plans. All of these developments were required to comply with the various guidelines and design elements in the TMISAP. Staff has reviewed these agreements and included pertinent provisions from them in the new DA;many of the standard UDC requirements have been removed along with provisions that have already been complied with(see recommended DA provisions in Section IX.A.1). Provisions for development of the overall Ten Mile Crossing area governed by this DA are included as well as specific provisions for each annexation area; a map is included that depicts the boundaries of these areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed DA modification also includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines through the DA to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange SPecific Area Plan (TMISAP)for the overall Ten Mile Crossing development area referred to as the Ten Mile Crossing Design(TMCD) District. These guidelines would be the governing design and development guide for this area and would not apply to any land not included in the Ten Mile Crossing project area. As stated in the Introduction,the purpose of the design guidelines is as follows: to encourage flexibility, innovation and creativity in Ten Mile Crossing's overall design and development that respond to market demand and site specific conditions while enhancing the economic viability and quality of Ten Mile Crossing and the City of Meridian; allow for innovative design solutions that create visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development;provide for the implantation and balance of a variety of uses within the development including viable mixed-use projects; identify and define standards for uses that may offuc in each of the land use categories; create functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost effective provision of public services;provide for the public health, safety, enjoyment,convenience and general welfare, and provide efficient and effective administrative processes. Page 19 Item 5. F136] The proposal establishes an administrative framework for the development process for this area and includes the creation of an in-house design review board("TMCDR Board") and internal design review process prior to application submittals to the City for Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)and Design Review(DR) approval. This Board would forward its decisions to the City for their consideration of all project applications. Staff would review these applications and the decision of the Board; applications found in compliance with the proposed design guidelines would only be subject to CZC approval but not DR approval. Staff would issue Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law(FFCL) and Conditions of Approval of their decision,which would be appealable pursuant to the provisions in UDC 11-5A.Note:FFCL are not issued for administrative actions, only Commission and Council actions. The Applicant's narrative states the two major distinctions between the proposed design guidelines and those in the Plan are the floor area ratios (FAR's)and street standards(see analysis below)—the remainder of the proposed guidelines detail,define and clarify the standards proposed to unify, guide and govern the development of this area.See below for more information on requested deviations from the Plan. As a provision of the new DA,the Applicant also requests approval of an increase in building height to 100-feet in the C-G zoning district to allow for 6-story buildings in this area(see analysis below). Requested Deviations from the TMISAP: • Floor Area Ratio(FAR): Floor area ratios(FAR's) are defined in the TMISAP as the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. FAR's are used as a means for measuring the intensity of a use and are a comparison between the land the building occupies and the floor area in square foot of the space. The minimum FAR's desired in the Plan are based on the FLUM designation and range from 0.75 in MU-RES to 1.00-1.25 in MU-COM designated areas—because the Commercial designation is not included in the TMISAP, there are no minimum FAR guidelines for that designation. In the proposed design guidelines,maximum FAR's are encouraged to the extent possible for the use and building height but a minimum FAR is not specified. This will result in decreased FAR's for this area from what was envisioned in the Plan. Because the FAR goals have been somewhat unrealistic to achieve thus far,Staff agrees a change is appropriate,however, City Council should determine if eliminating the minimum FAR goals entirely is appropriate for this area and is in the best interest of the City. • Street and Streetscape Design: As noted above in Section V,the street sections already approved by ACHD and constructed(i.e. Wayfinder) and proposed(i.e.New Market/Benchmark and Cobalt)are not consistent with the guidelines in the TMISAP for those street section. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are desired in the Ten Mile Area to assist in creating a lively and active street presence with stores and residences fronting on adjacent streets. The portion of Wayfinder north of the Ten Mile Creek does have on- street parking in the planned town center area. Pedestrian pathways are proposed along collector streets, the Ten Mile Creek and the Kennedy Lateral as shown in Section VIILF throughout the development consistent with the Pathways Master Plan forpedestrian walkability and connectivity. The proposed street design with reduced walkway widths, no on-street parking and wider travel lanes will not promote as much of a pedestrian friendly environment as intended for this area as traffic will be flowing faster with the proposed design. On-street parking was desired for this area based on the original FLUM designations and uses and site design anticipated for this area based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired parking,physical conditions and streetscape character. Several changes to the FL UM have been approved since the adoption of the TMISAP as noted above but no changes have been made to the Page 20 Item 5. F137] Street Section Map or the street sections in the Plan. Collectively, these changes—especially the change from lifestyle center to commercial and C-G zoning—will result in more intense commercial development than envisioned and will substantially change the intended character of this area. In the commercial areas along Wayfinder and Cobalt,Staff agrees it's more appropriate(and safer) not to have on-street parking. However, in the residential and mixed-use designated areas along New MarketBenchmark,Staff is of the opinion on-street parking is still appropriate although it's difficult to determine in the absence of a development plan for that area since the type of street sections desired are largely based on the types of uses adjacent to the streets. Refer to Section V Street Design above for Staffs recommendation on streets and streetscape designs. Staff is not supportive of the Applicant's proposal for different design guidelines to apply to this development to supersede those in the Plan through the DA as the whole intent of the goals and guidelines in the Plan is to have a unified design for the overall area governed by the Plan. Because the Applicant requests street sections, streetscape designs and FAR's that differ from those outlined in the Plan and doesn't want to be held to the architectural design guidelines and other guidelines in the governing plan,Staff suggested applying for an amendment to the TMISAP to exclude this area from the Plan. Without an amendment to the Plan, this area is governed by the Plan and can't be superseded by another Plan. The Applicant was not in favor of this option. Another suggestion was to only include certain exceptions to the design guidelines in the Plan through the DA that differ from the Plan and for the Applicant to use the proposed design guidelines internally to ensure consistent design within their development. Since they state the only substantive changes to the Plan are to the street sections,streetscapes and FAR this was Staffs preferred option. The Applicant was not in favor of this option either. As stated above,Staff is of the opinion the design guidelines in the Plan cannot be replaced with another set of design guidelines without an amendment to the Plan allowing this and referencing the other guidelines,or an amendment excluding this area from the Plan. Otherwise, the guidelines in the Plan apply to this area as well as the other areas within the overall Ten Mile Area which ensure unity in the overall Ten Mile Area. Rather than recommending denial of the Applicant's request,Staff recommends approval of an alternative as previously suggested to only include the exceptions to the guidelines in the Plan in the DA.If the guidelines proposed by the Applicant are truly in line with the existing guidelines as stated, notwithstanding the exceptions,this seems to be the simpler option and one that doesn't conflict with the current Plan.Note:Staff has not compared the established design guidelines in the Plan to those proposed by the Applicant to verify they align, notwithstanding the exceptions requested. Staff requested the Applicant include the differences between the two sets of guidelines in their application for transparency in what was actually being requested(Le. how they differed) but they did not do so. If Council is in favor of the proposed design guidelines,Staff recommends an application is submitted to amend the TMISAP to allow this area to be excepted from the existing Plan or for a reference to be included to these design guidelines for this area. Requested deviation from the dimensional standard for maximum building height listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district: • The maximum building height allowed in the C-G zoning district is 65-feet. Additional height not to exceed 20%of the maximum height allowed in the district may be approved by the Director through the alternative compliance procedures set forth in UDC 11-5B-5—additional height shall be allowed Page 21 Item 5. 138 when the development provides 10%of the building square feet in open space, courtyards,patios, or other usable outdoor space available for the employees and/or patrons of the structure, excluding required setbacks and landscape buffers per UDC I I-2B-3A.3d. Additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed in the district or when additional height is requested without providing the required open space in accord with UDC I I-2B-3A.3d requires approval through a conditional use permit,per UDC 11-2B-3A.3e. Because the TMISAP encourages taller buildings and greater FAR's and the UDC standards hinder this goal, Staff is supportive of allowing an increase in the maximum building height up to 100 feet in the C-G zoning district through the new DA without further application. B. REZONE(RZ) The Applicant requests a rezone of 40.98-acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district; 0.65-acre from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; and 0.53-acre from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. A conceptual development plan was not submitted with this application for the areas proposed to be rezoned as is typical for such requests. The smaller areas proposed to be rezoned to C-G will"clean-up"the zoning in this area where it's irregular and doesn't follow parcel lines and/or proposed streets. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-40 south of the Ten Mile Creek will be an extension of the R-40 zoning that exists to the west and will allow for the development of additional multi-family residential uses with conditional use permit approval. The proposed zoning and use is consistent with the underlying Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES)FLUM designation; the target density for this designation is 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The FLUM designation of the abutting property to the west is High- Density Residential(HDR)which also allows for multi-family residential uses at a target density of 16- 25 dwelling units per acre. FLUM designations are not parcel specific and an adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application,may be used. Because the HDR designation allows for a higher density, Staff recommends this designation apply to future development of this property since the density will likely be higher than 12 units per acre if apartments are developed on the site similar to those to the west(i.e. TM Creek East Apartments). Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing DA's for Ten Mile Center and Calnon referenced above; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects other than a conceptual street layout for the Ten Mile Center property. In the absence of a conceptual development plan,to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category(i.e. commercial,residential,employment)are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation,Staff recommends a conceptual use plan (i.e.bubble plan)is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions.Note:An existing and future development map is included in the proposed design guidelines on pg. 6 that could be further defined to accomplish this. The larger area to be rezoned to C-G between W.Franklin Rd. and the Ten Mile Creek is designated on the FLUM as mostly Mixed-Use Commercial(MU-COM)with approximately a quarter of the area on the west end as High Density Residential(HDR). As noted above,because the FLUM is not parcel specific and allows for abutting designations to govern, Staff recommends the abutting MU-COM designation to the east apply and govern future development of the western portion of this site. The proposed C-G zoning district is listed as an appropriate zoning choice in the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix in the TMISAP for the MU-COM designation. The MU-COM designation allows for a variety of uses including: commercial,vertically integrated residential,live-work, employment, entertainment, office, and multi-family. Allowed uses in the C-G district are listed in UDC Table 11-2B- 2. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing Development Agreements Page 22 Item 5. F139] for TM Creek East and Calnon referenced above; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects. In the absence of a conceptual development plan,to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category(i.e.commercial,residential,employment) are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation,Staff recommends a conceptual use plan (i.e.bubble plan)is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions. C. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 83 [74 commercial and 9 high-density residential (Lots 16-24, Block 3)] buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. The plat is conceptually proposed to develop in six phases. Phase 1 consisting of multi-family apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16, Block 3 is currently under construction and almost completed; no development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase 2 commenced last year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts. The development of Phases 3-6 may vary in area and sequence based on product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor which includes a 10-foot wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system on one side and the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District's (NMID)maintenance road on the other side(Lot 15,Block 3); and the relocated Von Lateral, which will be deeded to NMID (Lot 1,Block 4). Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. West Cobalt Dr. has been extended from the roundabout at Wayfinder to the east boundary of the TM Creek East apartments project and S. Wayfinder Ave. has been extended between the roundabouts at W. Cobalt Dr. and S.Vanguard Way but the design of these streets was not approved with a subdivision plat and are not consistent with the street sections designated on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP however,they do compy with ACHD standards. South Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Rd. and the roundabout at the southwest corner of the site was approved and constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables I1-2A-8(R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-G) and 11-2D-5(TN-C), as applicable. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Previous projects (i.e. TM Crossing and TM Creek subdivisions)in this area established accesses via S. Ten Mile Rd. (i.e. Cobalt and Vanguard)and W. Franklin Rd. (Wayfinder) and collector streets consistent with the TSM in the TMISAP and the MSM.A new street access via W. Franklin Rd. and collector street(New Market/Benchmark) is proposed with this plat to the east of Wayfinder consistent with the TSM and the MSM,which will align with the segment of New Market/Benchmark to be constructed to the south in TM Crossing Subdivision. As mentioned above,S.Wayfinder Ave.between the two roundabouts at Cobalt and Vanguard was constructed last year outside of the subdivision process.Although the proposed access points and road alignments are consistent with the TSM and the MSM,the street sections constructed for Wayfinder between the roundabouts and the proposed New Market/Benchmark are not consistent with the Street Section Map in the TMISAP as discussed in Sections V and VLA above. Staff recommends New Market/Benchmark is constructed with on-street parking(if deemed safe and acceptable to ACHD) consistent with Street Section D in the Plan. Two(2) driveway accesses are depicted on the plat via W.Franklin Rd. on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4, Block 4. The access on Lot 4,Block 4 was previously conceptually approved with the Bainbridge Page 23 Item 5. F140] Franklin annexation by the City(DA provision#1.1.1i)and ACHD(Site Specific condition#B.1) as a temporary full access which may be restricted to a right-in/right-out at any time as determined by ACHD —other than this access, all other access via Franklin on the Bainbridge Franklin site was prohibited. Per the guidelines in the TMISAP for Street Section B (pg.3-22) and access control(pg.3-17),access should be restricted to collector streets. The(UDC 11-3A-3) also limits access points to arterial streets. City Council approval of the proposed driveway access on Lot 4,Block 3 is required; ACHD has required a traffic analysis to be submitted for these accesses to demonstrate that additional driveways are necessary to service the site.Both the City and ACHD have to approve these accesses in order for access to be granted and driveways constructed. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be granted via a note on the plat between all non-residential lots and to the parcel to the east [#R8580480020 (now#R8580500100),Twelve Oaks)per requirement of the existing DA for Bainbridge Franklin in accord with UDC 11-3A- 3A.2.A note should also be placed on the plat that direct lot access via S.Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. and the internal collector streets is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system on this site as follows: on-street within the street buffer along Ten Mile Rd., along the Ten Mile Creek corridor and along New Market Ave. Multi-use pathways are required to be 10-feet wide within a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement with landscaping on either side per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A pathways plan was submitted by the Applicant, included in Section VIII.F that depicts 8-to 10-foot wide pathways throughout this site and the adjacent properties owned by the same developer consistent with the PMP totaling 3.5 miles of pathways. These pathways connect to the City's multi-use pathways and provide a pedestrian connection to the school site to the east. Pathways and associated landscaping should be depicted on a revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat(s)in accord with UDC standards and the Pathways Master Plan as recommended by the Park's Dept. Sidewalks(UDC I1-3A-17): The UDC(11-3A-17)requires minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets. In the Ten Mile area, the design guidelines call for wider sidewalks ranging from 6 to 12 feet depending on the street section classification. Because 5-foot wide detached sidewalks have already been provided in many areas within the site, Staff is amenable to continuing this minimum width with 8-to 10-foot wide pathways provided in locations consistent with the pathway plan in Section VIII.F. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways should be provided as shown on the applicable street sections in the TMISAP for the street classification as noted above in Section V. Landscaping shall be provided in the parkways consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Ten Mile Rd.,an entryway corridor; a 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street; and 20-foot wide street buffers are required along collector streets, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The design guidelines in the TMISAP also require landscape buffers based on the street classification and the applicable street section. Staff recommends minimum street buffers are provided in accord with UDC standards,except for along S.Ten Mile Rd.,classified as Street Section A in the TMISAP, which requires a 50-foot wide street buffer so that pedestrian walkways and buildings are setback a safe distance from the street. Page 24 Item 5. ■ Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3U�: Common open space and site amenities are required to be provided in residential developments in residential districts of five acres or more in size per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. Although a portion of this site is planned to develop with residential uses in the future,no development is proposed with this application. Future development should comply with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3,as applicable. As mentioned above, 3.5 miles of pathways are proposed in the area shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.0 as an amenity for this development. Fencing(UDC I1-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Waterways: The Kennedy Lateral and the Ten Mile Creek run east/west across this site and the Von Lateral runs across the northeast corner of the site. The Ten Mile Creek lies within a 100-foot wide easement in Lot 15,Block 3 and is a natural waterway; as such, it should remain as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered and be improved with the development and protected during construction in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. A maintenance road exists for NMID on the north side of the creek and a multi-use pathway is planned on the south side of the creek. The Kennedy Lateral lies within a 55-foot wide easement and is required to be piped unless left open and improved as a water amenity or linear open space. The Von Lateral lies within a 40-foot wide easement and is proposed to be relocated along Franklin Rd. in Lot 1, Block 4 and deeded to NMID. Floodplain: A portion of this site along the Ten Mile Creek is located within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring with the Overlay District,the Applicant is required to submit,and the City shall review and approve, a floodplain development application which includes the necessary analysis and documents under MCC Title 10, Chapter 6,including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances and the TMISAP. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18 : An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP The Applicant submitted pictures/renderings of 14 existing and approved buildings at TM Crossing: commercial,office,retail and residential structures including multi-story office buildings; single-story commercial structures (medical,hospice,gym,restaurant and food service,retail, auto service); and the first two multi-family projects (see Section VIII.G). The design of future buildings in this development shall incorporate design elements that are generally consistent with those in the"typical"elevations shown in Section VIII.G. Final design of Page 25 Item 5. F142] structures in this development is required to comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual,notwithstanding the exceptions approved with this application and included in the DA. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested modification to replace all existing Development Agreements with a new agreement for the overall Ten Mile Crossing development per the provisions in Section IX.A.1; approval of the proposed rezone in accord with the Findings in Section X; and approval of the proposed preliminary plat per the conditions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 26 Item 5. F143] VIII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description of Property Subject to New Development Agreement &a" ENGIIJ2ERIAG October 9,2O20 Ten Mile Crossing Sub-Area Protect No-19.105 Legal Descriptlon Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of Sedtion 14,Tawnship 3 Narth,Range 1 west,B.M..City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more perticuIarlydescribed as follows: Conarnencing at the northwest turner of sa Id Section 14,which bears NST0977"W from the north 1/4 corner cf said Sectlon 14,thence following the northe-rly line of Bald 5ecllon 14,S89'(U27"E a distance of 74A6 feet: Thence leaving said mrtlterly line,5W50'3rVV a distance of 72.W feet to the southerly ri pt•of-way line of W.FranklIn Rd.and the subdivision baundaryof TM Creek Subdivision No-2 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said southerly right-of-way line and said subdivisio n bou ndary,the fokowing twelve courses: 1_ S89°09'27"E a distance of 176AS feet 2. S)MY33"W a distance of10.39feet 3_ S89°09'27E a distance of 70,OD Feet; 4- NOR°5VWE a distance of 10,00 feet; 5_ SW09'27"E a distance of 44.37 feet; fi_ N88°23'22"E a distance of 9.64 feet 7. S)(r5dY33"W a distance of 7.41 feet 8_ S89°09'27"E a distance of 61,72 feet; 9. S84`34'43"E ad istanoE of 11353 feet;; 10, 5S8'42'21"E a distance of IZS-76 feet; 11, N84°21'40E a distance of 94.58 feet; 12, N87°31YWE a distance 4f 18a0B feet to the subdivision boundary of TM Cree<SubdVision No_4; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.2 and following said southerly right-cf- way line and said subdivision houndary of TM Cme k Su bdivision No-4 the following four Courses: 1. S&r19'54"E a dlstanoe of 144-49 feet; 2_ %9"0553"E a distance of 15814 feet, 3. N00°35't E a distance of 12_05 feet; 4_ Sa9`09'27"E a distance of 75.09 feet; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line and fallowing said subdivesion boundary the Following twp Courses, 1_ S00'34'31"W a distance of 18,00 feet; 2. 58"9'27"E a distance of 249M feet; 9233 West State Street ■ Boise,Idaho 83714 - MS.639.6939 • kmensllp.w(n Page 27 Item 5. F144] The rice leaving said subdivision boundary,589*09'27"E a distance of 1,079.97 feed; The nre SW13'12"E a distance of 467.21 feet Thence N0011'S3"E a-distance of 1.93 feet; Thence 19.44 Feet along the art of a dreu ar cu rve to the left,said curve having a radius of 60,00 feet,a delta angle of 18'054",a chord hearing of N09 05'04"VN and a dhord distance of 19.36 feet to the said sout4edy right-af-ray lire-, Thence follo% ingsaid southerly right-of--way line the Fallowing three courses; 1. 589'13'12"E a distance of 322-98 feet; 2. N04 W27"E a distance of 20.E Feet; 3. 589"13'12"E a distance of 542-M feet to the easterly line of the Northwest IA of the Norlwast V4 of said Section 14, Thence following said easterly line,900'3T27A W a distance of 1,280-5a fleet tr}the southeast co rner of sold Northwest 114 ofTW Northmt 114(northkeast corner ofthe Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4); Thence leaving said easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and following the easterly Ilne of said Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4,50WW20"W a distance of 1,038.11 feed; Thence leaving said easterly line,N8T12'39'W a distance of 450-OD feet; Thence SDX34'20"V1+a d ista nce of 290.40 feet to the southerly line of mid 5outl-ramst V4 of the Northeast V4; Thence following said southerly fine,N89'12'39"W a distance of 979.80 feet to the center of Said Sectiork 14 (northwest corner of Prim rose 5ubdivisi❑n); Thence leaving said southerly line and folbaving the easterly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 14 {westerly line of w id Primrose Subdivision),5OD'W29"W a distance of 887.73 feet to the northwest corner of the"Pu bHc use Area"lot on said Primrose Subdivision, Thence leaving said easterly line(westerly line of said Primrose Subdivision)a nd fol lowing the northerly One of said"Public Use Area"lot,5BV11'48"E a distance of 165.98 feet to the mr theast corner of said lot' Thence leaving said northerly line and fo Illowing the easterly line of sa id lot,500"32`58"w a d Istance of 440.52 feet to the southeast corner-of said lot; Thence leaving said easterly line and following said southerly line,N89*1_W0CffW a distancs of 166.30 feet to the southwest corner of said lot on the easterly line of said Southwest 1/4 of said Section 14; Thence leaving said southerly line a rid fol kyWirlg said eawberfy line(also the subdivision boundary of TM Crossi rkg Subdivision No-4),W0'35'29"W a distance of 15.90 feet to t he northerly right-of-way line of Interstate 94; Thence Following the northerly right-&- ray llne and said subdivision boundary,N89'34'11"W a distarke of 396.68 feet to the subdivision bo undary c f TIMi Crossi ng 5ubd ivision No.2; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Crossing Subdivision No-4 and following laid northerly*ht- of-way line and said 5ubd Ivlslan bounds r}'of TM Crossing Subdivision No.2 the fol lowing eight coursm: 1, NST34'11"W a distance of 104.E 1 feet; 2. N81'01`41"W a distance of 83.12 feet; 3. N8Y34'09'W a distance of 670.&D feet; 4. N04`25`51"Eadlstanceof25.OD�eet; S- NS543.4'09'Wadistanceof110t-Dfeet; 6. 9I 4'25'51'w a distance of 15-00 feet; 7- N81419'01"Wadistanceof 421.C7fee% 9. N8283.'3(rWa dlstanceof185.92 feet tuthe subdivIsion boundaryofTM CrossirkZSubdivision No-3; PAGE 12 Page 28 Item 5. F145] Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Crossing No-2 and fallowing said northerly rat-of-way line a nd se Id Su bdivislon Boundary of TM Crazing Su bdivision No.3 the fol lowing four naurses- 1_ N82'3e30"1N a distarrte of 394.97 fee[; 2, N73°5S'0' W a distance of V14.00 feet; 3. N46°58'42"1N a distance of 1fi6,76 feet 4- N12'05'53"W a 04tance of 92-20 feet to the easterly right-cf-way line of&Teri Mile Rd.; Thence leaving said northerly right-of-uaf I ine,and following said easterly rot-of-way line and said subdivision boundary, NOV31`49"W a distance of 71.15 feet to the subdivision boundary of7M Cmuling Su bdiVISE01M; Thence leaving said subdlvlsion boundary of TM Crossing Subdivis ib n No.3 and following said easterly right-of- wayEwa nd!aid subdivision boundary of TM Crossing Subdivlsion the following three cau rsesr 1. N01°31'49"W a sllstance of 396-89 feet; 2- N&T42'58'W a distance of 4.00 Beet; 3. N00"30'02"E a d ista nce of 456.76 feet Thence leaving sald subdivision houndarw and following said easterly right-of-way line the fol lowing sox oaurses: 1, S89°11'30"E a distance of 35-18 ie� 2. NQ0 3f34"E a distance of 236-38 feer, 3, N89'25'27"W a d ista nce of 46.03 feet; 4. PA Y33"E a dlsta nce of 1,W27 feet 5- 589°2627"E a distance of 12.95 feed; 6, Ni03¢39'37"E a di nce of 39-28 Feet to the subdivision boundary of TM Cr k-5Ubd iwision No.1; Thence Wowing said easterly right-of-way llne and salid subdivision boundary the following twelve courses: 1. NOY3917"E a distance of 20-72 Feet; 2_ N86°20'23"W a dicta rrte of 16.21 feet; 3. N00°33'51"E a drstance of 4-41 feet; 4_ N1G°47'07"E a distance bf43.38 feet S. N53°31'44E a distance of 54-14 Faet; 6- NO3°31'44E a distance of 66.88 Feet; 7. N49°2627"1N a distance of 43-98 feet; 8- NO3°39'37"E a distance af45,01 feet; 9. N01°43'37"W a distance of 132.83 feet; 10. 19.74feet along the arc of a clrmlarcurve to the left,said curve having a radius of 7,272.00 feet,a delta angle Of WW2Cr a chord bearing on NO2°SS'SS"Z and a chord distance of 19.74 feet; 11. N89'41'52"E a distance of 4.35 feet; 12, NQO°33'33"t=a distance of 529.0�feet td the subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.2; PAGE 3 Page 29 Item 5. F146] Thence leaving Bald subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.land folbowi ng se id easterly right-of- way Gne and said subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subd Ivisibrl No.2 the following four courses, 1, NOD'33`33"E a distance of 123-31 feet, 2. N0743731"E a distance of 80.50 feet; 3, NOD'33' rE a distance of 10DjDGfeet+ 4. N45'0g55,rE a distance of 23.06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNI+iG. Said description contain a total of 307,?2 acres,more or less, 12459 A OIF PAGE 14 Page 30 Item 5. F147] +� 3M9.97 48721 3ttn 342.00 1 s � f 10 it ii �7 la iK wvmr� � 4B9'1313'E se9�a9'x��� se9'1s'1z-� 3 4 434.DI3 x � g79-AD ti F � m sv h SS G8 b � � ii 41 � Y n - � 421.07 .8F'3-0n4 „ 31 31 vrau-x 67D'M 79hp Leg-end Project Lucafian F OF r � a � � Page 31 Item 5. F148] B. Rezone Legal Descriptions&Exhibit Maps 9233 WEST STATE STREET I EICFISE,Ib 83714 1 208,639-6439 1 FAX 2p8.639.6930 October2l,2020 Project No.19-105 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to C-G(North) TM Center Subdivision A parcel of land situated in portionof the Nar'theast 1/4 of the Northwest 1f4 and a portionflf the Northwest 1�4of the Northeast 1/4 afSection 14,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,B.M.,City of Merid[an,Ada County,Idaho and being more particuiarly described as follows, Cam mencirig at a found brass rap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 14,thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 14,589'09'27"E a distance of 1,577,99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence$89'09'27"E a distance of 1,17 C.00 feet taa found aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 oomer of said S-ttion 14; Thence leaving said northerly line and fallowing the northerly tine of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 14,S89'13'12"E a distancee of 786-9C feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,500'34'27W a distance of 234-00 feet to a paint; Thence 576'26'39"E a distance of 556.22 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, Thence fallowing said easterly line,SOW34'20"W a distancee of 459 40 feet to a point on the Centerline of Ten mile Ora In; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the centerline of Ten Male Drain,575,31'34"W a distance of 180.64 feet to a point; Thence 96.67 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 286-50 feet, a delta angle of 19'20'CC',a chord bearing of S85'11'34"W and a chord distance of 96.22 feet to a point; Thence N85"09'26"W a distance of 1.677.56 feet tDa paint; Thence 589'2 8'2Cr W a distance of 455.90 feet to a point on the easterty boundary of TM Creek SeWivisian No.4(Rook 117 of Plats,Pages 17944-17947,records of Ada County,Idaho); Thence leaving said Centerline and fallowing the easterly boundary oFsaid TM Creek Subdivision N0.4, NOX34'31"E a distance of 765.77 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said pa reel contains a total of 40.98Z acres,more or less. AWrhed hereto is Exhibit 0 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. a 1 459 ¢ OF % ENG VEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS Page 32 Item 5. F149] 0 O O z U L L m 0 500 1000 1500 a✓ a O Plan Scale: 1"y 500' Z a POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP FOUND BRASS CAP E 1/16 CORNER SECTION 14 (j ,7 f0 NW CORNER SECTION 14 -0 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP O BASIS OF BARING N 1/4 CORNER SECTION 14 SB9•D9'27"E 2657,99' C 10 11 W. Franklin Rd, S89'13'12"E S89'13'12"E SB@'13'12 E 11 12 0 z 15 14 1577.99'r 1O8O.DO' Qj a7 Z cPOINT OF 7EL6.9O' S42.00' 1328.90' 14 13 Q1 s F SOD 34'27"W N00'3d'20"f= d wBEGINNING Rezone Area:40.984+'AC I L3 0 234.00' z—r 357.00' CO a 1 Parcels 51214212459,51214212580,51214121134,51214120710&51214124805 51214z12622,a portion of S[5 2$'39"E `—� S1214212742&51214121172 556.22' I X Ln U Current Zoning:R-40&C-C 500'34'20"w LU a ° S89'28'26'W PropasiM Zoning:C-G 459.40' ti a 465.90' � w N85'U8'2$"yy 3 z I 7677.5$' I° s CENTERLINE OF ¢ +• TEN }BILE FJRAIN S75'31'34W 180.64' DATE: OCtcb,'Z020 PROJECT: 19.105 SHEET: - - - IOF1 FOUND 5/8" REBAR NE 1116 CORNER SECTION 14 CURVE TABLE km CURVE RA61U5 LENGTH DELTA CHORD SRG CHORD C3 286.50' 96.67' 1920'00" SB611'34"W 96.22' ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS.PLANNERS 9233 WEST SPATE STREET BOISE,IDAHO 93714 PHONE I7061 639.6939 FAX(tp$I639-6930 Page 33 Item 5. 150 km92B WEST STATE STREET I BDiSE,083714 1 208.539.6935 1 FAX205,639-6930 February 16,2021 Project No.1�)-105 Exhibit A Legal Descrip#lon for Rezone to R-40 TM CenterSubdivislon A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the we5C 1f 2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14,Township 3 North,Range I We4 f3.M.,City of Meridian,Ada Gavnty, Idaho and being more particulariydescribed asfoIlows: Commencing at a found brass cap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 14,thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1J40l9a14 Section 14,589°09'27"E a distance of 2,657.99 feet tDa found aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 14; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1f4 of said Section 14,WT3Y31"W a distance of 797.76fee=t to a paint on the centerline of Ten Mile Drain; Thence leaving said easterly line and loIlowing said centerline,585'0926"E a distance of 81.87 feet to the POINT OF REGtNNING. Thence fallowing said centerline,585`08'26"E a distance of 246-53 feet, Thence leaving said Centerline,! W52'53"W a distance of 53.54 feet; Thence 194.95 feet along the arC of a circular Curve to the rtht,Said Curve having a radius of 46100 feet,a delta angle of 24'13 44",a chard bearing of S16°59'46"W and a chord distance of 193.5D feet; Thence 529'OG1 'W a distance of 39152 feet; Thence 416-98 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,seW curve having a radius 43f 1,fl00.00 feet,a delta angle of23'5r2V,a chard bearing of N77'14'a3"wand achord distance of413-96feet to the southerly line of said East 1/7of tie Northwest 1/4; Thence following said southerly line,589*10'36"E a distance of 232.35 feet Thence leaving said southerly line,NCr49'30"E a dJs#ance of 99,70 feet; Thence 4.69.81 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the rlght seld curve having a radios of WJDO feet,a delta angle of 44'51'4}",a chord bearing of NZ2'03rli and a chord distance of 457.90 feet to the POINT QF amNNIHa The above-described rezone parcel description contains a total of 3.895 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit l3 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. 12459 RNGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 34 Item 5. 151 0 N ❑ 300 600 900 r Plan Scale:1"-300' 10 11 BASIS OF BEARING W`Franklin Rd. 589'C9'27'E 2657.99' ' — — — .� — 589'13'12"E 2657.79 11 12 'ET � o 15 14 14 13 •b � [ACL POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 0 > `0 s I FOUND BRASS CAP r_ -6 m NW CORNER SECTION 14 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP _ N 7�4 CORNER SECTION 14 0 v m —Z P, N 2 v = cn C m US Y M }' U O N � a CENTERLINE OF TEN MILE DRAIN N -` w o POINT OF L U m i BEGINNING n O q S8S'08'28"E V Rezone Area:3.895±AC S85'08'26"E 24s•53' Portion of S1214121172 81.87' (TIE) S0452'53"W a r 51214121133&S1214233668� c 63.54' Current Zoning:C-G&TN-C I ate; xtar arvmii Proposed Zoning;R�0 PROfECr: 19-105 NDO'49'30'E I SHEET: HEET; 589'10'36"E �� 1 OF 1 232.36' 00' CURVE TABLE C2 LEGEND CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD 8RG CHORD C1 461.00' 194.95' 2413'44" S16'59'46"W 193.50' FOUND BRASS CAPFOUND ALUMINUM CAP C2 1000.00' 416.98' 23'53'28" N77'14'C3"W 413.96' CALCULATED POINT EMGrREERS-SURVEYOR5.RIAMM* 9231 WEST 5TATE 57REEr C3 600.00' 469.81' 4-051'49" N2238'33"E 457.90' REZONE BOUNDARY ANSE,10-0 U714 PMOKE 4w)639 6939 — — — — —SECTION LINE FAX (2 081 539493 0 Page 35 Item 5. 152 !9m 9233 WEST STATE STREET I 5015E,ID 83714 I 208.639.6939 J FAX Z08.639-6930 February 16,2021 Project No-19-W5 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezorse to C-x{S❑Lahl TM Center Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the South 112 of the Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the Southwest 114 of the Northea5t 1f4 erf Section 14,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,S.M.,City of Merldian,Ada County, Idaho end being more particularly described as follows, Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the center of said Section 14,which hears S89*11'30"E a distance of 2,656.47 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the West 1/4 corner of sal€ Section 14; Thence fallowing the southerly IIne o=said South 1/2 of the Northwest 114, N89'1J'3Y'W a distance of 49.56 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1. Thence fallowing said southerly liner NPV11'30"W a distance of 50,18 feet; Thence leaving said southerly line, NCp48'30"E a distance of 172:47 feet; Thence 131.03 feet a long the a rc of a cirtula r cu rve to the left,said curve having a rod I us of 200-00 feetr a de Ita 2 ngle of 37'32'15",a chord be acing of N 17'57'36"W and a chord distance of 128.70 feet; Thence N3643'42'W a distance of 53.27 feet; Thence 57.88 feet along the arc of a cirrular curve to the lefk,said curve having a red lus of 300,00 feet,a delta angie of 11"03'15u a chord bearEng of N47�44'4VE and a chord distance of 57.79 feet; Thence 141.85 feet along the arr of a torn pound curve to the left,said curve having 8 radius of 500-00 feet,a delta angle of 145°15116",a chord bearing of N34*05'26"E and a chord distance of 141,37 feet to a paint hereinafter referred to as POINT"A"; Thence 500'1W58" a distance of 494.23 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1. The abave-described rezone parcel description contains a total of 0,654 acres,more or less. TOGETHER VATH Commencing at a paint previously referred to as POINT"A",Thence N00'18'58E a distance of 262-00 feet; Thence 271.76 feet along the art of a d rcula r curve to the right,sa id curve having rt rad ius of 926.00 feet,a delta angle of 16WF540,a chord bewaring of NG8*43'25"E and a chord distance of 270,79 feet to MNT OF BEGINNING 2. Thence 128.39 feet along the arc of a dreular Curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 500-D6 feel;, a delta angle of 14'4245",a chord bearing of N19*19'30"W and a chard distance of 128.04 feet Thenre 144.04 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 27'30'34",a chard bearing of NIZ'55'37-W and a chord dJsta ice of 142,66 Feet; Thence N0'49'34"E a distance of 17.95 feet; Whence 182-49 feet aaIong the are of a circular curve to the right,said curve having c radius of 1,000.00 feet,a delta angle of 10`2720",a chord bearing ofS70"3U'590E and a chord distance of 192.23 feet; Thence S29"06'3guV+a distance of 44.98 feet; fNGINVERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 36 Item 5. 153 Thence 103.61 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said cures heaving a radius of 926.00 feet, a delta angle of 11'58'45',a chord hearing of 521'fl7'15,W and a chord diStanCE of 193.25 Feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2. The shave-described rezone parcel cescrlption oantains a total of 0.533 acres, more 0r less_ The total rezone description contains a total of 1.187 acres,more or less- Attached hereto is Exhi4it 9 and by this reference is hereby made a part of S ... 1 4 PAGE 12 Page 37 Item 5. 154 2 o (U TM Creek Sub.No.3 3 0 _ u T NW 1/18 CORNER L 3 SECTION 14 W. m — Cobdlt pr ui .�Q.. C p a a N 1116 CORNER Rezone Area:0.533±AC c� SECTIONS 14 & 15 Parcel S1214233668 L5 m Current Zoning:TN- Proposed Zoning:C-G c Lf) N POINT OF N ++ z BEGINNING 2 C4 (TIE) r °^ QS Parcel51214233568 Current Zoning: C-G N00'18'S8"E CC POINT "A" m �, LE t vl S. C2 X o a "guard Way soviWs "w LL o Rezone Area:0.654±AC 494.23' r Parcel51214233668 a z Current Zoning:R-8&TN{ N89'11'30'W Proposed Zoning:C-G 48.58' (TIE) _ DAIE', February Mi 989'11'30"E 2656-h7' L7 PMaEa: xs-ws TM Crossing Sub,No,1 BASIS OF BEARING SHEET: POINT OF 1 r BEGINNING 1 1 OF 2 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP W 1/4 CORNER SECTION 14 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP CENTER OF SECTION 14 LEGEND IS ALUMINUM CAP A CALCULATED POINT REZONE BOUNDARY McNEE119_sUWMRS.HANKERS 0 W� $� 1200 — —SECTION LINE 9233 WEST STATE MEET+Y flam'I�INowu P Ian Scale:1"=400' P FAX i203116I9i M 9 o a ar _ � u 0 o O m o a CURVE TABLE a m g CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD 9RG CHORD a C1 200.00' 131-03' 3732'15" N1757'36"W 128.70' m C2 300.00' 57.88' 11'03'15" N4744'4l"E 57,79' CA 3 O ` 3 C3 500.00' 141.85' 16'15'16' N34'05'26"E 141.37' 0.1 C4 926.00' 271.76' 15`48'54" N8'43'25'E 270.79' s U C5 500.00' 128.39' 14'42'45' N19'19'30'W 128.04' U C6 300.00' 144.04' 2730'34" N1255'37'W 142.66' r o C7 1000.00' 182.49' 10127'20" S70'3o'59"E 182.23' L cs 1826.00' 19161' 11-58'46" S23-07.15-W 193.25' w ° `o `o z LINE TABLE q s LINE BEARING DISTANCE .. L1 N89'11'30'W 50.18 Fl6." MI>sTos L2 N948'30"E 172.47 SHEET: L3 N3943'42W 53.27 2OF2 L4 N949'30"E 17,95 L5 S29'06'38'W 44.98 FMGIMEEMS UWEY0M,PIANNERS W bpISF,roAM0831w� RFnE Ixbai a%ei3s AK1x98163Rb930 Page 38 Item 5. 155 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/29/2020) and Conceptual Phasing Plan TM CENTER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT ngXnM 1' A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 114 AND A PORTION OF THE WEST 112 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SEMEN 14,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANG E I WEST, - BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,2020 P 0 0 0 0 Q) ® 0 ca 0 o o - .ry ym�' TMCENTER SUED-1 ION 'H111% MERIDIAN,IDAHO vE o _ t �-' - TNFaN RSDBDIY15MN '^ MERIDIAN,ID Page 39 Item 5. Fl 56 — b- ------------------------ 1PA�ME0.5U0.DDIL4ON MERIDIAN,4DAHD mm PPl.2 ---- ---- -- —__ _ v u MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP2.1 ~����A as • .... TM CENTER SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN,IDAHO nry."''um.,m-�•Jc�wm.,.wnm nvT u�i®Wmm rw ms jtkm EA�PP2.O.m Page 40 Item 5. Fl 57 MATCH LINE-SEE SHHEE7 PP2._-_ _�_ ram" ------ La TMCENTERSUILDIVISION MERIDIAN,IDAHO ..�PP2.] „O O OO .O p�— 0„ � �O O� p o cl © ® O 0 'i o ,m MATCH LINE SEE SHEET PP3.1__ _-_- -r►r -_--psPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTES .�• _ STREET SECTION:S.NEW MARKET AVE. -� TM CENTER SUBDIVISION---------- .............,....., COM MERIDIAN,IDAHO RENGINEERINGPDN �uN II—II1=T1— „AI —IIIIII—_III—Iilllll ;-���.,II I..II.II-II II_II�II w,rv..Row. �ME _.W�� AS :ram.w: Page 41 Item 5. 158 a �`^ MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP3.0 I o — — o O ...—.,.gym STREET SECTION:S.WAYEINDER AVE. ...."� TM CENTER SUBDIVISION IDAHOIONCE—ENGINE m _ m _ Skm STREET SECTION:W.COBALT DR. an pn, � I l _ �........*... ......... .. _Z j TEN •M I L E Phasing Plan ---- ��� _ Crnueptue subpect RO iNBpaP I TEN _ *- -� Page 42 Item 5. F159] D. Landscape Plan(date: 5/28/2020) ----- e --- a --- -o- o'---I I=� m� -o. o c A w JA in 47-f�9 I ® ® � Fs �u I 0 �•�� °"" - unnxc ano suMc onN�[v RM —ERSUBONISION I r SIREEf IRFF W[WVnONE IIiPFF/351E} �oR�0i0.N�IDAXOT M lANUSCAPE SITE PLAN ... �•"r - rnnwAnonaEoul�nnFNrs AI PLANTING DETAIL kl !' - - �' � 55�1� I` --- =_- .I 5 P I G I � I i. I I. i:`.� mslar - - _ _ iM MERIDIAN IDPHO INK 7. al �j"RLANTING DETAIL#2 /j\PLANTING f1EfAIL#3 -- Page 43 Item 5. r160] E. Roadways—Completed and Future 100% COMPLETE • Vanguard (primory entrance) Navigator (east/west collectorlIocaf) • Wayfinder (north/south collector) 7.5% COMPLETE Cobalt (eastfwest collector) 15% COMPLETE • Benchmark (northfsouth collector connection to Franklin) COBALT - J Ito TEN MILE V x x i r � r _ CROSSING INTERSTATE 1-84 VICINITY MAP Page 44 Item 5. 161 F. Pathway Plan 19Y PATHWAY .I f: r - - - �Multi-P�pO�e Paths TEN ;•MILE Roads&Pathways f Ten Mlle Grassing District +ti '" 8'pD 14'PaRhwa�rs 2 i I . Il G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives 00, BRIGHTON BUILDING (complete) PAYLOCITY BUILDING (complete) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BNIMING ELEVATION TYptC aunnwc[IF—N-1— Page 45 Item 5. Fl 62 _WEI L AMERIBEN PHASE II (under consi r) SALTZER MEDICAL (under constr) 3 TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION 6UIIDING EU"YATION TYPI[ALS BUILDING ELEVAIION i PICALS p 4.C9 .T 6 LASALLE BUILDING (under constr) EXISTING SINGLE•STORY SHOPS TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUIIDING EUVAnON TVPI[ALS BUILDING ELEVATION TYPICAL$ EXISTING SINGLE-STORY MEDICAL EXISTING CARWASH 8 TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION 9BRD{NG ELEVATION iYPICI l5 BUILDING ELEVATION TVPICALS Page 46 Item 5. Fl 63 61 a= MET- Chi ,f _ !3 EXISTING RESTAURANT/SHOPS (front) EXISTING RESTAURANT/SHOPS (rear) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION i BUILDING ELEVATION WPIMLS TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUILDING ELEVATION MICALS d� EXISTING AUTO SERVICE THE LOFTS at TEN MILE (complete) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TIV CENTER SUBDIVISION BUILDING ELEVATION 1YPILALS Hllll l3lN(�FI F Val f I IN IYI'II AI% THE LOFTS at TEN MILE (garages) THE FLATS at TEN MILE (under constr) L. TM CENTER SUBDIVISION EM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUIlD1NG EI cvAnON IYPICALS BUILDING ELEVATION TYPICAL$ Page 47 Item 5. 164 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A conceptual use plan(i.e.bubble plan)shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing,to be included in the development agreement,that demonstrates consistency with the mix of uses from each major use category(i.e.commercial, residential,employment)for the overall area governed by the DA as set forth in the TMISAP and the provisions of Development Agreements associated with previous annexations. 1. A new Development Agreement shall replace all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Area as referenced above in Section VI.A, and shall include the following provisions: 0. TM CREEK _ _ CA04oN 'r, BAINBRIDGE ' Y O rEN MILE CE-41ER G ME r Tl ti TM Crossing Expansion P"AICTOUTUNES ARE GENERAL ACTUAL AREAS 1AAV VARY a. Provisions applicable to entire development: (1) Future development shall be consistent with the guidelines for development in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)pertaining to land use,transportation and design; UDC standards; and design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, except for the deviations specified in this agreement. (2) Public art shall be incorporated at the entries of the site to create a sense of arrival and as appropriate throughout the overall development. Public art should contribute to the character and identity of the City and should be incorporated in the design of streetscapes,plazas, public spaces associated with buildings, etc. Art should be easily visible to the public (e.g. on the exterior of buildings rather than in lobbies,or visible from the street or publicly assessible open spaces rather than interior courtyards), in accord with the TMISAP. (3) Building height in the C-G zoning district for structures in the area governed by this agreement is allowed to extend up to a maximum of 100-feet without further application. (4) Direct lot access via S.Ten Mile Rd. and W.Franklin Rd., arterial streets; and W. Cobalt Dr., S.Wayfinder Ave., S.Vanguard Way and S.Benchmark Ave., collector streets, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 and the TMISAP unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD in conjunction with a detailed development plan and/or subdivision. City Council approved waivers to UDC 11-3A-3 for direct access via S. Ten Mile Rd., W. Page 48 Item 5. N Franklin Rd., S. Wayfinder Ave. and W. Cobalt Dr. as shown on the preliminary plat and concept plan for TM Creek subdivision (AZ-13-015;PP-13-030). (5) The design of future buildings in this development shall incorporate design elements that are generally consistent with those in the"typical"elevations shown in Section VIII.G. (6) The developer shall continue to work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT)to determine the nature and timing of public transit services needed in this area.With each final plat development phase, an update should be provided to the City. Shelters should be placed at transit stops for weather protection to patrons;the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center. Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter. (7) Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the first final plat for TM Center,the developer shall submit a surety to the City of Meridian for the cost of a Welcome to Meridian sign to be placed off-site at the intersection of S. Ten Mile Rd. and S.Vanguard Way. The sign shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in the first phase of TM Center subdivision. (8) A portion of this site along the Ten Mile Creek is located within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring with the Overlay District,the Applicant is required to submit, and the City shall review and approve, a floodplain development application which includes the necessary analysis and documents under MCC Title 10,Chapter 6,including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis. (9) Street lights at a pedestrian scale shall be installed within the tree lawn area along W. Frankin Rd. as set forth in the TMISAP. b. TM Crossing Expansion site(H-2018-0122,Parcel#R7192800752): (1) If at some point in the future the adjacent homes to the north and east of the site redevelop commercially and the 25-foot wide right-of-way depicted on the Primrose subdivision plat on the adjacent property to the north(Lot 7,Block 3)is dedicated,a public street connection may be required at that time. (2) A pedestrian connection shall be provided from the residential neighborhood(i.e.Primrose Subdivision)to the commercial development to the west on the TM Crossing Expansion site (H-2018-0122)in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. The location of the pedestrian connection maybe within the right-of-way adjacent to the north property boundary. c. TM Creek site(AZ-13-015,H-2017-0124): (1) Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan shown below and shall develop with a mix of office, commercial and residential uses as proposed. Page 49 Item 5. 166 L. J � r3 � • 1'� d LLJ �� „-,,i (2) Street lights at a pedestrian scale shall be installed within the tree lawn area along S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Cobalt Dr. as set forth in the TMISAP. (3) Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be installed along S. Wayfinder Ave. as set forth in the TMISAP. (4) All structures within the TN-C zone adjacent to S. Wayfinder Ave. north of the Ten Mile Creek shall be a minimum of two stories in height in accord with UDC 11-2D-5 and the design elements contained in the TMISAP. (5) Buildings along S. Wayfinder Ave. north of the creek should be built to the sidewalk with street trees in wells and street-level store fronts,in accord with the TMISAP. (6) A crosswalk shall be provided across S. Wayfinder Ave. where the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek crosses the street. (7) For streets &block fronts where commercial uses and pedestrian activity are most desired north of the Ten Mile Creek, it is recommended that sidewalks be lined with shops, restaurants, offices and galleries and that buildings be designed with multiple sidewalk entries where feasible, generously-scaled display and transom windows,pedestrian-scales signs and banners, and awnings or canopies for sun shading. (8) A pedestrian crossing over the Ten Mile Creek shall be provided as part of the creek amenity if approval can be obtained from Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District. (9) Sidewalks shall be provided internally along one side of all major drive aisles for pedestrian connectivity within the development in accord with the Internal Pedestrian Plan shown below. Page 50 Item 5. F167] r .n rr+v FRANKUN ROAD 71 r TM No LU J - 1 . ++ Lr" 121 ��IIIIFFIIIIII IT -7 = 4 rJ - �'I i iiiilIlIkkFF i i r Pedestrian Plan - Condition 7.1.I.s " -- (10) South Wayfinder Ave. shall initially be constructed in accord with the street sections shown below. Future reconfiguration of S. Wayfinder Ave. may occur if warranted by ACHD, in accord with the street section shown below. Page 51 Item 5. 168 PL 86.00'ROW PL a-CP 7.00' 14.00' 14.00' 7.00' O.OP PARKING BIKE LANE 4 LANE BIKE PARKING 9.OP 700' S.M. 11 ALT 13.OP MEDIANI 13.OP 91AP 5.00' 700' 25P 51DEWALK 4.00 BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE .00' SIDEWALK 250' FU7URE FIfR1RE FUTURE FUTURE FUTllRE FUTUREIF I O.W' L REMAINING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED REMRINING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED WITH BUILDI NG FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE WITH BUILDING NORTH OF CREEK FL 100.OP ROW PL. 4 7AP 6.5P 1200' 1D.00' 13AP 10.00' 1200' 8.59 7A0P B 00' SI DEWAIK BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE SIDEWALK ROP I FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE BRIDGE SECTION FL 06.00'ROW FL a0P 7D0' 1400' 1900' 700' a00- PARKING BIKE LANE L LANE BIKE PARKING 9.OP 5.00' B.OP 5.00' 11.017 13.00P MEDIAM 13AP 11.017 5.00' 8AP 5.00' SIDEWALK, PLANTER 2. BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE AP PLANTER SIDEWALK 0.50' 0.50' FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE SOUTH OF CREEK d. TM Creek East(H-2015-0018): (1) The site shall develop with multi-family residential uses and shall obtain conditional use permit approval prior to development. The overall average density target should be at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre. Design and orientation of buildings should be pedestrian oriented with special streetscape improvements to create rich and enjoyable public spaces. A strong physical relationship between the commercial and residential components to adjacent employment or transit centers is critical." (2) The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. e. Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments) (AZ-14-001): (1) The property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. (2) The property shall be developed in a manner that provides a transition in uses to adjacent residential properties. (3) Most buildings along S. Ten Mile Rd. should address the street by being built to the street buffer with windows overlooking the pathway to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes on the pathway as set forth in the TMISAP. Page 52 Item 5. F169] (4) A pedestrian connection shall be made to the adjacent school site to the east(i.e. Peregrine Elementary School). (5) The portions of the property zoned TN-C and TN-R shall be developed in a manner that incorporates traditional neighborhood design concepts as set forth in the TMISAP. (6) Only residential uses shall be developed within the R-8 zone. In addition to other allowed uses, a minimum of 75 residential units shall be developed within the TN-R zone, and a minimum of 300 residential units shall be developed within the C-G and/or TN-C zones combined. (7) The Kennedy Lateral and all other waterways on the site shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6,unless waived by City Council. (8) Based on the 2020 Sewer Master Plan Update,the subject property lies within two sewer boundaries. The Kennedy Lateral is the sewer shed boundary. Sanitary sewer services to this development is are being proposed via main extensions from the Black Cat Trunk and Ten Mile Diversion Trunk of mains located near the Purdam Drain within the southwest portion of the subject property and main extensions from Franklin Road. Owner/Developer shall install mains to and through the development, coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet; if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet then alternative materials shall be used in conformance with City of Meridian Public Works Department standard specifications. (9) Water service to the subject property will be via extension of mains in Ten Mile Road along the alignment of the future east-west collector. Owner/Developer shall be responsible to install water mains to and through the property at the time of development and to coordinate main sizes and routing with City of Meridian Public Works Department. (10) Future construction of streets within this site shall be consistent with the applicable street section as shown on the Street Section Map contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) (pgs. 3-20 and 3-21)with the exception of the east/west collector street(W. Cobalt Dr.)from Ten Mile Road at the northwest corner of the site which shall be constructed as a major collector street in accord with Street Section C. f. Calnon(H-2015-0017): (1) Prior to any development occurring on the subject property,the applicant shall modify the development agreement to include a more detailed conceptual development plan for the site that is consistent with the MU-C and MU-R land use designations. A mix of uses from each major use category(i.e. commercial,residential, employment) shall be provided as set forth in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP).No more than 30%of the ground level development within the MU-C designation shall be used for residences.No more than 40%of the land area within the MU-R area shall be utilized for non-residential uses. (2) The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. (3) Provide a minimum of 218 residential dwelling units on the site of varying types (i.e. multi- family, single-family,townhouse, duplex, and/or vertically integrated).Note: The number of units provided may be greater than 218 units without a limit on the maximum number of units. (4) A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed on this site along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek and to the property to the south. The pathway shall be constructed in Page 53 Item 5. F170] accord with the Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3A-8. Landscaping on either side of the pathway is required in accord with the standards listed in 11-313-12C. (5) The stub street that exists to this property at the east boundary of the site,W. Cobalt Street, from Whitestone Estate Subdivision shall be extended with development. (6) The Vaughn Lateral shall be piped on the site where it is currently open if approval can be obtained from Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) as it is owned in-fee by NMID. (7) Sidewalks shall be provided internally along one side of all major drive aisles for pedestrian connectivity within the development. (8) This property borders a domestic water pressure zone boundary, and therefore with development,the applicant shall be required to install a pressure reducing station vault and conduits for power and telemetry cabling in the vicinity of their southeasterly connection in W. Cobalt Street. The installation of the pressure reducing appurtenances shall be the responsibility of the Meridian Public Works Department. Applicant shall coordinate the vault and conduit design criteria with the Meridian Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. (9) The City of Meridian currently owns and operates a sanitary sewer lift station near the west end of W. Cobalt Street. With the development of the subject property,the applicant shall be required to extend a sanitary sewer main from W. Franklin Road through the property to the lift station location and facilitate the abandonment of the lift station. g. Bainbridge Franklin(H-2018-0057): (1) A cross-access/ingress-egress easement(s) shall be granted to the property to the east(parcel #R8580500100)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. With the first certificate of zoning compliance application,the applicant shall provide a recorded cross access easement that grants access to the Twelve Oaks property. 2. The final plat(s) shall include the following revisions: a. Change the street name of S.New Market Ave. to S.Benchmark Ave. consistent with the Street Name Review approval. b. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Franklin Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd., arterial streets; and S. Wayfinder Ave., S. Benchmark Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr. and S. Vanguard Way, collector streets,unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD. c. A 5-foot dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb along S. Wayfinder Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr. and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. Both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Streetlights of a pedestrian-scale shall be provided along Wayfinder and Cobalt;pedestrian-scale lighting is not required along New Market/Benchmark if it will serve as a residential collector with on-street parking—otherwise,pedestrian lighting is required. d. South New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. shall be constructed with two(2)travel lanes,bike lanes,parallel parking(if allowed by ACHD), 8-foot wide parkways and detached sidewalks/pathways consistent with Street Section D in the TMISAP,the development agreement,Pathways Master Plan and pathway plan for the site. The first 200'of south of Franklin Rd. on New Market is not allowed to have on-street parking per the ACHD report to allow for right and left turn lanes. Page 54 Item 5. 171 e. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk)along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. f. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk)along W. Franklin Rd. and Vanguard Way in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B (see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. g. Depict a minimum 50-foot wide street buffer along S. Ten Mile Rd., an entryway corridor, measured from the back of curb, in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B- 7C.2 and Street Section A in the TMISAP. h. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-G zone,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 1 I-3B-7C.2. i. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer along W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave., S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave., and S. Vanguard Way, collector streets,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-G zone,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-313-7C.2. j. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement between all non-residential lots in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. k. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement to the parcel to the east(#R8580500100,Villas at Twelve Oaks) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. 1. Remove the two(2)driveway accesses depicted on the plat via Franklin Rd. on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4,Block 4 to the east and west of New Market/Benchmark unless specifically approved by City Council through a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3,which limits access to arterial streets, and by ACHD. in. If New Market has not yet been constructed to stub to the site's south property boundary by the time the proposed section is constructed, depict a temporary turnaround easement and construct a temporary cul-de-sac that meets the dimensional standards of a standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of New Market on this site per ACHD and Fire Dept. standards. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Detached pathways, 8-to 10-feet wide, shall be depicted in accord with the pathway plan in Section VIII.F and with the City's Pathways Master Plan as required by the Park's Department in Section IX.E.At a minimum, 10 foot wide pathways shall be provided along S. Ten Mile Rd., the east side of S. New Market Ave. and along the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan; 8-foot wide pathways may be provided in other locations. b. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along the west side of S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. where 8-to 10-wide pathways are not proposed on the pathway plan,with 8-foot wide parkways within a minimum 20-foot wide landscaped buffer in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section D(see pg. 3-21). Page 55 Item 5. F172] c. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C, along each side of W. Cobalt Dr., a collector street; and a detached 8-to 10-foot wide pathway on the south side of the street consistent with the pathway plan. d. Depict minimum 20-foot wide street buffers, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C, along S. Wayfinder Ave. and S.Vanguard Way,both collector streets. e. Depict a 50-foot wide buffer area with detached 10-foot wide pathway along S. Ten Mile Rd., consistent with that shown for Street Section A in the TMISAP; depict landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C for pathways and 11-3B-7C for street buffers. f. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide buffer with a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along W. Franklin Rd., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. g. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn area along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). h. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn areas along W. Franklin Rd. and S. Vanguard Way in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B(see pg. 3-22). i. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn areas along W. Cobalt Dr. and S. Wayfinder Ave; if New Market/Benchmark is not constructed as as a residential collector street with on-street parking, streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall also be provided along this street. j. Include mitigation information on the plan for all trees on the site that are proposed to be removed that require mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. Contact Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to schedule an appointment for an inspection to determine mitigation requirements. 4. In accord with the TMISAP for"complete streets,"the following are features that shall be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders, crosswalks, refuge medians,bus pullouts, special bus lanes,raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, street furnishings and on-street parking. The Applicant shall address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing)what additional design features are planned for internal public streets within this development aside from those proposed. 5. All future development shall comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6(R-8), 11-2A-8(R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-G), 11-2D-5(TN-C)and I1-2D-6, as applicable. 6. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for all of the multi-use pathways within the site that area not located in the right-of-way prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 7. Streetlights shall be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave. and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. 8. Development of the plat shall occur generally consistent with the phasing plan in Section VIII.C. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Colbalt and New Market Avenue, flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction. This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction. Based on conversations with applicant 8" sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. Page 56 Item 5. F173] 1.2 To alleviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12" water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). 1.3 Tie into the existing 12"water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1) 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. Page 57 Item 5. F174] 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for 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 Page 58 Item 5. 175 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT hllps://weblink.meridianci , .org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191391&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT hgps://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191282&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192685&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223592&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCity G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223468&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCity H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191393&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192801&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223625&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity Questions from City Staff and ACHD response: https:11weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.asp x?id=222896&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity ACHD confirmation that a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required for this project. https://weblink.meridianciU.org WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222887&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. REZONE(UDC 11-5B-3E) 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 rezone of the subject site to the C-G and R-40 zoning districts is consistent with the associated MU-COM and HDR FL UM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property proposed to be rezoned. Page 59 Item 5. F176] 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to C-G will assist in providingfor the retail and service needs of the community while the map amendment to R-40 will assist in providing for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in accord with the purpose statements for the districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds that the proposed rezone 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 Stafffinds that the proposed rezone 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. Because this application is for a rezone and not an annexation, this finding is not applicable. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and TMISAP if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions, conditions of approval in Section IX and ACHD conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposedplat is in substantial conformance with scheduledpublic improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Page 60 Item 5. ■ 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 61 TM Center PrePlat & Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan TEN MILE • EXCERPTS FROM THE TMISAP ACHIEVING RESULTS "Achieving results from the plan requires an entirely new Fbeeasy, g the necessary changes will not waY of doing business for the private and public sectors. It will require leadership on The plan will not happen simply through the filing of of the City and a willingness to development applications on behalf of the private sector or te and collaborate with all the amendments to the comprehensive plan and adoption of involved." new codes by the City. The plan calls for bold new actions as characterized through the plan development and its use of charrette in particular. "TMISAP comprises many small and medium sized parcels, held by many owners ... none of the parcels of land within the study area is large "City encourages developers and key land enough to affect the types of development owners to take the initiative and begin the described as desirable and appropriate. To implementation program, bringing forward achieve this vision as well as critical mass for detailed design guidelines and zoning, and financial success in current development infrastructure financing proposals based on the markets, adjacent owners will need to concepts presented in this plan." collaborate on development efforts." TEN MILE EXCERPTS FROM THE TMISAP IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION. Knowing the private sector may want to act more quickly to move the plan forward, the City DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. Plan encourages developers and I<ey land owners to take the implementation will be accomplished through the initiative and begin the implementation program, bringing City existing development codes, through forward detailed design guidelines and zoning, and amendments to those codes, or by the development infrastructure financing proposals. Section I, p 1-3 of new provisions, such as NEW zoning districts, overlay districts, design guidelines and ZONING. Alternatively, the City could lool< development standards. Section 2, p 2-2 beyond the existing development regulations to new development provisions. The Study Area for ACHIEVING RESULTS. The plan calls for bold this plan (or some sub-set area) could be defined as new actions as characterized through the plan its own Development District, with a series of new development . . . Mal<ing the necessary changes will zoning categories to address the use types and not be easy. It will require leadership on behalf of mixed use districts contemplated in the plan. These the City and a willingness to innovate and regulations could be linl<ed to the design guidelines collaborate with all the players involved. Section 2, p and should be written expressly to promote and 2-2 guide the types of mixed use development that the community wishes. Section 2, p 2-3 • TEN • MILE EXCERPTS FROM THE TMISAP ACTION PLAN Developers are strongly encouraged to undertake these tasks and invite the City to the table as a means of advancing the plan more rapidly than may otherwise be possible based on staffing and fiscal resources. Develop an expedited review process for projects that embrace and incorporate the spirit of the Ten Mile Interchange Area Plan and where, through cooperation, developers have developed Fdesign p a set of design guidelines for the Ten Mile partnerships and specific integrated plans that cross ange Area; OR encourage the development property lines and advance necessary infrastructure nity to work together to prepare a set of construction. guidelines that will accomplish the intent of n. Th e City is ready to work as your partner TEN MILE TODAY @TEN MILE CROSSING TEN MILE CROSSING OWNERSHIP Bainbridge TM Creek Calnon Treasure Valley Investments - TM Crossing � �� TEN MILE TEN MILE CROSSING TM CENTER PRE- PLAT TM CREEK ! .- Ten Mile Crossing DA TM Center Pre-Plat ,,,_.:_t.__:--y: .r Mod & Des. Guidelines • 5/29/20 — Submittal FUTURE • 3/ 19/20 — Pre/Pre-App • 8/6/20 — Continued RESIDENTIAL • 7/ 15/20 — Pre-A TM CENTER SUBDIVISION pp • 9/3/20 — Continued ,o PRELIMINARY PLAT �� a' 1 1 /5/20 — 2nd Pre-App • 9/ 17/20 — Continued `-` _ , . I I / 19/20 — Submittal • 12/3/20 — Continued y 2/ 16/21 — Redirected • 3/ 18/21 — HEARING r Submittal 3/ 18/21 — HEARING A. 1 TEN MILE TEN MILE CROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan da TE N M I L E • TEN MILE CROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES APPLIES to ALL 308 acres within - the Ten Mile Crossing to promote and facilitate the development of a distinctive, high-quality, mixed-use gateway for the City of Meridian. - Tr TEN ;* CAI I L E DESIGN GUIDELINES C R 0 S S I N C SUPERSEDES the TMISAP, and become the Design Guidelines become the governing guide for Ten Mile Crossing �/fE IDIAItiI.-- February ie,2021 ♦� TEN M I LE WHAT DO THEY CONTAIN DESIGN GUIDELINES 04 A. introduction Landxape guidelines ereinlended �- Intent to WIMP.--I]l md.lca a deli n . Tlrrx Ursign[iuid iQLShQriC toad map .. - PURPOSE the FOSSi„x„tje APPENDIX SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS A and entitled throu approval ptoperS.T A.1 Specific Use Standards C. The applicant shall provide a m.font IG'I 2. Tocreate quality buildings and designs •• • Introduction orpanited around s introduction,proje Dr[ee-Through Estahlis + ' The Ten Mlle Cmsdng site and landscape A- All esrablishmenis to a 308 acre area of t architectural dQSsg service shall;derail APPENDIX PH C1TD L{B RA RY A Specific Area Plan top APPLICABILITY guidelines far Com menu and speaker 1 (I• g• the development of Te commercial and re and window lucatio distinctive high•quality and sign a"jsvidel; Urn g Co.pliance. A.2 Photo Library of Existing and Proposed Building and Site Design g g. trio City OfMotldian. Applicability and buildings with; Specific to the built S. A site plan slialI be Buildings and Amhiterture I Existing Cammerciel CifRce These Ten M;IP CroSsin A. Development end a[Chiteck-1 will be demonslrales safe supersede the Ten Mil MiM Crossing Desi; by the TMCDR Bna orbicular access an Area plan as the goer the design and de,. DESIGN REVIEW development pats site and between a � a i development guide for Crossing.Them de ' by the venous own a minimum the plsr R apply to any land n the development a compliance with th "ems r g The specific design star I� r � Ten Mile Crossing• A. Design Review. ]f+ii dururrtenl Creates � �iW 4•- e adminisrranve pr^ced 1� ""'"FFF1lll I11 $ 8- FMxl611iry�The tlP'• in Overlay district railed the TQn Mile In addition,the fo11 ]� Slacking lanes s (■�. 7�i.i. deli n guidelines prw ■a rem f to achieve the goals fa Crossing Design Di st rici I`TMCD Dis(r iCt") included in the Ten capacity to pm� and design gu;del;n and applies to all development in Ten Mile Guidelines: dn"ways,driv _The purpose and inten document depict it Crossing. + right of way by nat-0 and into-is Site aM1 Landes e t gu idelinea is to set fort overall site d 7. The stacking Inn developmem at Tei i. L}pglica Glity.All visible exterior standards and the l n d interface with lane from an allowing suffiCiertt improveraenn to a site,building Or implementing the land structures and for access and Ciroachieve the overall structure(including new facilities, � - These de design nhermare lances may prpvi : [nose design guideline viability of Ten Mil remodeling,rehabilitation projects and employee parks a "pension prq.)within the TMCD g g g A. Encoprage flezibilil District shall require su brain of of a 3. Any stacking lei •ram P C� -r f"" , 1• creativity in Ten Mi Design Review application. hundred feet[1 r• • m m I [a I 1 -- design and develo + provide for an r. market demand an +i. TMCD diseriu Board Review. while enhancing lfr Development applications within the a. The site should quality of Ten Mile TMCD District must be submitted to the restriction tip tv tts•e drive•through is Ten Mile Crossing Design Review Board of the appl i+n I'll limi Street for Sari Meridian; I'TMC DR Board"I prior to submission exceptions to any us to the City for a Certificate of Zoning case by case basis. _ Compliance.The TMCDR goa rd shall - [orward its deCi$10AS to the City for its u. The Planning and Zo T E N `� TEN M 11.F li ai consideration of all projectapplications. f M frontage,parking 0[ +ii. Application Comem.All TMCD greater than twemy pPrrent l7a:sj,%f District applications to the City shall the applica We limit. _ be aCCOmpa hied by the infomlanon iii any approval pureuanl to this section required by Cha pier 11-SR-$of the Shall pi supported try rack of sec k Men Wia n 4 ni fied DevelupmeM Code Shalllfollm ingfindlffs ��� IUDC)and by t„e conditions of approval TEN r•M II L E A-5 TEN MILE issued by the TMCDR Bxrarrl. o- The exception is consistent with iss Level of Review.The Director or these Ten Mile Crossing Design Administrative Staff,as ap propriate, Guideltines. sfrall review TMCD District applications, TEN-rMILE 1 3 TEN M I L E PURPOSE & APPLICABILITY TEN MILE CROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES PURPOSE APPLICABILITY Encourage flexibility, innovation and Govern the design and development of creativity Ten Mile Crossing. Respond to market demand and site- Intended to be general in nature and specific conditions intensity of a mixed use development, Create visually pleasing and cohesive while allowing for sufficient flexibility to patterns of development achieve the overall goals. Implement and balance uses within the INTENT development Establish Design Standards applicable to Create a functional integrated the entire Ten Mile Crossing property development Simplify administrative procedures to Provide for public health, safety, implement land use policies of Ten Mile enjoyment, convenience and general Crossing welfare Provide an administrative process for review. TEN �� MILE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICABILITY APPROVAL & LEVEL OF REVIEW New Ten Mile • All visible exterior improvements to a Crossing Project • TMDRB application and decision site, building or structure within Ten Mile OMVsubmitted to Meridian Crossing shall require submittal of an VI Design application to the TMDRB Review • Staff will review conformance with the ** — Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines TEN MILE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TMORaaar Approval Compliant applications subject only to • All applications submitted to the TMDRB Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) for approval. City Review for Compliance City issues CZC approval necessary for TMDRB is comprised 3 or 4 architects building permit process. independent from the application. If Compliant,CZC DESIGN EXCEPTIONS Application CONTENT • Prescribed and allowed by Planning • Must include information required by (:City Director UDC. Submit for Building Permit TEN MILE DESIGN GUIDELINES SITE AND LANDSCAPE - Establish a framework for the design and planning of parcels at Ten Mile Crossing • Street Standards Pathway and Open Waterway Design ` Landscape and Hardscape Design Parking g Lot Design ARCHITECTURAL _ • Aesthetic framework for the design and construction of buildings and structures by SIGNAGE Overlay District • Site Placement Ensure signage continuity for both Form 3 - . freestanding and buildings Materials & Finishes TEN MILE EXISTING - FUTURE & OPEN SPACE Figure 3 — Existing and Future Development Map Figure 4 —Open Space Plan - G 7 ! Color Development Status ., Future Commercial i Development INncv�or} Built orApproved Future Residential Development Feet 7,000 1 GOO Fee[ City ofMesidian�AdaCounfy -"- •Disclaimer'Preliminaryconceptplan, •nisdaimerr Preliminary concept plan, subject to change upon final approval- subject fo change upon final approval. TEN * M I L E • DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Figure 5— Locations for Additionai Design Consideration . . : The key frontages and intersections highlighted in red on Figure 7 at left f are locations that encourage additional site and building design considerations Y including: e • Placement of buildings near the road. _ • Four-sided architecture. • Additional screening. _ L • Scale of buildings. Guidance on additional design considerations will be provided by the Ten Mile Crossing Design Review Board. Multi-story structures are I anticipated in the denoted areas I _ (dashed red line) with encouragement for the maximum floor area possible for the �� use and building height. Feet 1,{1t30 - •aiscfaimer'Preliminary concept plan, suhiect to change upon final approval- TEN ;** MILE ROADWAYS Typical Street Sections Figure 7.1 Four-Lane+Turn Typology Lane+ Bike Lanes • Vanguard Label Physical Characteristics Sidewalk:5' to 8' M �j Tree Lawn:8'to 10' ` Tree Grate A Bicycle Zane /ttr EASEH[HTr — 9B'R6YV /10'Ek,£FtErrE/ E Two-Way Left Turn Lane Center Landscaped Median Figure 7.2 Parallel Parking Three-Lane+Parallel Parking+ Bike Lane Key Map • Way}rnder, north of Tenmile Creek f�y' �,fi Y r of / g r 77 6 r 3r 6- I -- -. r 10'LAU.41 MI r ]r Np'p /]d{AS[1M1l Hl r TEN ** MILE ROADWAYS Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 Label Physical Characteristics Typical Commercial Sidewalk: S' to 8' Street Section, Two-Lane+Turn Tree Lawn:S'to 14' Lane+ Bike Lanes •Navigator,east of Tree Grate Vanguard a • Cobalt •New Market Bicycle Lane • INayfinder,south U E of Tenmife Creek Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard m wry. Center Landscaped Median Parallel Parking Key M a p Figure 7.4 r Typical Commercial Street Section, Two-Lane+Bike Lanes y • Navigator, west of sR Vanguard A B U TEN ** MILE ROADWAYS Typical Street Sections Typology Label Physical Characteristics Figure 7.5 Private Street+ Sidewalk:5' to 8' Parallel Parking Tree Lawn:8'to 10' ' NIS Ameriben 0 Sentinel Excursion Tree Grate `tr Bicycle LaneUB Two-Way Left Turn Lane MAY.If F/ 7l'a" • i- • ... Center Landscaped Median " Parallel Parking Key Map Figure 7.6 r Typical Private Service Drive Section q r4 v- lid TEN MILE PATHWAYS Legend 1 T Label Symbol Pathway Type Tap—.....................,...... ....a........++a• ..____• 10'Tenmile Creek and C • • • • Ten Mile Road—Regional G Pathway 10' Pathway •�t . 10' Purdam Drainage— t Regional Pathway Detached Sidewalks E ... .•. and Interior Pedestrian Circulation i B Ej 8' Pathway ---- ` Pedestrian Boulevard: Two 0'sidewalks separated by 8' landscape strip with F seating stations � ` "Main Street" section „ ' depicted in Figure 9.2 .1,7 ' 0 Amenity Site Hates:See Street Sect ionsforable y C t pathway design guide I.DX Few Additional amenity siocationswill be determined upsite design.'Disclaimer'preliminary concept plan, See existing1proposedd plazas fn subject to change upon final approval. TEN ♦� M I LE SITE & LANDSCAPE • Landscape AM .JJ . ,. • Commercial • Residential • Creeks & Drains ........ • Site Furnishings Walkways / Pathways Plantings t >� Parking Areas .. _!- • Exterior Lighting6 of au :.CIF rFaiupgEs 'es�rc«sFWrr ....................... �- r • Walls / Service Areas """" ..®............. ros-. /—w[e srHiy ... c.ae�.ua�uuws •� r`� =Bub cEAus w3monca •.. _ * � .' i :S1, �t�,. �n nFvnus wEricw• '.uluren rusrie' ......... ............. ........ � _ �� 4.- � � I i6= l � 5 �wusrfx�:'4wxKF 'n�r•asf' ... ........ l.� yr I r,, b ..�� Y �i .. .c.n.wars. csrwr..re.c•..3�ra 'aA[�r /q/ YrEn0lwSffn' _ exrncu.r uaua.Fm.e snNwux 11. ••.� Figure I7—Perma bark is the only t t sv Erl+n.ust— —>~w[•n+usr� +m oo R.us3 r3s t- n•nsr+eu�—/+v/v allowed main mix grey and brown. Color i a'w3++r "'�• '� """"""""""""""""""' � may only beamix of grey and brown. dIlk fl nurwv= ..,.... O,—ie,... .......... iR= r, rF TEN • MILE /q/ 3a�i11 fuiA CGPGALI WYGSAiA[' ........................................ ARCHITECTURAL COMMERCIAL Form a Scale & Proportion - 'Height - E r Elements : Details - • Entryways Figure 24.1-Form and massing diagram for Commercial Office buildings Windows /• Doors Materials & Styles Mechanical / Services Lighting G ` J - Label Arahiteatural Element D � � Entryway emphasis through Figure 24.2—Form and massing diagram for Commercial Retail buildings architecture form and material First floor pedestrian-scaled features Parapet articulation relates to .. architecture below { Exterior shading contributes to - L+� building articulation C i Fenestration pattern and projection t C 1 .. _. - Figure 30—Materiof palette far Commercial contributes to building articulation buildings Screening of mechanical equipment � Q by parapet or screen-wall Figure 25-Form and massing diagram far large-format Retail buifdi►zgs Usable outdoor spaces TEN • M I LE ARCHITECTURAL MIXED USE & FLEX Label Architectural Element Entryway emphasis through F - _ architecture form and material t a t First floor pedestrian-scaled features Parapet articulation relates to Gl architecture below Exterior shading contributes to building articulation ll� �' ___ __, r �.w»� ► Fenestration pattern and projection — --+ contributes to building articulation �' , ' - ' Figure 33—Ground floor storefronts should Screening of mechanical equipment be architecturally distinct and create a by parapet or screen-wall —— — — — — pedestrian-scaled base from upper residential Usable outdoor spaces A D floors FormQ ale e• a • • • • r Label Architectural Element—Flex noo■ ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■ m Entryway emphasis through HeightEEB architecture form and material Elements • Details _ . l p} Firstfloor pedestrian-scaled features �l Figure 34.1—Form and massing diagram for Flex Commercial buildings Parapet articulation and scale relates Entrywaysto architecture below Windows . , I rs Exterior shading contributes to building articulation rr � t+ 'y �r~ ~� T Materials I�� .: �� �� T® »,��I E Fenestration pattern and projection p� i^ _ contributes to building articulation Mechanical / Services 17".- Lighting T —CE — T T Figure 34.2— Form and massing diagram for Flex Light Industrial buildings TEN • MILE ARCHITECTURAL RESIDENTIAL Form Scale & Proportion OD K ... �- I ( - I Height --- Elements : Details A E E Windows /• Doors ■ F ° Materials & Styles PR Mechanical / Services Lighting OA Label Architectural Element—Residential w Entryway emphasis through - .. architecture farm and material � r■ s First Hoar pedestrian-scaled features rr T 3 _ ■ - 3 Parapet articulation and proportion " — OC relates to architecture below D Exterior shading and balconies contributes to building articulation T E Fenestration massing and projection �' �' "'M 'b contributes to building articulation TEN M I LE ARCHITECTURAL SIGNAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES SIGNAGE Q4 P PZ : 2 P2 P2 .P2 P - - Signage Guidelines C. All building wall signs shall be constructed i of a hi-density urethane material or - Introduction aluminum'A"thick(minimum).The face I^I Project and building signage guidelines define of the wall signs shall have dimension by 1 1 J- 1 1 routing or extrusion,with a minimum of%" the various ident ficat on needs throughout variation.Individual letter signs shall meet 1 ;1 T,n Mile Crossing,and to insure that there is the following: ] 1 1 continuity of overall signage while allowing for 1 r 1 specific individualization.All signage will be i. If letters are interconnected,all backing 1v 1P2 reviewed and approved by the TMCDR Board. shall blend into the background material P2 All development signage will he maintained P2, by the various owner associations within n. Letters shall be stud mounted 1"off the _ �� h :; � 7 face ofthe building. —L the development areas.All individual tenant �2 P2� Figure 41—Signage location option on I _ signage maintenance will be the responsibility iik Letters shall be flat or matte black or Commercial Office buildings \P2 _ of the tenant and or the specific building owner. other approved earth tone colors.NoIn addition,the following components are glossy. j P included as part of the Ten We Crossing Design iv. Paints,vinyl or Plexiglas is permitted. y P21 Guidelines: D. All elements shall be painted. 1 x P2 s A. Each tenant shall be required to submit f. For building signage along the Interstate 5 signage plans to the building's managing 84 frontage,white or bronze colors or I LR3 P2 q � T r r� entity for written approval.A design review materials shall be required for office f h T 1 h sign application,accompanied by the 1 buildings. Label Sien Type ; written approval of the managing entity, 1 2 shall be submitted to the City for any F. There will be development specific 1 Pylon up to 20' proposed signs for City staff review and monument signs identifying each L4 approval.All signs shall be in compliance development area in Ten Mile Crossing. 1 N� o Pylon up to 35' with the criteria stated herein. Those locations will be identified on the B. Building wall signs shall 6e placed within final plat maps of each section. � P5� �-� T� � Pylon up to 50' the approved sign areas as designated on individual project elevafions.Signage may Figure 42—Vertical signage emphasizes ~�— _ _ 5 not exceed the standards in the City of f — Feet Meridian UDC signage standards. entryway on commercial buildings TEN•��M I L E 5U subject 40�hanele uP., nal a Plan, 1 g P h AProval. TEN M I L E • APPENDIX TEN • M I LE PHOTO LIBRARY APPENDIX PHOTO LIBRARY A APPENDIX PHOTO URRARY A APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A A.2 Photo Library of Exls[ing and Proposed Building and 51re Design xuNdlnc••nd are6x.nu..I rrxnnr cnmm.rHa ortn. a-�Iamn.�w archn.eeure I dIm�MWHNmNY ReWmtl.l emmines ena iv.mxenure; aesn nN com mer:r.lknrn '¢ •_ NMI IJ, , km 0 gas. Aw kv l a.. TEN;MILE A-5 TE N'yMILE A-8 1E14 '•y41LE A-5 mom APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A 5•ni, �, =_11.an 1 r.anrj F.N.y dsW. 1l Ltr.rid—du.p I J.6 tFW rVand Tms ,feo�d rr...... � �� MFG � Qm LA. US& ri TEN SMILE I A-11 TEN❖MILE A-13 TEN,,:�MILE A-14 GOING FORWARD Implementation TEN MILE • DESIGN GUIDELINES TMISAP IMPLEMENTATION DEVELOPERS CITY Take initiative and Develop an expedited undertake these design review process for guidelines activities projects that embraceand incorporate the Work collaboratively — spirit of the TMISAP across ownership & and where developers boundaries have developed Bring forward detailed partnerships andspecific integrated design guidelines to the plans that cross CITY property lines. Provide leadership and resources Be ready to work as [a] partner with the DEVELOPERS TEN ** MILE DESIGN GUIDELINES STAFF REPORT VS . TMISAP STAFF REPORT TMISAP "Staff is not supportive of the Applicant's proposal for "Knowing the private sector may want to act more different design guidelines to apply to this develop to quickly to move the plan forward, the City encourages supersede those in the Plan through the DA as the developers and key land owners to take the initiative whole intent of the goals and guidelines in the plan is and begin the implementation program, bringing to have a unified design for the overall area governed forward detailed design guidelines and zoning, and by the Plan." infrastructure financing proposals." TEN MILE ITEMS TO DISCUSS Key Issues TE N 4t** M I L E CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN - -----------� ..*--------- :ICCU 1 1 1 1 1 I �1 1 RETAIL --J �r---------------� 1j' ARWAS MED THE LOFTS THE FLATSI HIGH— -- MF MF 1 DENSITY RESIDENTIALI c�:�e r.r � �i---------- — -- 1 : ��� MEDIUM TO I MEDIUM-HIGH j -- 1 I of DENSITY I 1 J 1 1 � RESIDENTIAL � j 1 (future pre-platEDICAL y application) J� 1 1 �` J J'/ -- — ---------------� I TNESS ' CRAVE y SALTZER 4SPICE AMERIBEN z Color Development Status MEDICAL ED Future Commercial DAYCARE MEDICAL Development s (No color) Built or Approved OFFICE BRIGHTON ppYLOCITY Future Residential LASALLE Development m Feet City of Meridian[Ada County MARCH 18,2021 Disclaimer' Per i ary concept plan, TEN L E subject to Change-ipon final approval. TEN MILE CROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES APPLIES to ALL 308 acres within - the Ten Mile Crossing to promote and facilitate the development of a distinctive, high-quality, mixed-use gateway for the City of Meridian. - Tr TEN ;* CAI I L E DESIGN GUIDELINES C R 0 S S I N C SUPERSEDES the TMISAP, and become the Design Guidelines become the governing guide for Ten Mile Crossing �/fE IDIAItiI.-- February ie,2021 ♦� TEN M I LE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICABILITY APPROVAL & LEVEL OF REVIEW New Ten Mile • All visible exterior improvements to a Crossing Project • TMDRB application and decision site, building or structure within Ten Mile OMVsubmitted to Meridian Crossing shall require submittal of an VI Design application to the TMDRB Review • Staff will review conformance with the ** — Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines TEN MILE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TMORaaar Approval Compliant applications subject only to • All applications submitted to the TMDRB Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) for approval. City Review for Compliance City issues CZC approval necessary for TMDRB is comprised 3 or 4 architects building permit process. independent from the application. If Compliant,CZC DESIGN EXCEPTIONS Application CONTENT • Prescribed and allowed by Planning • Must include information required by (:City Director UDC. Submit for Building Permit TEN MILE ROADWAYS e Typical Street Sections .rPra ax _ lv.r-Lane•Turn Ty004V Lane ga Lanel Vanguard. npuerd L,e.l Phnk.lrh...n.awr. ?F Y _ a Trey lawn:V to 10' f — F.• '—. ... - - i C] T.Gq[f • - 0 SiCyele Lme A B D E M F- 1' y T way Leff Turn Lane .vumwn." • �r r�o. nr • .i.•.vw.• Canter landscaped Median / „ � �• ® Parallel Parking Fig—P.3 •/ ` ¢ � Three-Lane•Parallel Parking Key map � — � 7enmife Crerk w Typical Street Sections Typical Street Sections i. -_ i-- iYpvlvgV Tvp03ogy - �. �➢YrC P-3 R"r• �_ Label Ph"kNChara Hi" Foaw,!7.5 1Wr1 %, lul CharenrHrtlu _ wwwrrr��� Tv4)k@i Canlrr&-,l 'k- fS Privy re Sxreer•TWO-lane Secr; (l A' Sidewalk:5't0 8' A Sidewalk:S'log' Parallel Parkin 1 TWO-lane�Turn � g B Tree Lawn:W to]d' Lane•9rke Lanes Tree lawn;8't0 10' •Srnflnrf�"ri°rr ea • ' l _ C Tm2 Grate : Yp .NH of i _ © Tree Ore* •£xrurslon .New MvrlfN Q: eicycie Lane .INoYfirr 1 SOulfl A B ._. .. 8icy<ra Lan* ofFertmrkcreet .LDf E © G Two•Wav Leh Turn Lane tv Vanguard Ya .. Turp.WjV ieB Turn Lana FCenser Landscaped Median Ceniel Landscaped Median Parallel Parking O Paramel Parking Key Map Key Map ffpwe 7.4 rp• Fldure T.S TY➢��al Lwnmcrc sal TyV:�ar Pr,l'.i r�• Sllee[-lSL1YlOR, S:rv,,.o•:-. LwoaneSC•�nui, •Now�zo7. � abr ! � eLvrd L t. cc I z tr , i F t oil 104 or y" Any ,iii 016NEW- . PC z A ,. m - pe, 4 � 4 z _ TEN MILE CROSSING INTERSTATE 1-84 VICINITY MAPm PATHWAYS / AMENITIES Legend — 1 Li - y ` f� Label Symbol Pathway Type ..-a�... .�� 10'Tenmile Creek and fAJ 00 e e Ten Mile Road-Regional `G Pathway .,.. U' �� _- �B 10' Pathway 10' Purdam Drainage- 1 D --J Regional Pathway Detached Sidewalks F ; E DT ••e •e• and Interior Pedestrian '' - =z ECirculation 3.5 Miles ,E/) — — 8' Pathway ~------- _ - 8' and 10' Oathways Pedestrian Boulevard: Two U sidewalks aseparated by 8' r landscape strip with F — seating stations A �. "Main Street" section tip: F depicted in Figure 9.2 Amenity Site , . Notes:See Street Sections for applicable C , ° pathway design guidelines. Additional amenity sites and plaza locations will be determined upon individual site design. *Disclaimer*Preliminary concept plan, See existing/proposed amenities and plazas in subject to thange upon final approval. TE N • M I L E ARRIVAL VANGUARD WAY rm LA z m 1 i •r i Y Y._ ___ _ LA 1*1 W , Z4^ s rl m m O Q T -0 D TEN MILE CONCLUSION We concur with staffs recommendation for approval and request your approval : • Of the Ten Mile Crossing DA Modification with the proposed Design Guidelines; • Of the proposed rezones; and • Of the TM Center Subdivision preliminary plat. • Including the requested modifications to the Conditions of Approval per the first 9-page attachment (high-lighted, exact copies of staff report pages 48 — 56). • The proposed modifications achieve the direction of staff leadership for a Master DA/Design Guidelines to supersede the TMISAP as the guide for development of Ten Mile Crossing. We respectfully request P&Z approval of TM Center Pre-Plat and Ten Mile Crossing Development Agreement and Design Guidelines. TEN MILE CONCLUSION "The City stands ready to support your efforts and will be moving forward rapidly to implement the recommendations in this plan." TMISAP Section 1 — p 1-3 TEN MILE • TEN �• M I LE Item 6. Ll 78 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located east of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016-062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East —AZ-13- 015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #2017- 113747); Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties — H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin — H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071)]. B. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. Item 6. 179 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located east of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing-AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016- 062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East-AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center -AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties - H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin - H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019- 077071)]. B. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to 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: March 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 3 PROJECT NAME: TM Center (H-2020-0074) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO /Vu 2 � 3 l � - 4 -47 -- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING DATE: March 18,2021 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0074 TM Center-PP Ten Mile Crossing—MDA,RZ LOCATION: East of S. Ten Mile Rd. &south of W. Franklin Rd.,in the north half of Section 14,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. } Wgend M Legend �X V. „ Rxca� _o-,a-C� E LL- I --- ; JFT-- Ap I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts; Rezone of 40.98-acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to R-40 zoning district; 0.65-acre from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; and 0.53-acre from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district; and, Page 1 Item 6. 181 Development Agreement modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios,different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards,including an increase in height in the C-G zoning district of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. 114002254, 1st Addendum#2016-062220,2nd Addendum#2017-051907,TMC Expansion#2019-011700);TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1 st Addendum#2016-073497,2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin—H-2018-0057(Inst. #2019-077071)]. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 307.72 DA boundary; 132.42 plat boundary;46.06 rezone area Future Land Use Mixed Use—Residential(MU-R),Medium Density Residential(MDR), Designations Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR),High Density Residential (HDR),Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-C)and Commercial in the TMISAP Existing Land Uses Agricultural,commercial,restaurant,carwash,personal and professional service,office,healthcare,multi-family residential Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial,office and high density residential Current Zoning = Mostly C-G with some R-8,R-40,TN-C,TN-R and C-C Proposed Zoning R-40 and C-G Lots(#and type; 83 building(74 commercial,9 high-density residential)/2 common bldg./common) Phasing plan(#of 6(conceptually,based on market demand) phases) Number of Residential TBD Units(type of units) Density(gross&net) TBD Open Space(acres, TBD with future residential development total [%]/buffer/ qualified Amenities TBD with future residential development Physical Features The Ten Mile Creek,Purdam Gulch Drain,Von Lateral and Kennedy (waterways,hazards, Lateral cross this site flood plain,hillside) Page 2 Item 6. 182 Neighborhood meeting September 23,2020;4 attendees date;#of attendees: History(previous TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. 114002254, 1 st Addendum#2016- approvals) 062220,2nd Addendum#2017-051907,TMC Expansion#2019- 011700);TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018(Inst. #114045759, 1 st Addendum#2016-073497,2nd Addendum#2017- 113747);Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst.#2014-065514);Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017(Inst.2016-030845);and Bainbridge Franklin —H-2018-0057(Inst.#2019-077071)] B. Community Metrics Description Details ` Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no A full Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required. • Existing Abutting roadways(Ten Mile&Franklin Rds.)are fully improved;Wayfinder Conditions with detached sidewalks exists between Franklin and Vanguard;Cobalt with detached sidewalk on the north side of the road exists from Wayfinder to the east boundary of TM Creek East Apartments • CIP/IFYWP • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Franklin Road to Pine Avenue in 2020. The project includes Bridge#1120. • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Overland Road to Franklin Road and will include a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass. • The intersection of Linder Road and Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6- lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2021 and 2025. Access One collector street access(S.New Market Ave.)and two(2) driveway (Arterial/Collectors/State accesses are proposed via Franklin Rd. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"D" Franklin&Ten Mile Roads(acceptable LOS is"E") Stub Cobalt Dr.is proposed to stub to the east for future extension. Street/Interconnectivity/ Cross Access Existing Road Network Ten Mile and Franklin Roads exist along the west and north boundaries of this site;Wayfinder exists from Franklin Rd.to Vanguard;Cobalt extends from Ten Mile Rd.to midway between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark. Existing Arterial A detached sidewalk exists along Franklin, some buffers;an existing asphalt Sidewalks/Buffers pathway exists along Ten Mile, some buffers Proposed Road No improvements are proposed to adjacent roadways(Ten Mile&Franklin) Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.7 miles—Fire Station#2 Station • Fire Response Falls within 5-minute response time Time Page 3 Item 6. 183 • Resource 76%for Fire Station#2—does not meet the target goal of 80%or greater Reliability • Risk Identification Risk factor of 4—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project(see comments in Section VIII.C) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds • Special/resource An aerial device is required;the closest truck company is 6 minutes travel needs time(under ideal conditions)—Fire Dept. can meet this need in the required timeframe if required. • Water Supply Requires 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours;may be less if building is _ fully sprinklered,which all are proposed to be • Other Resources NA Police Service • Distance to Police 4 miles Station • Police Response 3.5 minutes Time • Calls for Service 577 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) • Accessibility No concerns with the proposed access • Specialty/resource No additional resources are required at this time;the PD already services the needs area • Crimes 67 within a mile of site(3/1/2019 2/29/2020) • Crashes 25 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) West Ada School District Joint School District No.2(dba West Ada School District) has experienced significant and sustained growth in student enrollment during the last ten years.Many of our schools throughout the district are operating at or above capacity. Based on U.S.census data,we can predict that these homes,when completed,will house 380(=1t homes x 0.8 ner census data) school aged children.Approval of the TM Center will affect enrollments at the following schools in West Ada District: Enrollment Ca aci Miles (Bev.m School) Peregrine Elementary 526 650 1.9 Meridian Middle School 1285 1250 2.7 Meridian High School 2126 2400 1.5 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. Page 4 Item 6. F184] Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.96 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with W W Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Colbalt and New Market Avenue,flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction.This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction.Based on conversations with applicant 8"sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality This development will result in a long dead-end water main which may result Concerns in poor water quality. Connecting to the south will eliminate this dead-end and correct this problem. • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •To alleviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12"water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). •Make sure to tie into the existing 12"water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1 Page 5 Item 6. [185] C. Project Maps (Preliminary Plat Boundary) Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend i Legend Project Laca-hor I Projeoi Lnca&m U� 115 igh HighI -D n liif - — Id I Ln MU-Res ' - General II.. Zonin Ma Planned Develo ment Map Legend R- RUT R- Legend IdProjeci LcoafK:�r C R- I - - Prcje fi ot Lima y - L- i City Lin-ik R-1 RUT O C-N I-L I-L — Planned Parcels L- 0- --- R-40 RUT TN- Ir ' - RUT - ----- 40 -C R1 TM- C-C- ~RUT R1 U_7 R RUT I-L RUTS R1� I ri sffl III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Michael Wardle,Brighton Development—2929 W. Navigator Dr. #400,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: SCS Brighton,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr. #400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Brighton 11, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 6 Item 6. F186] DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Investments, Inc. —2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS Investments, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 SCS TM Creek,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 Brighton Land Holdings, LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 2/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 2/23/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 3/4/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS No changes are proposed to the Future Land Use Map(FL UM) or text of the Comprehensive Plan or the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). LAND USE: Approximately half of the property subject to the proposed new Development Agreement(DA) is designated on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan as Commercial with some Medium Density Residential(MDR),Medium High Density Residential(MHDR),High Density Residential (HDR), Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES)and Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM) [see pg. 111 (D-1), Appendix D]. Development of this area is governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and existing DA's. Seepages 3-5 thru 3-9 in the TMISAP for more information on these specific land use designations. Legend fdP 'ea-Loa fun \ I hAixe KeRsiounnul Cmp o ent IuUI Res .0 �� id ntio i n Generolln ustri High. ens' -sidei Page 7 Item 6. 187 Since the adoption of the TMISAP in 2007,there have been substantial changes to the FLUM in this area. In 2012,an amendment to the map was approved for TM Crossing(CPAM-12-001)that changed 30.5-acres of land from Lifestyle Center(LC), 8.5-acres from Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and 40-acres from High Density Employment(HDE)to Commercial with C-G zoning to accommodate a range of uses including office/professional,hospitality and large& small retailers. A market analysis provided by the Applicant at the time deemed another lifestyle center in addition to The Village at Meridian wasn't feasible in such close proximity. Although future development wouldn't be held to the mixed-use guidelines of the Plan, future development was required to comply with the design goals of the Plan through the DA to ensure consistency with the Plan and the overall area. This area has developed with several multi-story professional office and medical office buildings and is still in the development process.Note: The Commercial land use designation is a FL UM designation in the Comprehensive Plan but not in the TMISAP; therefore, there are no specific design guidelines in the Plan for this designation. In 2015, an amendment to the FLUM was approved for Calnon(H-2015-0017)that changed the FLUM designation on 40.06-acres from Medium High Density Residential(MHDR)&High Density Residential(HDR)to Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM) and 15.49-acres from Medium Density Residential(MDR),MHDR and High Density Residential(HDR)to Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES). In the absence of a development plan, a conceptual use plan was approved with the DA for retail, office and service commercial uses within the MU-COM area and office/medium high-density residential uses in the MU-RES area to ensure a mix of uses is provided in this area consistent with the underlying FLUM designations.No development has occurred yet in this area. Most recently in 2019 with the new Comprehensive Plan(Res. #19-2179),the FLUM designation on approximately 62 acres of land on the western half of the Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments)property was changed from Lifestyle Center(LC)to Commercial based on the finding in the previous market analysis that another lifestyle center couldn't be supported in such close proximity to The Village.No development has occurred yet in this area. Conceptual development/use/roadway alignment plans were previously approved with DA's for the land proposed to be governed by one overall new DA that currently govern future development of these areas. TRANSPORTATION: No road improvements are planned adjacent to this site as Ten Mile Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes, curb, gutter and a 7' wide attached temporary asphalt pathway; and Franklin Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site. A traffic signal exists at the S.Vanguard Way/S. Ten Mile Rd. intersection and a signal has been installed through the poles at the W. Franklin Rd./S. Wayfinder Way intersection—ACHD will hang the mast arms when warranted. Conduit was also installed at the New Market Ave. (Benchmark)/Franklin Rd. intersection with the Franklin Road widening project to accommodate installation of a future signal which is required to be constructed through the signal poles and luminaires prior to signature on the final plat. When ACHD determines it's warranted in the future,the District will complete installation of the signal and put it into operation. Construction plans for the extension of S.Wayfinder Ave.between the two roundabouts within the proposed plat were approved by ACHD on May 26, 2020 outside of the subdivision process and the street and detached sidewalks have been constructed. The plans were approved by the City Land Development Division for consistency with City standards pertaining to extension of water& sanitary sewer main lines and street lights but were not reviewed or approved by the Planning Page 8 Item 6. F188] Division and do not comply with the design guidelines for that street section(i.e. "E") as designated on the Street Section Map in the Plan and as required in the existing DA for Ten Mile Center(see Street Design below for more information). Construction plans for the extension of W. Cobalt Ave. from the Wayfinder roundabout to the east edge of the Ten Mile Creek East Apartment project(midway between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark)were approved by ACHD with that project also outside of the subdivision process and the street and detached sidewalk on the north side has been constructed. These plans were also not reviewed or approved by the Planning Division and don't comply with the street section [i.e. "E" (or"D")] desired in the TMISAP for the east/west collector street connection between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark, albeit further to the south (see Street Design below for more information). Approval of S.New Market Ave./Benchmark from Franklin to the south boundary of the site is requested with the proposed preliminary plat. The existing DA for Ten Mile Center requires streets to be constructed consistent with the applicable street section (i.e. "D") as shown on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP (see Street Design below for more information). Street Network(3-17): The Transportation System Map(TSM)included in the TMISAP (pg. 3-18, shown below)depicts collector streets through this site connecting to existing and future collector streets to the north and south. These street locations coincide with the town center collector streets depicted on the Master Street Map(MSM). Roundabouts are also depicted on the TSM at the Cobalt/Wayfinder and Vanguard/Wayfinder intersections,which have been constructed. i 5 s i i i e �r s Two(2)north/south collector streets(S.Wayfinder Way and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark)are depicted on the plat in locations consistent with the TSM and the MSM; Wayfinder was recently constructed.An east/west collector street is not proposed along the southern boundary of the site because a local street(W.Navigator Dr.)was constructed further to the south with development of the adjacent TM Crossing subdivision,which was deemed to meet the intent of the Map and provide the desired east/west connection. An east/west collector street(W. Cobalt Dr.) is proposed and partially constructed through the middle of this site for a connection between Ten Mile and New Market/Benchmark that is not depicted on the TSM or the MSM,which provides more needed connectivity in this area. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile Area and optimize performance of streets, direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. Access to arterial streets should occur via the collector road system. Wayfinder, Cobalt, Vanguard and New Market/Benchmark are all collector streets that provide access via the abutting arterial streets(Ten Mile&Franklin). Two (2) driveway accesses via Franklin Rd. are depicted on the plat—one to the east and one to the west of New Market/Benchmark on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4,Block 4.The conceptual Page 9 Item 6. F189] development plan included in the DA for the Bainbridge Franklin property depicts the eastern driveway access via Franklin; however,the Applicant states this property is no longer planned to develop in that manner.ACHD has not approved either of these accesses and is requiring a traffic analysis be submitted to demonstrate additional driveways are necessary to serve the site. The UDC's 11( 3A-3)intention is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to arterial streets to ensure motorists can safety enter all streets. City Council should determine if a waiver to the standards in UDC 11-3A-3 is appropriate for the proposed driveway accesses in the absence of a conceptual development plan for this area.These accesses are prohibited unless specifically approved by the City and ACHD. Complete Streets(3-19): Streets should be designed to serve all users—motorists,bus riders,bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities. Bicycling and walking facilities should be incorporated into all streets unless exceptional circumstances exists such as roads where bicyclists or pedestrians are prohibited by law,where the costs are excessive,or where there is clearly no need. The following are features that should be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders,crosswalks,refuge medians,bus pullouts, special bus lanes,raised crosswalks,audible pedestrian signals,sidewalk bulb-outs,street furnishings and on-street parking. The street sections depicted on the plat,some of which have already been constructed,incorporate detached sidewalks/pathways,planter strips and bike lanes along all streets; however,many of the other desired elements are not being provided which are integral to the Ten Mile area and the multi-modal options envisioned by the Plan.A VRT bus stop exists at the northwest corner of Vanguard/Wayfinder; other bus stops are anticipated within the development. The Applicant should address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing)what other design features are planned for internal public streets within this development. Street Design(3-20): The TMISAP includes several street section types for specific uses and conditions based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired parking conditions, specific physical conditions,public emergency access, and streetscape character. Streets within the Ten Mile area should be designed and sized to optimize pedestrian comfort and to facilitate slow-moving traffic. It's desirable that lanes on streets be I I feet in width with the exception of those lanes closest to the intersections with Franklin and Ten Mile Roads which can increase to 12 feet from the point of the intersection with the arterial street to the point of the intersection with another street or access point. The Street Section Map(SSM) contained in the TMISAP(pg. 3-22, shown below)depicts specific street section classifications for each of the streets shown on the TSM based on the criteria noted above for the area. These classifications have both a functional and a design-related classification to balance the design considerations for pedestrians and motorists. a R 1 1 � • r4 i Page 10 Item 6. F-19ol The Master Street Map(MSM) guides the right-of-way(ROW) acquisition,collector street requirements and specific roadway features required through development. The MSM designates the collector streets within this site as town center collectors,which are recommended to have(2)travel lanes with a center turn lane,bicycle lanes and on-street parallel parking(if appropriate)within a 60-foot wide street section,a 6-foot wide buffer zone and an 8-foot wide sidewalk within 88 feet of right-of-way(see ACHD's Livable Street Design Guide pg. 21, shown below). The ACHD report states the previously approved street section for Wayfinder& the proposed street section for New Market/Benchmark meet District policy and are consistent with the TMISAP and Town Center Collector street typology as proposed without on-street parking and is approved.However, these street sections are not consistent with the applicable street sections in the TMISAP in that they don't have on-street parking and have reduced pedestrian walkways and/or buffers. 2.6 STREET DESIGN: TOWN CENTER COLLECTOR 1 p fl 1 afiri9Steed mPh 4f dib d.4 T lanes 1 _ {li+ rea onI Travel Lanu❑measons I' -- - - Cmt�e Srium lane 11' y� ❑ ons Pgh1Ti,m Lanes Allowed k,heavy taming movemenlsor homy nuckhafic f _, ! ,1 ,„ Melons ofwianai f Aqq Medan Gpenings rocs 4rrets only Block Length intenccmgmee¢slouldb mm 1han // -� O Sg0'apart,(£dmaximum;m'rl-blonkauh ova { rt uemittedonlyfw inte_ngalleys 4 Bicyrle Lanes optiomal,necesaary when part ofa negonaEplan ky ab• IS'when used] /!/ a' g'6 P, ❑n-Street Parking r5•pamllel WJudes gl—on uft).15•w he pmvtdeddbak=na9lad Curb 6'whh15'gurte'wn Pamper Area Vrninlmum recommerded(—ul.rmne and huh mne dine i ns bd..) Sidewalk S'minimum—mmended f} waikmne and � frentagemne dimensions below) Mid-blockoosungs permdtedonly infiomdci>rtcfaulh- !rrcersx!knn contra sgnats,s!ops,ormundabrwts ge Prd—dEold:ng ednfright-of- Plxemem 'Lighting Standards pedestnan and vehickAmdway r to Pedestrlan Zone r rn:ri:r mrvnire m e 'er novm.Pedmtnen ron. rn°mndrraPmPande,u,an«dPederv. �°ij".• ..ur„ c cl km da..,apml�dolunri°dedo.a nredro!r.edm drevro sr a°• g - ^ea arr>e„a��Naru„d.�aeyna �6yade.Ri x +. a1Qa1w.;,eR�.meero^r^a^,��m.enyntx " ee:yhed;n�i.rclwrbuNe.i�„titdne.andsx¢mm_sl r"'"%.u`"' �Cl.,Zane:7.5' requvcmmbarnzrs;w,cayRwmy/CevebpnwnArevMeaddeiond iwo rZ freeoFrigAe-ef-Hwy—re:nerro rreerlondr,yral;<y. - Buffer Zane:4.5' u i Wal rnrec ne:Tminimuommended Frontage Zone:1'pravides buffer from building, The western north/south collector street,proposed as S. Wayfinder Ave., designated as"B" (minor collector street), extends from a future signalized intersection at W. Franklin Road to the south to Vanguard. The portion north of Cobalt was approved with TM Creek subdivision. Per the Map and as required by the existing DA for Ten Mile Center,this street should have been constructed per the guidelines for Street Section E shown below with two (2)travel lanes,bike lanes, diagonal parking and 12' sidewalks with trees in wells (see pgs.3-21 &3-23 in the TMISAP).However,the street section approved by ACHD and constructed is a standard street section with (2)travel lanes, a center turn lane,bike lanes,8-foot wide planter strips,a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on the west side and an 8-foot wide pathway on the east side with no on-street parking, similar to that of major collector street(i.e. Street Section C,shown below)(see street section from the proposed plat and detail from the proposed design guidelines below).Because of the changes to the FLUM in this area from LC to Commercial and this street providing access to the employment uses to the south, which will likely result in a higher traffic volumes,Staff is in general support of the design as constructed.Minor collector streets in the Plan differ from the MSM's town center collector street in that they don't have a center turn lane and have diagonal instead of parallel parking. Minor collector streets serve as the primary retail streets and are pedestrian-oriented and defined by street-level storefronts. Buildings are built to 12-foot wide sidewalks with street trees in wells and Page 11 Item 6. 991 1 pedestrian-scale lighting. A 5-foot wide dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb;both wet utilities may be located in the street; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Major collector streets provide access from adjacent arterial streets into the employment areas. Buildings on these streets are set back from the street as some distance generally behind a detached sidewalk. The sidewalk may be widened in some cases to extend to the front of commercial retail or higher density residential buildings. P4ddn9 -Urpt LWhrkhq ' Street Seeilon E cu m-curtals12noB `. r line 77'RIGHT-CAR-WAY ;.,.:•Tic-r. zas'c-Tac z' 2' 5'SIGEWALN �D'PLANTER 8'PLAMER-J 5'SIDEWALK J'1 MAN. SLCPE TO E%IS11NG 4 GIN 6'VERTICAL CURB ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND GUTTER.TYP. COMPACTED SUDGRAOE 3/9--M1--5-AGGREGATE BASE 6-MINUS PIT-RUN SUBBASE STREET SECTION: S. WAYFINDER AVE. SCALE: NTS Page 12 Item 6. F192 Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 Label Physical charalteriaks Typical Commercial i� Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street 5ection, Two-Lane+Turn Tree Lawn:8'to 10' Lane+Bike Lanes •Navigator,east of Tree Grate vanguard Abs •Cobdh •New Market Bicycle Lane •Wayfrnder,south D f E of Tenmile Creek E Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard s H M1 s ± Center Landscaped Median Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The eastern north/south collector street proposed as S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave., designated as "D"(residential collector street),will extend from Franklin Rd. to the south boundary of the site and connect to Navigator Dr. in the TM Crossing project. This street should be constructed in accord with the guidelines for Street Section D shown below with two (2)travel lanes,bike lanes,parallel on- street parking(if allowed by ACHD),8' tree-lined parkways and detached sidewalks per the TMISAP and as required by the existing DA's for Ten Mile Center and Calnon(see pgs.3-21 & 3- 23 in the TMISAP). The street section from the proposed plat and a detail from the proposed design guidelines shown below differ from a residential collector street in that there is a center turn lane,wider travel lanes and no on-street parking.ACHD has approved the proposed design; however, Staff does not support the proposed design as it's not consistent with the TMISAP and the existing DA's and therefore,recommends revisions consistent with Street Section D below with on-street parking. ACHD will have to review and approve revised street sections if changes are required to the proposed design—although on-street parking is desired and recommended,ACHD will need to review and determine if it's safe to provide.Staff discussed the discrepancies between the proposed plat and the town center collector in the MSM and Street Section D with ACHD and was told that although the Livable Street Design Guide allows for parking on a collector street it isn't always appropriate in all locations—because we don't know the end users for lots adjacent to these streets (a conceptual development plan or use plan wasn't submitted) it's difficult to determine if on-street parking will be appropriate. Residential collector streets in the Plan differ from the MSM's town center collector street in that they don't have a center turn lane and have a wider buffer zone. Residential collector streets serve the local access needs of residential,live/work,and commercial activities within a residential neighborhood or mixed-use residential area. Buildings on these streets should have limited setbacks behind the sidewalk and a tree lawn should be provided. On-street parking is allowed.A 5-foot dry utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb;both wet utilities may be located in the street; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Page 13 Item 6. 193 r IF or Rr r t, 61 IV 4t V&alel I rKe MWILane WKILane raranel Parking R W lane Padirg S t r e e t S e c t i o n Q C irmo-a rb digance Tq'RIGNT-OF-war 23.5•TBC-CL 23.5'CL-TBC as' +5 3.r AW( 5'SIGEAALK B PLANTER 8•PLANTER IG•SIMEWPLK SLOPE TO IXISTING fi YERTIChL GVRB � ASPHPLT PAVEMENT ANO G4TTER,T1P. GGMPACTm SVGGRP➢E 3�4'-MINl15 CRVSHEG AGGREGATE BASE 6'NINVS PR-RVN Sl1BBASE STREET SECTION: S. NEW MARKET AVE. Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 Label Physical Characteristics Typical Cornrnerclal Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street Section, Two-Lane+Turn , Tree Lawn:8'to 10' Lane+Bike Lanes •Navigator,east of Tree Grate Udnguurd yr ■Cobalt •New Market Bicycle Lane ■Wayfinder,south A B of Tenmile Creek 0 E Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard s r r v n• r r a r Center Landscaped Median Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neither the SSM shown above,nor the MSM, depicts an east/west collector where W. Cobalt Dr. is proposed to extend between Wayfinder and New Market although it does depict such further to the south in alignment with the access via Ten Mile Rd. along the southern boundary of this site which was actually constructed further to the south(i.e.Navigator Dr.) as discussed above. This southern section is designated as a minor collector street("B") on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP and as a town center collector on the MSM. The portion of Cobalt west of Wayfinder is designated as a residential collector street(Street Section D)but was approved to be constructed as a major collector street closely aligning with Street Section C due to residential uses not being planned at that time in that area—since that time,the development plan changed and multi-family residential uses have been constructed along the north side of the street,east of S. Innovation Ln. The extension of Cobalt will provide a connection from Ten Mile between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark,which Staff believes provides much needed connectivity in this area. Residential Page 14 Item 6. F194 uses exist and are planned on the north side of this street between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark with future commercial uses likely on the south side. The section of this street east of TM Creek East Apartments has not yet been constructed but the design has been approved by ACHD with the subject plat. Staff is amenable to the proposed design consistent with that constructed to the west. Street Section C,the street section from the plat and a detail from the proposed design guidelines are shown below. The western portion of Cobalt in front of the TM Creek East apartments project was previously approved as part of ACHD's action on that project and has been constructed. r .. Lew X iane Street Secilon C ta�t~ta� 74'RIGHT-OF-WAY 2, 215'T C-CL 25.5'CL-TRC 5 SIDEWALK �B'PLANTER 5 PIPNTER 5'SIDEWALK S 3:1 To LOPE EkISPINGNG 6'VERTICAL CURB ASPHPLT PAVEMENT AND GUTTER.TYP. COMPACTED SUDGRPIIE 3/4'-MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE%SE 6'MINVs PIT-RUN suBaksF STREET SECTION: W. COBALT DR. Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 IS Label Physical Characteristics Typical Commercial Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street Section, Two-Lane+Turn Lane+Bike Lanes Tree Lawn:8'to 10' •Navigator,east of a _ Tree Grate uonguord •Cobdtt •New Market Bicycle Lane ■Wayfieder,south A B �.. of Tenmrle Creek D Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard s < i Center Landscaped Median G� Parallel Parking Page 15 Item 6. 195 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ South Ten Mile Rd., an existing arterial street along the west boundary of the site,is designated as a modified 4-lane parkway("A") on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes and a wide tree lawn and detached trail should be provided as shown on Street Section A below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and should be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. • w w v NAm9W 1ol.b.N SxiMir..s Nerve Nx► WN-I�d N/ka•6' W trn¢ fml� hM Md Street S e c t i o m A &.„+— (Actual road section under design by ITS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ West Franklin Rd.,an existing arterial street along the north boundary of the site, is designated as a typical 4-lane parkway(`B")on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway edge to provide for a tree lawn and detached sidewalk to provide security to the pedestrian as shown on Street Section B below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. i' fr 4 Tr Tr Y.+� rv�yr w� YaNis Yrlw � ti.W w Street Section 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout consistent with the Plan. Public Art(3-47): Public art with a high quality of design should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes.No public art is proposed. Staff recommends public art is provided in the streetscape and within the development in accord with the guidelines in the TMISAP. Public transit(3-25)—Commercial and employment activity centers need access by multiple modes of transportation and should be pedestrian and transit friendly. Public transit is also important component of Page 16 Item 6. F196 residential developments as it effectively decreases parking needs by reducing the number of cars needed for residents. Transit stops should be designed with shelters for weather protection to patrons;the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center.Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter. Valley Regional Transit(VRT)currently has an intermediate stop at Ten Mile Crossing in its Boise- Nampa service. As the project's employment and residential population grows and more of the internal street systems are completed,the opportunity for expanded transit service will also grow. A bus stop has been provided at the northwest corner of the Vanguard/Wayfinder roundabout in Ten Mile Crossing; more bus stops are anticipated as the businesses and residential population in this area increases. In April 2020,the VRT Board approved a new fixed-route connecting The Village at Meridian and Ten Mile Crossing,which is anticipated to begin service in early 2021. The Applicant's narrative states they will continue to work with VRT on additional bus stop locations in future phases of development as the public transportation system expands. These plans should be shared with the City with each subsequent final plat phase. DESIGN: Development of the area governed by the Plan is required to incorporate design guidelines consistent with those in the Plan as outlined in the Application of the Design Elements table(3-49). These guidelines apply to Architecture and Heritage(3-32), Street Oriented Design(3-33),Buildings to Scale (3-34),Gateways(3-35),Neighborhood Design(3-36),Building Form&Character(3-37), Building Details(3-41), Signs (3-46)and Public Art(3-47). The Applicant proposes alternate design guidelines with this application to supersede those in the Plan. These guidelines are proposed to govern site design and development; landscape and hardscape; architectural design for commercial,mixed-use and multi-family residential structures; signage; and streets and pathways. A text amendment is not proposed to the Plan to exclude this area from the design guidelines in the Plan as recommended by Staff. See Analysis below in Section VI for more information. Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities." (2.02.01A) Pathways are proposed throughout the development along at least one side of internal public streets as shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.F.A pathway is planned with future development to the school site to the east for connectivity and a safe route to the school. A multi-use pathway is Page 17 Item 6. E proposed within the Ten Mile Creek corridor as an amenity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial,industrial and residential areas."(4.05.01D) The Ten Mile creek runs east/west through this site and is proposed to be improved as an amenity corridor with a multi-use pathway. • `Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid- mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B) Collector streets are proposed consistent with the MSM. • "Provide pathways, crosswalks,traffic signals and other improvements that encourage safe,physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists."(5.01.0113) Pathways are proposed within the development per the pathways plan in Section VIII.F. Crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals and other improvements to encourage safety should be considered and provided as appropriate for pedestrians and bicyclists. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) A modification is proposed to terminate all existing Development Agreements(DA's)in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one new master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The existing DA's proposed to be replaced by the new agreement are as follows(links to the agreements are included): ➢ TM Crossing—AZ-I2-005 (Inst. #114002254), 1 st Addendum H-2016-0054(Inst. #2016-062220), 2nd Addendum H-2017-0027 (Inst. #2017-051907); ➢ TM Crossing Expansion—H-2018-0122 (Inst. #2019-011700); ➢ TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015 (Inst. #114045759), 1st Addendum TM Creek East H-2015- 0018 (Inst. #2016-037777),TM Creek Addendum H-2016-0067(Inst. #2016-073497), TM Creek 2nd Addendum H-2017-0124#2017-113747); ➢ Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments)—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); ➢ Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and, ➢ Bainbridge Franklin—H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071) The map below depicts the locations and land area governed by these agreements. Page 18 Item 6. 198 r _ NiCL1?1 RD - r a TM CREEK CALNON BAINBRIDGE .i 5f _ - TEN Mllf tENTfR ML ML ir TM CROSSM f TM Crossing I `— Expansion 1 -R4 ,_ PR4sECT OUTUNE3 ARE GENE RnL ACTUAL AREAS 1A Y VARY These agreements include a variety of provisions for development, including standard UDC requirements and provisions specific to each development—some of which have already been complied with, and conceptual development plans demonstrating how the property was proposed to develop— future development is required to generally comply with those plans. All of these developments were required to comply with the various guidelines and design elements in the TMISAP. Staff has reviewed these agreements and included pertinent provisions from them in the new DA;many of the standard UDC requirements have been removed along with provisions that have already been complied with(see recommended DA provisions in Section IX.A.1). Provisions for development of the overall Ten Mile Crossing area governed by this DA are included as well as specific provisions for each annexation area; a map is included that depicts the boundaries of these areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed DA modification also includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines through the DA to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange SPecific Area Plan (TMISAP)for the overall Ten Mile Crossing development area referred to as the Ten Mile Crossing Design(TMCD) District. These guidelines would be the governing design and development guide for this area and would not apply to any land not included in the Ten Mile Crossing project area. As stated in the Introduction,the purpose of the design guidelines is as follows: to encourage flexibility, innovation and creativity in Ten Mile Crossing's overall design and development that respond to market demand and site specific conditions while enhancing the economic viability and quality of Ten Mile Crossing and the City of Meridian; allow for innovative design solutions that create visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development;provide for the implantation and balance of a variety of uses within the development including viable mixed-use projects; identify and define standards for uses that may offuc in each of the land use categories; create functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost effective provision of public services;provide for the public health, safety, enjoyment,convenience and general welfare, and provide efficient and effective administrative processes. Page 19 Item 6. Fl-991 The proposal establishes an administrative framework for the development process for this area and includes the creation of an in-house design review board("TMCDR Board") and internal design review process prior to application submittals to the City for Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)and Design Review(DR) approval. This Board would forward its decisions to the City for their consideration of all project applications. Staff would review these applications and the decision of the Board; applications found in compliance with the proposed design guidelines would only be subject to CZC approval but not DR approval. Staff would issue Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law(FFCL) and Conditions of Approval of their decision,which would be appealable pursuant to the provisions in UDC 11-5A.Note:FFCL are not issued for administrative actions, only Commission and Council actions. The Applicant's narrative states the two major distinctions between the proposed design guidelines and those in the Plan are the floor area ratios (FAR's)and street standards(see analysis below)—the remainder of the proposed guidelines detail,define and clarify the standards proposed to unify, guide and govern the development of this area.See below for more information on requested deviations from the Plan. As a provision of the new DA,the Applicant also requests approval of an increase in building height to 100-feet in the C-G zoning district to allow for 6-story buildings in this area(see analysis below). Requested Deviations from the TMISAP: • Floor Area Ratio(FAR): Floor area ratios(FAR's) are defined in the TMISAP as the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. FAR's are used as a means for measuring the intensity of a use and are a comparison between the land the building occupies and the floor area in square foot of the space. The minimum FAR's desired in the Plan are based on the FLUM designation and range from 0.75 in MU-RES to 1.00-1.25 in MU-COM designated areas—because the Commercial designation is not included in the TMISAP, there are no minimum FAR guidelines for that designation. In the proposed design guidelines,maximum FAR's are encouraged to the extent possible for the use and building height but a minimum FAR is not specified. This will result in decreased FAR's for this area from what was envisioned in the Plan. Because the FAR goals have been somewhat unrealistic to achieve thus far,Staff agrees a change is appropriate,however, City Council should determine if eliminating the minimum FAR goals entirely is appropriate for this area and is in the best interest of the City. • Street and Streetscape Design: As noted above in Section V,the street sections already approved by ACHD and constructed(i.e. Wayfinder) and proposed(i.e.New Market/Benchmark and Cobalt)are not consistent with the guidelines in the TMISAP for those street section. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are desired in the Ten Mile Area to assist in creating a lively and active street presence with stores and residences fronting on adjacent streets. The portion of Wayfinder north of the Ten Mile Creek does have on- street parking in the planned town center area. Pedestrian pathways are proposed along collector streets, the Ten Mile Creek and the Kennedy Lateral as shown in Section VIILF throughout the development consistent with the Pathways Master Plan forpedestrian walkability and connectivity. The proposed street design with reduced walkway widths, no on-street parking and wider travel lanes will not promote as much of a pedestrian friendly environment as intended for this area as traffic will be flowing faster with the proposed design. On-street parking was desired for this area based on the original FLUM designations and uses and site design anticipated for this area based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired parking,physical conditions and streetscape character. Several changes to the FL UM have been approved since the adoption of the TMISAP as noted above but no changes have been made to the Page 20 Item 6. F200] Street Section Map or the street sections in the Plan. Collectively, these changes—especially the change from lifestyle center to commercial and C-G zoning—will result in more intense commercial development than envisioned and will substantially change the intended character of this area. In the commercial areas along Wayfinder and Cobalt,Staff agrees it's more appropriate(and safer) not to have on-street parking. However, in the residential and mixed-use designated areas along New MarketBenchmark,Staff is of the opinion on-street parking is still appropriate although it's difficult to determine in the absence of a development plan for that area since the type of street sections desired are largely based on the types of uses adjacent to the streets. Refer to Section V Street Design above for Staffs recommendation on streets and streetscape designs. Staff is not supportive of the Applicant's proposal for different design guidelines to apply to this development to supersede those in the Plan through the DA as the whole intent of the goals and guidelines in the Plan is to have a unified design for the overall area governed by the Plan. Because the Applicant requests street sections, streetscape designs and FAR's that differ from those outlined in the Plan and doesn't want to be held to the architectural design guidelines and other guidelines in the governing plan,Staff suggested applying for an amendment to the TMISAP to exclude this area from the Plan. Without an amendment to the Plan, this area is governed by the Plan and can't be superseded by another Plan. The Applicant was not in favor of this option. Another suggestion was to only include certain exceptions to the design guidelines in the Plan through the DA that differ from the Plan and for the Applicant to use the proposed design guidelines internally to ensure consistent design within their development. Since they state the only substantive changes to the Plan are to the street sections,streetscapes and FAR this was Staffs preferred option. The Applicant was not in favor of this option either. As stated above,Staff is of the opinion the design guidelines in the Plan cannot be replaced with another set of design guidelines without an amendment to the Plan allowing this and referencing the other guidelines,or an amendment excluding this area from the Plan. Otherwise, the guidelines in the Plan apply to this area as well as the other areas within the overall Ten Mile Area which ensure unity in the overall Ten Mile Area. Rather than recommending denial of the Applicant's request,Staff recommends approval of an alternative as previously suggested to only include the exceptions to the guidelines in the Plan in the DA.If the guidelines proposed by the Applicant are truly in line with the existing guidelines as stated, notwithstanding the exceptions,this seems to be the simpler option and one that doesn't conflict with the current Plan.Note:Staff has not compared the established design guidelines in the Plan to those proposed by the Applicant to verify they align, notwithstanding the exceptions requested. Staff requested the Applicant include the differences between the two sets of guidelines in their application for transparency in what was actually being requested(Le. how they differed) but they did not do so. If Council is in favor of the proposed design guidelines,Staff recommends an application is submitted to amend the TMISAP to allow this area to be excepted from the existing Plan or for a reference to be included to these design guidelines for this area. Requested deviation from the dimensional standard for maximum building height listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district: • The maximum building height allowed in the C-G zoning district is 65-feet. Additional height not to exceed 20%of the maximum height allowed in the district may be approved by the Director through the alternative compliance procedures set forth in UDC 11-5B-5—additional height shall be allowed Page 21 Item 6. F201] when the development provides 10%of the building square feet in open space, courtyards,patios, or other usable outdoor space available for the employees and/or patrons of the structure, excluding required setbacks and landscape buffers per UDC I I-2B-3A.3d. Additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed in the district or when additional height is requested without providing the required open space in accord with UDC I I-2B-3A.3d requires approval through a conditional use permit,per UDC 11-2B-3A.3e. Because the TMISAP encourages taller buildings and greater FAR's and the UDC standards hinder this goal, Staff is supportive of allowing an increase in the maximum building height up to 100 feet in the C-G zoning district through the new DA without further application. B. REZONE(RZ) The Applicant requests a rezone of 40.98-acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district; 0.65-acre from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; and 0.53-acre from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. A conceptual development plan was not submitted with this application for the areas proposed to be rezoned as is typical for such requests. The smaller areas proposed to be rezoned to C-G will"clean-up"the zoning in this area where it's irregular and doesn't follow parcel lines and/or proposed streets. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-40 south of the Ten Mile Creek will be an extension of the R-40 zoning that exists to the west and will allow for the development of additional multi-family residential uses with conditional use permit approval. The proposed zoning and use is consistent with the underlying Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES)FLUM designation; the target density for this designation is 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The FLUM designation of the abutting property to the west is High- Density Residential(HDR)which also allows for multi-family residential uses at a target density of 16- 25 dwelling units per acre. FLUM designations are not parcel specific and an adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application,may be used. Because the HDR designation allows for a higher density, Staff recommends this designation apply to future development of this property since the density will likely be higher than 12 units per acre if apartments are developed on the site similar to those to the west(i.e. TM Creek East Apartments). Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing DA's for Ten Mile Center and Calnon referenced above; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects other than a conceptual street layout for the Ten Mile Center property. In the absence of a conceptual development plan,to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category(i.e. commercial,residential,employment)are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation,Staff recommends a conceptual use plan (i.e.bubble plan)is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions.Note:An existing and future development map is included in the proposed design guidelines on pg. 6 that could be further defined to accomplish this. The larger area to be rezoned to C-G between W.Franklin Rd. and the Ten Mile Creek is designated on the FLUM as mostly Mixed-Use Commercial(MU-COM)with approximately a quarter of the area on the west end as High Density Residential(HDR). As noted above,because the FLUM is not parcel specific and allows for abutting designations to govern, Staff recommends the abutting MU-COM designation to the east apply and govern future development of the western portion of this site. The proposed C-G zoning district is listed as an appropriate zoning choice in the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix in the TMISAP for the MU-COM designation. The MU-COM designation allows for a variety of uses including: commercial,vertically integrated residential,live-work, employment, entertainment, office, and multi-family. Allowed uses in the C-G district are listed in UDC Table 11-2B- 2. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing Development Agreements Page 22 Item 6. F202] for TM Creek East and Calnon referenced above; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects. In the absence of a conceptual development plan,to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category(i.e.commercial,residential,employment) are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation,Staff recommends a conceptual use plan (i.e.bubble plan)is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions. C. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 83 [74 commercial and 9 high-density residential (Lots 16-24, Block 3)] buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. The plat is conceptually proposed to develop in six phases. Phase 1 consisting of multi-family apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16, Block 3 is currently under construction and almost completed; no development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase 2 commenced last year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts. The development of Phases 3-6 may vary in area and sequence based on product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor which includes a 10-foot wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system on one side and the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District's (NMID)maintenance road on the other side(Lot 15,Block 3); and the relocated Von Lateral, which will be deeded to NMID (Lot 1,Block 4). Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. West Cobalt Dr. has been extended from the roundabout at Wayfinder to the east boundary of the TM Creek East apartments project and S. Wayfinder Ave. has been extended between the roundabouts at W. Cobalt Dr. and S.Vanguard Way but the design of these streets was not approved with a subdivision plat and are not consistent with the street sections designated on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP however,they do compy with ACHD standards. South Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Rd. and the roundabout at the southwest corner of the site was approved and constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables I1-2A-8(R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-G) and 11-2D-5(TN-C), as applicable. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Previous projects (i.e. TM Crossing and TM Creek subdivisions)in this area established accesses via S. Ten Mile Rd. (i.e. Cobalt and Vanguard)and W. Franklin Rd. (Wayfinder) and collector streets consistent with the TSM in the TMISAP and the MSM.A new street access via W. Franklin Rd. and collector street(New Market/Benchmark) is proposed with this plat to the east of Wayfinder consistent with the TSM and the MSM,which will align with the segment of New Market/Benchmark to be constructed to the south in TM Crossing Subdivision. As mentioned above,S.Wayfinder Ave.between the two roundabouts at Cobalt and Vanguard was constructed last year outside of the subdivision process.Although the proposed access points and road alignments are consistent with the TSM and the MSM,the street sections constructed for Wayfinder between the roundabouts and the proposed New Market/Benchmark are not consistent with the Street Section Map in the TMISAP as discussed in Sections V and VLA above. Staff recommends New Market/Benchmark is constructed with on-street parking(if deemed safe and acceptable to ACHD) consistent with Street Section D in the Plan. Two(2) driveway accesses are depicted on the plat via W.Franklin Rd. on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4, Block 4. The access on Lot 4,Block 4 was previously conceptually approved with the Bainbridge Page 23 Item 6. F203] Franklin annexation by the City(DA provision#1.1.1i)and ACHD(Site Specific condition#B.1) as a temporary full access which may be restricted to a right-in/right-out at any time as determined by ACHD —other than this access, all other access via Franklin on the Bainbridge Franklin site was prohibited. Per the guidelines in the TMISAP for Street Section B (pg.3-22) and access control(pg.3-17),access should be restricted to collector streets. The(UDC 11-3A-3) also limits access points to arterial streets. City Council approval of the proposed driveway access on Lot 4,Block 3 is required; ACHD has required a traffic analysis to be submitted for these accesses to demonstrate that additional driveways are necessary to service the site.Both the City and ACHD have to approve these accesses in order for access to be granted and driveways constructed. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be granted via a note on the plat between all non-residential lots and to the parcel to the east [#R8580480020 (now#R8580500100),Twelve Oaks)per requirement of the existing DA for Bainbridge Franklin in accord with UDC 11-3A- 3A.2.A note should also be placed on the plat that direct lot access via S.Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. and the internal collector streets is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system on this site as follows: on-street within the street buffer along Ten Mile Rd., along the Ten Mile Creek corridor and along New Market Ave. Multi-use pathways are required to be 10-feet wide within a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement with landscaping on either side per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A pathways plan was submitted by the Applicant, included in Section VIII.F that depicts 8-to 10-foot wide pathways throughout this site and the adjacent properties owned by the same developer consistent with the PMP totaling 3.5 miles of pathways. These pathways connect to the City's multi-use pathways and provide a pedestrian connection to the school site to the east. Pathways and associated landscaping should be depicted on a revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat(s)in accord with UDC standards and the Pathways Master Plan as recommended by the Park's Dept. Sidewalks(UDC I1-3A-17): The UDC(11-3A-17)requires minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets. In the Ten Mile area, the design guidelines call for wider sidewalks ranging from 6 to 12 feet depending on the street section classification. Because 5-foot wide detached sidewalks have already been provided in many areas within the site, Staff is amenable to continuing this minimum width with 8-to 10-foot wide pathways provided in locations consistent with the pathway plan in Section VIII.F. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways should be provided as shown on the applicable street sections in the TMISAP for the street classification as noted above in Section V. Landscaping shall be provided in the parkways consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Ten Mile Rd.,an entryway corridor; a 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street; and 20-foot wide street buffers are required along collector streets, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The design guidelines in the TMISAP also require landscape buffers based on the street classification and the applicable street section. Staff recommends minimum street buffers are provided in accord with UDC standards,except for along S.Ten Mile Rd.,classified as Street Section A in the TMISAP, which requires a 50-foot wide street buffer so that pedestrian walkways and buildings are setback a safe distance from the street. Page 24 Item 6. ■ Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3U�: Common open space and site amenities are required to be provided in residential developments in residential districts of five acres or more in size per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. Although a portion of this site is planned to develop with residential uses in the future,no development is proposed with this application. Future development should comply with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3,as applicable. As mentioned above, 3.5 miles of pathways are proposed in the area shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.0 as an amenity for this development. Fencing(UDC I1-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Waterways: The Kennedy Lateral and the Ten Mile Creek run east/west across this site and the Von Lateral runs across the northeast corner of the site. The Ten Mile Creek lies within a 100-foot wide easement in Lot 15,Block 3 and is a natural waterway; as such, it should remain as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered and be improved with the development and protected during construction in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. A maintenance road exists for NMID on the north side of the creek and a multi-use pathway is planned on the south side of the creek. The Kennedy Lateral lies within a 55-foot wide easement and is required to be piped unless left open and improved as a water amenity or linear open space. The Von Lateral lies within a 40-foot wide easement and is proposed to be relocated along Franklin Rd. in Lot 1, Block 4 and deeded to NMID. Floodplain: A portion of this site along the Ten Mile Creek is located within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring with the Overlay District,the Applicant is required to submit,and the City shall review and approve, a floodplain development application which includes the necessary analysis and documents under MCC Title 10, Chapter 6,including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances and the TMISAP. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18 : An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP The Applicant submitted pictures/renderings of 14 existing and approved buildings at TM Crossing: commercial,office,retail and residential structures including multi-story office buildings; single-story commercial structures (medical,hospice,gym,restaurant and food service,retail, auto service); and the first two multi-family projects (see Section VIII.G). The design of future buildings in this development shall incorporate design elements that are generally consistent with those in the"typical"elevations shown in Section VIII.G. Final design of Page 25 Item 6. F205] structures in this development is required to comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual,notwithstanding the exceptions approved with this application and included in the DA. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested modification to replace all existing Development Agreements with a new agreement for the overall Ten Mile Crossing development per the provisions in Section IX.A.1; approval of the proposed rezone in accord with the Findings in Section X; and approval of the proposed preliminary plat per the conditions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 26 Item 6. F206] VIII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description of Property Subject to New Development Agreement &a" ENGIIJ2ERIAG October 9,2020 Ten Mile Crossing Sub-Area Protect No-19.105 Legal Descriptlon Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of SeEtion 14,Tawnship 3 Narth,Range 1 west,B.M..City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more perticuIarlydescribed as follows: Conarnencing at the northwest torner of sa Id Section 14,which bears NST0977"W from the north 1/4 corner 4�f said Sectlon 14,thence following the northe-rly line of Bald 5ecllon 14,S89"09'27"E a distance of 74A6 feet: Thence leaving said mrU*rly line,5W50'3rVV a distance of 72.W feet to the southerly ri pt•of-way line of W.FranklIn Rd.and the subdimsian baundaryof TM Creek Subdivision No-2 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence fallowing said southerly right-of-way line and said subdivisio n bou ndary,the fokowing twelve courses: 1_ 589°09'27"E a distance of 176AS feet 2. S)MY33"W a distance ofl0_39feet 3_ S89°09'27E a distance of 70.OD Feet; 4- NO0°50 WE a distance of 10,00 feet; 5_ SW09'27"E a distance of 44.37 feet; fi_ N88°23'22"E a distance of 9.64 feet 7. S)(r5dY33"W a distance of 7.41 feet 8_ S89°09'27"E a distance of 61,72 feet; 9. S84`34'43"E ad istanoE of 11353 feet;; 10, 5S8'42'21"E a distance of IZS-76 feet; 11, N84°21'40E a distance of 94.58 feet; 12, N87°31YWE a distance 4f 18aco feet to the subdivision boundary of TM CreeCSubdVision No_4; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.2 and following said southerly right-cf- way line and said subdivision houndary of TM Cme k Su bdivision No-4 the following four-courses; 1. S&r19'54"E a dlstanoe of 144-49 feet; 2_ %9"0553"E a distance of 15814 feet, 3. N00°35't E a distance of 12_05 feet; 4_ S$9`09'27"E a distance of 75.09 feet; Thence leaving said southedy right-of-way line and fallowing said subdivesion boundary the Following twp Courses, 1_ S00'34'31"W a distance of 18,00 feet; 2. 56"9'27"E a distance of 249M feet; 9233 West State Street ■ Boise,Idaho 83714 - MS.639.6939 • kmensllp.w(n Page 27 Item 6. F 07 The rice leaving said subdivision boundary,589*09'27"E a distance of 1,079.97 feed; The nre SW13'12"E a distance of 467.21 feet Thence N0011'S3"E a-distance of 1.93 feet; Thence 19.44 Feet along the art of a dreu ar cu rve to the left,said curve having a radius of 60,00 feet,a delta angle of 18'054",a chord hearing of N09 05'04"VN and a dhord distance of 19.36 feet to the said sout4edy right-af-ray lire-, Thence follo% ingsaid southerly right-of--way line the Fallowing three courses; 1. 589'13'12"E a distance of 322-98 feet; 2. N04 W27"E a distance of 20.E Feet; 3. 589"13'12"E a distance of 542-M feet to the easterly line of the Northwest IA of the Norlwast V4 of said Section 14, Thence following said easterly line,900'3T27A W a distance of 1,280-5a fleet tr}the southeast co rner of sold Northwest 114 ofTW Northmt 114(northkeast corner ofthe Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4); Thence leaving said easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and following the easterly Ilne of said Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4,50WW20"W a distance of 1,038.11 feed; Thence leaving said easterly line,N8T12'39'W a distance of 450-OD feet; Thence SDX34'20"tiN a distance of 290.40 feet to the southerly line of mid 5outl-ramst V4ofthe Northeast V4; Thence following said southerly fine,N89'12'39"W a distance of 979.80 feet to the center of Said Sectiork 14 (northwest corner of Prim rose 5ubdivisi❑n); Thence leaving said southerly line and folbaving the easterly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 14 {westerly line of w id Primrose Subdivision),5OD'W29"W a distance of 887.73 feet to the northwest corner of the"Pu bHc use Area"lot on said Primrose Subdivision, Thence leaving said easterly line(westerly line of said Primrose Subdivision)a nd fol lowing the northerly One of said"Public Use Area"lot,5BV11'48"E a distance of 165.98 feet to the mr theast corner of said lot' Thence leaving said northerly line and fo Illowing the easterly line of sa id lot,500"32`58"w a d Istance of 440.52 feet to the southeast corner-of said lot; Thence leaving said easterly line and following said southerly line,N89*1_W0CffW a distancs of 166.30 feet to the southwest corner of said lot on the easterly line of said Southwest 1/4 of said Section 14; Thence leaving said southerly line a rid fol kyWirlg said eawberfy line(also the subdivision boundary of TM Crossi rkg Subdivision No-4),W0'35'29"W a distance of 15.90 feet to t he northerly right-of-way line of Interstate 94; Thence Following the northerly right-&- ray llne and said subdivision boundary,N89'34'11"W a distarke of 396.68 feet to the subdivision bo undary c f TIMi Crossi ng 5ubd ivision No.2; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Crossing Subdivision No-4 and following laid northerly*ht- of-way line and said 5ubd Ivlslan bounds r}'of TM Crossing Subdivision No.2 the fol lowing eight coursm: 1, NST34'11"W a distance of 104.E 1 feet; 2. N81'01`41"W a distance of 83.12 feet; 3. N8Y34'09'W a distance of 670.&D feet; 4. N04`25`51"Eadlstanceof25.0a�eet; S- NS543.4'09'Wadistanceof110t-Dfeet; 6. 9I 4'25'51'w a distance of 15-00 feet; 7- N81419'01"Wadistanceof 421.C7fee% 9. N8283.'3(rWa dlstanceof185.92 feet tuthe subdivIsion boundaryofTM CrossirkZSubdivision No-3; PAGE 12 Page 28 Item 6. F 08 Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Crossing No-2 and fallowing said northerly rat-of-way line a nd se Id Su bdivislon Boundary of TM Crazing Su bdivision No.3 the fol lowing four naurses- 1_ N82'3e30"1N a distarrte of 394.97 fee[; 2, N73°5S'0' W a distance of V14.00 feet; 3. N46°58'42"1N a distance of 1fi6,76 feet 4- N12'05'53"W a 04tance of 92-20 feet to the easterly right-cf-way line of&Teri Mile Rd.; Thence leaving said northerly right-of-uaf I ine,and following said easterly rot-of-way line and said subdivision boundary, NOV31`49"W a distance of 71.15 feet to the subdivision boundary of7M Cmuling Su bdiVISE01M; Thence leaving said subdlvlsion boundary of TM Crossing Subdivis ib n No.3 and following said easterly right-of- wayEwa nd!aid subdivision boundary of TM Crossing Subdivlsion the following three cau rsesr 1. N01°31'49"W a sllstance of 396-89 feet; 2- N&T42'58'W a distance of 4.00 Beet; 3. N00"30'02"E a d ista nce of 456.76 feet Thence leaving sald subdivision houndarw and following said easterly right-of-way line the fol lowing sox oaurses: 1, S89°11'30"E a distance of 35-18 ie� 2. NQ0 3f34"E a distance of 236-38 feer, 3, N89'24V2- ' 4+a d ista nce of 46.03 feet; 4. PA Y33"E a dlsta nce of 1,W27 feet 5- 589°2627"E a distance of 12.95 feed; 6, Ni03¢39'37"E a di nce of 39-28 Feet to the subdivision boundary of TM Cr k-5Ubd iwision No.1; Thence Wowing said easterly right-of-way llne and salid subdivision boundary the following twelve courses: 1. NOY3917"E a distance of 20-72 Feet; 2_ N86°20'23"W a dicta rrte of 16.21 feet; 3. N00°33'51"E a drstance of 4-41 feet; 4_ N1G°47'07"E a distance bf43.38 feet S. N53°31'44E a distance of 54-14 Faet; 6- NO3°31'44E a distance of 66.88 Feet; 7. N49°2627"1N a distance of 43-98 feet; 8- NO3°39'37"E a distance af45,01 feet; 9. N01°43'37"W a distance of 132.83 feet; 10. 19.74feet along the arc of a clrmlarcurve to the left,said curve having a radius of 7,272.00 feet,a delta angle Of WW2Cr a chord bearing on NO2°SS'SS"Z and a chord distance of 19.74 feet; 11. N89'41'52"E a distance of 4.35 feet; 12, NQO°33'33"t=a distance of 529.0�feet td the subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.2; PAGE 3 Page 29 Item 6. F 09 Thence leaving Bald subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.land folhawing said easterly right-of- way Gne and said subdivision boundary M TM Creek Subd Ivisiorr No.2 the follo W ng fou r courses, 3, NOnY33"E a distance of 123.31 feet; 2. 7'3731"E a distance of 80,50 feet; 3, NonjWrEa distance of IMD&feet 4. N45,0g55,rE a distance 023,06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNI+iG. Said description contains a teal of 307,?2 acres,more or less. w �, 14 v O'F � Cam • . �� PAGE 14 Page 30 Item 6. F210] +� 3M9.97 48721 3ttn 342.00 1 s � f 10 it ii �7 la iK wvmr� � 4B9'1313'E se9�a9'x��� se9'1s'1z-� 3 4 434.DI3 x � g79-AD ti v9 ; F � m sv h SS G8 b � � ii 41 � Y n - � 421.07 .8F'3-0n4 „ 31 31 vrau-x 67D'M 79hp Leg-end Project Lucafian F OF r � a � � Page 31 Item 6. F 11 B. Rezone Legal Descriptions&Exhibit Maps 9233 WEST STATE STREET I EICFISE,Ib 83714 1 208,639-6439 1 FAX 2p8.639.6930 October2l,2020 Project No.19-105 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to C-G(North) TM Center Subdivision A parcel of land situated in portion of the Nar'theast 1/4 of the Northwest 1f4 and a portionflf the Northwest 1�4of the Northeast 1/4 afSection 14,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,B.M.,City of Merid[an,Ada County,Idaho and being more particuiarly described as follows, Cam mencirig at a found brass rap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 14,thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 14,589'09'27"E a distance of 1,577,99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence$89'09'27"E a distance of 1,17 C.00 feet taa found aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 oomer of said Section 14; Thence leaving said northerly line and fallowing the northerly tine of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 14,S89'13'12"E a distancee of 786-9C feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,500'34'27W a distance of 234-00 feet to a paint; Thence 576'26'39"E a distance of 556.22 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, Thence fallowing said easterly line,SOW34'20"W a distancee of 459 40 feet to a point on the Centerline of Ten mile Ora In; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the centerline of Ten Male Drain,575,31'34"W a distance of 180.64 feet to a point; Thence 96.67 feet along the arc of a clrcu[ar curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 286-50 feet, a delta angle of 19'20'CC',a chord bearing of S85'11'34"W and a chord distance of 96.22 feet to a point; Thence N85"09'26"W a distance of 1.677.56 feet tDa paint; Thence 589'2 8'2Cr W a distance of 455.90 feet to a point on the easterty boundary of TM Creek SeWivisian No.4(Rook 117 of Plats,Pages 17944-17947,records of Ada County,Idaho); Thence leaving said Centerline and fallowing the easterly boundary oFsaid TM Creek Subdivision N0.4, NOX34'31"E a distance of 765.77 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said pa reel contains a total of 40.98Z acres,more or less. AWrhed hereto is Exhibit 0 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. a 1 459 ¢ OF % ENG VEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS Page 32 Item 6. F 12 0 O O z U L L m 0 500 1000 1500 a✓ a O Plan Scale: 1"y 500' Z a POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP FOUND BRASS CAP E 1/16 CORNER SECTION 14 (j ,7 f0 NW CORNER SECTION 14 -0 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP O BASIS OF BARING N 1/4 CORNER SECTION 14 SB9•D9'27"E 2657,99' C �514 W. Franklin Rd, S89'13'12"E S89'13'12"E SB@'13'12 E 11 1201 1577.99'F 1O8O.DO' Qj a7 Z cPOINT OF 7EL6.9O' S42.00' 1328.90' 14 13 Q1 s F SOD 34'27"W N00'3d'20"f= d wBEGINNING Rezone Area:40.984+'AC I L3 0 234.00' z—r 357.00' CO a 1 Parcels 51214212459,51214212580,51214121134,51214120710&51214124805 51214z12622,a portion of S[5 2$'39"E `—� S1214212742&51214121172 556.22' I X Ln U Current Zoning:R-40&C-C 500'34'20"w LU a ° S89'28'26'W PropasiM Zoning:C-G 459.40' ti a 465.90' � w N85'U8'2$"yy 3 z I 7677.5$' I° s CENTERLINE OF ¢ +• TEN }BILE FJRAIN S75'31'34W 180.64' DATE: OCtcb,'Z020 PROJECT: 19.105 SHEET: - - - IOF1 FOUND 5/8" REBAR NE 1116 CORNER SECTION 14 CURVE TABLE km CURVE RA61U5 LENGTH DELTA CHORD SRG CHORD C3 286.50' 96.67' 1920'00" SB611'34"W 96.22' ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS.PLANNERS 9233 WEST SPATE STREET BOISE,IDAHO 93714 PHONE I7061 639.6939 FAX(tp$I639-6930 Page 33 Item 6. F 13 km92B WEST STATE STREET I DDISE,083714 1 208.539.6935 1 FAX205,639-6930 February 16,2021 Project No.1�)-105 Exhibit A Legal Descrip#lon for Rezone to R-40 TM CenterSubdivislon A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the we5C 1f 2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14,Township 3 North,Range I We4 f3.M.,City of Meridian,Ada Gavnty, Idaho and being more particulariydescribed asfoIlows: Commencing at a found brass cap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 14,thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1J40l9a14 Section 14,589°09'27"E a distance of 2,657.99 feet tDa found aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 14; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1f4 of said Section 14,WT3Y31"W a distance of 797.76fee=t to a paint on the centerline of Ten Mile Drain; Thence leaving said easterly line and loIlowing said centerline,S85'0926"E a distance of 81.87 feet to the POINT OF REGtNNING. Thence fallowing said centerline,585`08'26"E a distance of 246-53 feet, Thence leaving said Centerline,!4W52'53" a distance of 53.54 feet; Thence 194.95 feet along the arC of a circular Curve to the rtht,Said Curve having a radius of 46100 feet,a delta angle of 24'13 44",a chard bearing of S16°59'46"W and a chord distance of 193.5D feet; Thence 529'OG1 'W a distance of 39152 feet; Thence 416-98 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,seW curve having a radius 43f 1,{]00,00 feet,a delta angle of23'5r2V,a chard bearing of N77'14'a3"wand achord distance of413-96feet to the southerly line of said East 1/2of tie Northwest 1/4; Thence following said southerly line,589*10'36"E a distance of 232.35 feet Thence leaving said southerly line,NCr49'30"E a dJs#ance of 99,70 feet; Thence 4.69.81 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the rlght seld curve having a radios of WJDO feet,a delta angle of 44'51'4}",a chord bearing of NZ2'03rli and a chord distance of 457.90 feet to the POINT QF amNNIHa The above-described rezone parcel description contains a total of 3.895 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit l3 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. 12459 RNGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 34 Item 6. F 14 0 N ❑ 300 600 900 r Plan Scale:1"-300' 10 11 BASIS OF BEARING W`Franklin Rd. 589'C9'27'E 2657.99' ' — — — .� — 589'13'12"E 2657.79' 11 12 'ET � o 15 14 14 13 •b � [ACL POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 4-1 0 `0 s I FOUND BRASS CAP r_ -6 m NW CORNER SECTION 14 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP _ N 7�4 CORNER SECTION 14 0 v m —Z P, N 2 v = cn C m US Y M }' U O N � a CENTERLINE OF TEN MILE DRAIN N -` w o POINT OF L U m i BEGINNING n O q S8S'08'28"E V Rezone Area:3.895±AC S85'08'26"E 24s•53' Portion of S1214121172 81.87' (TIE) S0452'53"W a r 51214121133&S1214233668� c 63.54' Current Zoning:C-G&TN-C I ate; xtar arvmii Proposed Zoning;R�0 PROfECr: 19-105 NDO'49'30'E I SHEET: HEET; 589'10'36"E �� 1 OF 1 232.36' 00' CURVE TABLE C2 LEGEND CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD 8RG CHORD C1 461.00' 194.95' 2413'44" S16'59'46"W 193.50' FOUND BRASS CAPFOUND ALUMINUM CAP C2 1000.00' 416.98' 23'53'28" N77'14'C3"W 413.96' CALCULATED POINT EMGrREERS-SURVEYOR5.RIAMM* 9231 WEST 5TATE 57REEr C3 600.00' 469.81' 4-051'49" N2238'33"E 457.90' REZONE BOUNDARY ANSE,10-0 U714 PMOKE 4w)639 6939 — — — — —SECTION LINE FAX (2 081 539493 0 Page 35 Item 6. F 15 !9m 9233 WEST STATE STREET I B015E,ID 83714 I 208.639.6939 J FAX Z08.639-6930 February 16,2021 Project No-19-W5 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezorse to C-x{S❑Lahl TM Center Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the South 112 of the Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the Southwest 114 of the Northea5t 1f4 erf Section 14,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,S.M.,City of Merldian,Ada County, Idaho end being more particularly described as follows, Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the center of said Section 14,which hears S89*11'30"E a distance of 2,656.47 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the West 1/4 corner of sal€ Section 14; Thence fallowing the southerly IIne o=said South 1/2 of the Northwest 114, N89'1J'3Y'W a distance of 49.56 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1. Thence fallowing said southerly liner NPV11'30"W a distance of 50,18 feet; Thence leaving said southerly line, NCp48'30"E a distance of 172:47 feet; Thence 131.03 feet a long the a rc of a cirtula r cu rve to the left,said curve having a rod I us of 200-00 feetr a de Ita 2 ngle of 37'32'15",a chord be acing of N 17'57'36"W and a chord distance of 128.70 feet; Thence N3643'42'W a distance of 53.27 feet; Thence 57.88 feet along the arc of a cirrular curve to the lefk,said curve having a red lus of 300,00 feet,a delta angle of 11"03'15u a chord bearEng of N47�44'4VE and a chord distance of 57.79 feet; Thence 141.85 feet along the arr of a torn pound curve to the left,said curve having 8 radius of 500-00 feet,a delta angle of 145°15116",a chord bearing of N34*05'26"E and a chord distance of 141,37 feet to a paint hereinafter referred to as POINT"A"; Thence 500'1W58" a distance of 494.23 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1. The abave-described rezone parcel description contains a total of 0,654 acres,more or less. TOGETHER VATH Commencing at a paint previously referred to as POINT"A",Thence N00'18'58E a distance of 262-00 feet; Thence 271.76 feet along the art of a d rcula r curve to the right,sa id curve having rt rad ius of 926.00 feet,a delta angle of 16WF540,a chord bewaring of NG8*43'25"E and a chord distance of 270,79 feet to MNT OF BEGINNING 2. Thence 128.39 feet along the arc of a dreular Curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 500-DO feel;, a delta angle of 14'4245",a chord bearing of N19*19'30"W and a chard distance of 128.04 feet Thenre 144.04 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 27'30'34",a chard bearing of NIZ'55'37-W and a chord dJsta ice of 142,66 Feet; Thence N0'49'34"E a distance of 17.95 feet; Whence 182-49 feet along the are of a circular curve to the right,said curve having c radius of 1,000.00 feet,a delta angle of 10`2720",a chord bearing ofS70"3U'590E and a chord distance of 192.23 feet; Thence S29"06'3guV+a distance of 44.98 feet; fNGINVERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 36 Item 6. F 16 Thence 103.61 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said cures heaving a radius of 926.00 feet, a delta angle of 11'58'45',a chord hearing of 521'fl7'15,W and a chord diStanCE of 193.25 Feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2. The shave-described rezone parcel cescrlption oantains a total of 0.533 acres, more 0r less_ The total rezone description contains a total of 1.187 acres,more or less- Attached hereto is Exhi4it 9 and by this reference is hereby made a part of S ... 1 4 PAGE 12 Page 37 Item 6. F 17 2 o (U TM Creek Sub.No.3 3 0 _ u T NW 1/16 CORNER L 3 SECTION 14 W. m — Cobdlt pr ui .�Q.. C p a a N 1116 CORNER Rezone Area:0.533±AC c� SECTIONS 14 & 15 Parcel S1214233668 L5 m Current Zoning:TN- Proposed Zoning:C-G c Lf) N POINT OF N ++ z BEGINNING 2 C4 (TIE) r °^ QS Parcel51214233568 Current Zoning: C-G N00'18'S8"E CC POINT "A" m �, LE t vl S. C2 X o a "guard Way soviWs "w LL o Rezone Area:0.654±AC 494.23' r Parcel51214233668 a z Current Zoning:R-8&TN{ N89'11'30'W Proposed Zoning:C-G 48.58' (TIE) _ DAIE', February Mi 989'11'30"E 2656-h7' L7 PMaEa: xs-ws TM Crossing Sub,No,1 BASIS OF BEARING SHEET: POINT OF 1 r BEGINNING 1 1 OF 2 FOUND ALUMINLIM CAP W 1/4 CORNER SECTION 14 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP CENTER OF SECTION 14 LEGEND IS ALUMINUM CAP A CALCULATED POINT REZONE BOUNDARY McNEE119_sUWMRS.HANKERS 0 W� $� 1200 — —SECTION LINE 9233 WEST STATE MEET+Y flam'I�INowu P Ian Scale:1"=400' P FAX i203116I9i M 9 o a ar _ � u 0 o O m o a CURVE TABLE a m g CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD 9RG CHORD a C1 200.00' 131-03' 3732'15" N1757'36"W 128.70' m C2 300.00' 57.88' 11'03'15" N4744'4l"E 57,79' CA 3 O ` 3 C3 500.00' 141.85' 16'15'16' N34'05'26"E 141.37' 0.1 C4 926.00' 271.76' 15`48'54" N8'43'25'E 270.79' s U C5 500.00' 128.39' 14'42'45' N19'19'30'W 128.04' U C6 300.00' 144.04' 2730'34" N1255'37'W 142.66' r o C7 1000.00' 182.49' 10127'20" S70'3o'59"E 182.23' L cs 1826.00' 19161' 11-58'46" S23-07.15-W 193.25' w ° `o `o z LINE TABLE q s LINE BEARING DISTANCE .. L1 N89'11'30'W 50.18 Fl6." MI>sTos L2 N948'30"E 172.47 SHEET: L3 N3943'42W 53.27 2OF2 L4 N949'30"E 17,95 L5 S29'06'38'W 44.98 FMGIMEEMS UWEY0M,PIANNERS W bpISF,roAM0831w� RFnE Ixbai a%ei3s AK1x98163Rb930 Page 38 Item 6. F218] C. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/29/2020) and Conceptual Phasing Plan TM CENTER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT ngXnM 1' A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 114 AND A PORTION OF THE WEST 112 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SEMEN 14,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANG E I WEST, - BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,2020 P 0 0 0 0 Q) ® 0 ca 0 o o - .ry TMCENTER SUED-1 ION 'H111% MERIDIAN,IDAHO vE o _ t �-' - TNFaN RSDBDIY15MN '^ MERIDIAN,ID Page 39 Item 6. F 19 — b- ------------------------ 1PA�ME0.5U0.DDIL4ON MERIDIAN,4DAHD mm PPl.2 ---- ---- -- —__ _ v u MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP2.1 ~����A as • .... TM CENTER SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN,IDAHO nry."''um.,m-�•Jc�wm.,.wnm nvT u�i®Wmm rw ms jtkm EA�PP2.O.m Page 40 Item 6. F 20 MATCH LINE-SEE SHHEE7 PP2._-_ _�_ ram" ------ La TMCENTERSUILDIVISION MERIDIAN,IDAHO ..�PP2.] „O O OO .O p�— 0„ � �O O� p o cl © ® O 0 'i o ,m MATCH LINE SEE SHEET PP3.1__ _-_- -r►r -_--psPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTES .�• _ STREET SECTION:S.NEW MARKET AVE. -� TM CENTER SUBDIVISION---------- .............,....., COM MERIDIAN,IDAHO RENGINEERINGPDN �uN II—II1=T1— „AI —IIIIII—_III—Iilllll ;-���.,II I..II.II-II II_II�II w,rv..Row. �ME _.W�� AS :ram.w: Page 41 Item 6. F 21 a �`^ MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP3.0 I o — — o O ...—.,.gym STREET SECTION:S.WAYEINDER AVE. ...."� TM CENTER SUBDIVISION IDAHOIONCE—ENGINE m _ m _ Skm STREET SECTION:W.COBALT DR. an pn, � I l _ �........*... ......... .. _Z j TEN •M I L E Phasing Plan ---- ��� _ Crnueptue subpect RO iNBpaP I TEN _ *- -� Page 42 Item 6. F222] D. Landscape Plan(date: 5/28/2020) ----- e --- a --- -o- o'---I I=� m� -o. o c A w JA in 47-f�9 I ® ® � Fs �u I 0 �•�� °"" - unnxc ano suMc onN�[v RM —ERSUBONISION I r SIREEf IRFF W[WVnONE IIiPFF/351E} �oR�0i0.N�IDAXOT M lANUSCAPE SITE PLAN ... �•"r - rnnwAnonaEoul�nnFNrs AI PLANTING DETAIL kl !' - - �' � 55�1� I` --- =_- .I 5 P I G I � I i. I I. i:`.� mslar - - _ _ iM MERIDIAN IDPHO INK 7. al �j"RLANTING DETAIL#2 /j\PLANTING f1EfAIL#3 -- Page 43 Item 6. r223] E. Roadways—Completed and Future 100% COMPLETE • Vanguard (primory entrance) Navigator (east/west collectorlIocaf) • Wayfinder (north/south collector) 7.5% COMPLETE Cobalt (eastfwest collector) 15% COMPLETE • Benchmark (northfsouth collector connection to Franklin) FRANK 19 law rr v. f I _, COBALT - / + r Wr Ito TEN MILE V 1 .ti J x x i r � r CROSSING INTERSTATE 1-84 VICINITY MAP Page 44 Item 6. F224] F. Pathway Plan 19Y PATHWAY .I f: r - - - �Multi-P�pO�e Paths TEN MILE Roads&Pathways f Ten Mlle Crossing District +ti '" 8'pD 11]'PaRhwa�rs 2 AI . I G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives 00, BRIGHTON BUILDING (complete) PAYLOCITY BUILDING (complete) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BNIMING ELEVATION TYptC aunnwc[IF—N-1— Page 45 Item 6. F 25 _WEI L AMERIBEN PHASE II (under consi r) SALTZER MEDICAL (under constr) 3 TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION 6UIIDING EU"YATION TYPI[ALS BUILDING ELEVAIION i PICALS p 4.C9 .T 6 LASALLE BUILDING (under constr) EXISTING SINGLE•STORY SHOPS TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUIIDING EUVAnON TVPI[ALS BUILDING ELEVATION TYPICAL$ EXISTING SINGLE-STORY MEDICAL EXISTING CARWASH 8 TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION 9BRD{NG ELEVATION iYPICI l5 BUILDING ELEVATION TVPICALS Page 46 Item 6. 226 61 a= MET- Chi ,f _ !3 EXISTING RESTAURANT/SHOPS (front) EXISTING RESTAURANT/SHOPS (rear) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION i BUILDING ELEVATION WPIMLS TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUILDING ELEVATION MICALS d� EXISTING AUTO SERVICE THE LOFTS at TEN MILE (complete) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TIV CENTER SUBDIVISION BUILDING ELEVATION 1YPILALS Hllll l3lN(�FI F Val f I IN IYI'II AI% THE LOFTS at TEN MILE (garages) THE FLATS at TEN MILE (under constr) L. TM CENTER SUBDIVISION EM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUIlD1NG EI cvAnON IYPICALS BUILDING ELEVATION TYPICAL$ Page 47 Item 6. F 27 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A conceptual use plan(i.e.bubble plan)shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing,to be included in the development agreement,that demonstrates consistency with the mix of uses from each major use category(i.e.commercial, residential,employment)for the overall area governed by the DA as set forth in the TMISAP and the provisions of Development Agreements associated with previous annexations. 1. A new Development Agreement shall replace all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Area as referenced above in Section VI.A, and shall include the following provisions: 0. TM CREEK _ _ CA04oN 'r, BAINBRIDGE ' Y O rEN MILE CE-41ER G ME r Tl ti TM Crossing Expansion P"AICTOUTUNES ARE GENERAL ACTUAL AREAS 1AAV VARY a. Provisions applicable to entire development: (1) Future development shall be consistent with the guidelines for development in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)pertaining to land use,transportation and design; UDC standards; and design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, except for the deviations specified in this agreement. (2) Public art shall be incorporated at the entries of the site to create a sense of arrival and as appropriate throughout the overall development. Public art should contribute to the character and identity of the City and should be incorporated in the design of streetscapes,plazas, public spaces associated with buildings, etc. Art should be easily visible to the public (e.g. on the exterior of buildings rather than in lobbies,or visible from the street or publicly assessible open spaces rather than interior courtyards), in accord with the TMISAP. (3) Building height in the C-G zoning district for structures in the area governed by this agreement is allowed to extend up to a maximum of 100-feet without further application. (4) Direct lot access via S.Ten Mile Rd. and W.Franklin Rd., arterial streets; and W. Cobalt Dr., S.Wayfinder Ave., S.Vanguard Way and S.Benchmark Ave., collector streets, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 and the TMISAP unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD in conjunction with a detailed development plan and/or subdivision. City Council approved waivers to UDC 11-3A-3 for direct access via S. Ten Mile Rd., W. Page 48 Item 6. N Franklin Rd., S. Wayfinder Ave. and W. Cobalt Dr. as shown on the preliminary plat and concept plan for TM Creek subdivision (AZ-13-015;PP-13-030). (5) The design of future buildings in this development shall incorporate design elements that are generally consistent with those in the"typical"elevations shown in Section VIII.G. (6) The developer shall continue to work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT)to determine the nature and timing of public transit services needed in this area.With each final plat development phase, an update should be provided to the City. Shelters should be placed at transit stops for weather protection to patrons;the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center. Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter. (7) Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the first final plat for TM Center,the developer shall submit a surety to the City of Meridian for the cost of a Welcome to Meridian sign to be placed off-site at the intersection of S. Ten Mile Rd. and S.Vanguard Way. The sign shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in the first phase of TM Center subdivision. (8) A portion of this site along the Ten Mile Creek is located within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring with the Overlay District,the Applicant is required to submit, and the City shall review and approve, a floodplain development application which includes the necessary analysis and documents under MCC Title 10,Chapter 6,including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis. (9) Street lights at a pedestrian scale shall be installed within the tree lawn area along W. Frankin Rd. as set forth in the TMISAP. b. TM Crossing Expansion site(H-2018-0122,Parcel#R7192800752): (1) If at some point in the future the adjacent homes to the north and east of the site redevelop commercially and the 25-foot wide right-of-way depicted on the Primrose subdivision plat on the adjacent property to the north(Lot 7,Block 3)is dedicated,a public street connection may be required at that time. (2) A pedestrian connection shall be provided from the residential neighborhood(i.e.Primrose Subdivision)to the commercial development to the west on the TM Crossing Expansion site (H-2018-0122)in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. The location of the pedestrian connection maybe within the right-of-way adjacent to the north property boundary. c. TM Creek site(AZ-13-015,H-2017-0124): (1) Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan shown below and shall develop with a mix of office, commercial and residential uses as proposed. Page 49 Item 6. F 29 L. J � r3 � • 1'� d LLJ �� „-,,i (2) Street lights at a pedestrian scale shall be installed within the tree lawn area along S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Cobalt Dr. as set forth in the TMISAP. (3) Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be installed along S. Wayfinder Ave. as set forth in the TMISAP. (4) All structures within the TN-C zone adjacent to S. Wayfinder Ave. north of the Ten Mile Creek shall be a minimum of two stories in height in accord with UDC 11-2D-5 and the design elements contained in the TMISAP. (5) Buildings along S. Wayfinder Ave. north of the creek should be built to the sidewalk with street trees in wells and street-level store fronts,in accord with the TMISAP. (6) A crosswalk shall be provided across S. Wayfinder Ave. where the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek crosses the street. (7) For streets &block fronts where commercial uses and pedestrian activity are most desired north of the Ten Mile Creek, it is recommended that sidewalks be lined with shops, restaurants, offices and galleries and that buildings be designed with multiple sidewalk entries where feasible, generously-scaled display and transom windows,pedestrian-scales signs and banners, and awnings or canopies for sun shading. (8) A pedestrian crossing over the Ten Mile Creek shall be provided as part of the creek amenity if approval can be obtained from Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District. (9) Sidewalks shall be provided internally along one side of all major drive aisles for pedestrian connectivity within the development in accord with the Internal Pedestrian Plan shown below. Page 50 Item 6. F230] r .n rr+v FRANKUN ROAD 71 r TM No LU J - 1 . ++ Lr" 121 ��IIIIFFIIIIII IT -7 = 4 rJ - �'I i iiiilIlIkkFF i i r Pedestrian Plan - Condition 7.1.I.s " -- (10) South Wayfinder Ave. shall initially be constructed in accord with the street sections shown below. Future reconfiguration of S. Wayfinder Ave. may occur if warranted by ACHD, in accord with the street section shown below. Page 51 Item 6. F 31 PL 86.00'ROW PL a-CP 7.00' 14.00' 14.00' 7.00' O.OP PARKING BIKE LANE 4 LANE BIKE PARKING 9.OP 700' S.M. 11 ALT 13.OP MEDIANI 13.OP 91AP 5.00' 700' 25P 51DEWALK 4.00 BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE .00' SIDEWALK 250' FU7URE FIfR1RE FUTURE FUTURE FUTllRE FUTURE O.W' L REMAINING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED REMRINING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED WITH BUILDI NG FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE WITH BUILDING NORTH OF CREEK FL 100.OP ROW PL. 4 7AP 6.5P 1200' 1D.00' 13AP 10.00' 1200' 8.59 7A0P B 00' SI DEWAIK BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE SIDEWALK ROP I FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE BRIDGE SECTION FL 06.00'ROW FL a0P 7D0' 1400' 1900' 700' a00- PARKING BIKE LANE L LANE BIKE PARKING 9.OP 5.00' B.OP 5.00' 11.017 13.00P MEDIAM 13AP 11.017 5.00' 8AP 5.00' SIDEWALK, PLANTER 2. BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE AP PLANTER SIDEWALK 0.50' 0.50' FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE SOUTH OF CREEK d. TM Creek East(H-2015-0018): (1) The site shall develop with multi-family residential uses and shall obtain conditional use permit approval prior to development. The overall average density target should be at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre. Design and orientation of buildings should be pedestrian oriented with special streetscape improvements to create rich and enjoyable public spaces. A strong physical relationship between the commercial and residential components to adjacent employment or transit centers is critical." (2) The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. e. Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments) (AZ-14-001): (1) The property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. (2) The property shall be developed in a manner that provides a transition in uses to adjacent residential properties. (3) Most buildings along S. Ten Mile Rd. should address the street by being built to the street buffer with windows overlooking the pathway to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes on the pathway as set forth in the TMISAP. Page 52 Item 6. F232] (4) A pedestrian connection shall be made to the adjacent school site to the east(i.e. Peregrine Elementary School). (5) The portions of the property zoned TN-C and TN-R shall be developed in a manner that incorporates traditional neighborhood design concepts as set forth in the TMISAP. (6) Only residential uses shall be developed within the R-8 zone. In addition to other allowed uses, a minimum of 75 residential units shall be developed within the TN-R zone, and a minimum of 300 residential units shall be developed within the C-G and/or TN-C zones combined. (7) The Kennedy Lateral and all other waterways on the site shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6,unless waived by City Council. (8) Based on the 2020 Sewer Master Plan Update,the subject property lies within two sewer boundaries. The Kennedy Lateral is the sewer shed boundary. Sanitary sewer services to this development is are being proposed via main extensions from the Black Cat Trunk and Ten Mile Diversion Trunk of mains located near the Purdam Drain within the southwest portion of the subject property and main extensions from Franklin Road. Owner/Developer shall install mains to and through the development, coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet; if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet then alternative materials shall be used in conformance with City of Meridian Public Works Department standard specifications. (9) Water service to the subject property will be via extension of mains in Ten Mile Road along the alignment of the future east-west collector. Owner/Developer shall be responsible to install water mains to and through the property at the time of development and to coordinate main sizes and routing with City of Meridian Public Works Department. (10) Future construction of streets within this site shall be consistent with the applicable street section as shown on the Street Section Map contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) (pgs. 3-20 and 3-21)with the exception of the east/west collector street(W. Cobalt Dr.)from Ten Mile Road at the northwest corner of the site which shall be constructed as a major collector street in accord with Street Section C. f. Calnon(H-2015-0017): (1) Prior to any development occurring on the subject property,the applicant shall modify the development agreement to include a more detailed conceptual development plan for the site that is consistent with the MU-C and MU-R land use designations. A mix of uses from each major use category(i.e. commercial,residential, employment) shall be provided as set forth in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP).No more than 30%of the ground level development within the MU-C designation shall be used for residences.No more than 40%of the land area within the MU-R area shall be utilized for non-residential uses. (2) The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. (3) Provide a minimum of 218 residential dwelling units on the site of varying types (i.e. multi- family, single-family,townhouse, duplex, and/or vertically integrated).Note: The number of units provided may be greater than 218 units without a limit on the maximum number of units. (4) A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed on this site along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek and to the property to the south. The pathway shall be constructed in Page 53 Item 6. F233] accord with the Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3A-8. Landscaping on either side of the pathway is required in accord with the standards listed in 11-313-12C. (5) The stub street that exists to this property at the east boundary of the site,W. Cobalt Street, from Whitestone Estate Subdivision shall be extended with development. (6) The Vaughn Lateral shall be piped on the site where it is currently open if approval can be obtained from Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) as it is owned in-fee by NMID. (7) Sidewalks shall be provided internally along one side of all major drive aisles for pedestrian connectivity within the development. (8) This property borders a domestic water pressure zone boundary, and therefore with development,the applicant shall be required to install a pressure reducing station vault and conduits for power and telemetry cabling in the vicinity of their southeasterly connection in W. Cobalt Street. The installation of the pressure reducing appurtenances shall be the responsibility of the Meridian Public Works Department. Applicant shall coordinate the vault and conduit design criteria with the Meridian Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. (9) The City of Meridian currently owns and operates a sanitary sewer lift station near the west end of W. Cobalt Street. With the development of the subject property,the applicant shall be required to extend a sanitary sewer main from W. Franklin Road through the property to the lift station location and facilitate the abandonment of the lift station. g. Bainbridge Franklin(H-2018-0057): (1) A cross-access/ingress-egress easement(s) shall be granted to the property to the east(parcel #R8580500100)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. With the first certificate of zoning compliance application,the applicant shall provide a recorded cross access easement that grants access to the Twelve Oaks property. 2. The final plat(s) shall include the following revisions: a. Change the street name of S.New Market Ave. to S.Benchmark Ave. consistent with the Street Name Review approval. b. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Franklin Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd., arterial streets; and S. Wayfinder Ave., S. Benchmark Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr. and S. Vanguard Way, collector streets,unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD. c. A 5-foot dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb along S. Wayfinder Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr. and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. Both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Streetlights of a pedestrian-scale shall be provided along Wayfinder and Cobalt;pedestrian-scale lighting is not required along New Market/Benchmark if it will serve as a residential collector with on-street parking—otherwise,pedestrian lighting is required. d. South New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. shall be constructed with two(2)travel lanes,bike lanes,parallel parking(if allowed by ACHD), 8-foot wide parkways and detached sidewalks/pathways consistent with Street Section D in the TMISAP,the development agreement,Pathways Master Plan and pathway plan for the site. The first 200'of south of Franklin Rd. on New Market is not allowed to have on-street parking per the ACHD report to allow for right and left turn lanes. Page 54 Item 6. F234] e. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk)along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. f. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk)along W. Franklin Rd. and Vanguard Way in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B (see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. g. Depict a minimum 50-foot wide street buffer along S. Ten Mile Rd., an entryway corridor, measured from the back of curb, in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B- 7C.2 and Street Section A in the TMISAP. h. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-G zone,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 1 I-3B-7C.2. i. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer along W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave., S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave., and S. Vanguard Way, collector streets,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-G zone,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-313-7C.2. j. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement between all non-residential lots in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. k. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement to the parcel to the east(#R8580500100,Villas at Twelve Oaks) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. 1. Remove the two(2)driveway accesses depicted on the plat via Franklin Rd. on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4,Block 4 to the east and west of New Market/Benchmark unless specifically approved by City Council through a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3,which limits access to arterial streets, and by ACHD. in. If New Market has not yet been constructed to stub to the site's south property boundary by the time the proposed section is constructed, depict a temporary turnaround easement and construct a temporary cul-de-sac that meets the dimensional standards of a standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of New Market on this site per ACHD and Fire Dept. standards. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Detached pathways, 8-to 10-feet wide, shall be depicted in accord with the pathway plan in Section VIII.F and with the City's Pathways Master Plan as required by the Park's Department in Section IX.E.At a minimum, 10 foot wide pathways shall be provided along S. Ten Mile Rd., the east side of S. New Market Ave. and along the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan; 8-foot wide pathways may be provided in other locations. b. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along the west side of S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. where 8-to 10-wide pathways are not proposed on the pathway plan,with 8-foot wide parkways within a minimum 20-foot wide landscaped buffer in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section D(see pg. 3-21). Page 55 Item 6. F235] c. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C, along each side of W. Cobalt Dr., a collector street; and a detached 8-to 10-foot wide pathway on the south side of the street consistent with the pathway plan. d. Depict minimum 20-foot wide street buffers, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C, along S. Wayfinder Ave. and S.Vanguard Way,both collector streets. e. Depict a 50-foot wide buffer area with detached 10-foot wide pathway along S. Ten Mile Rd., consistent with that shown for Street Section A in the TMISAP; depict landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C for pathways and 11-3B-7C for street buffers. f. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide buffer with a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along W. Franklin Rd., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. g. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn area along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). h. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn areas along W. Franklin Rd. and S. Vanguard Way in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B(see pg. 3-22). i. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn areas along W. Cobalt Dr. and S. Wayfinder Ave; if New Market/Benchmark is not constructed as as a residential collector street with on-street parking, streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall also be provided along this street. j. Include mitigation information on the plan for all trees on the site that are proposed to be removed that require mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. Contact Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to schedule an appointment for an inspection to determine mitigation requirements. 4. In accord with the TMISAP for"complete streets,"the following are features that shall be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders, crosswalks, refuge medians,bus pullouts, special bus lanes,raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, street furnishings and on-street parking. The Applicant shall address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing)what additional design features are planned for internal public streets within this development aside from those proposed. 5. All future development shall comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6(R-8), 11-2A-8(R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-G), 11-2D-5(TN-C)and I1-2D-6, as applicable. 6. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for all of the multi-use pathways within the site that area not located in the right-of-way prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 7. Streetlights shall be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave. and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. 8. Development of the plat shall occur generally consistent with the phasing plan in Section VIII.C. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Colbalt and New Market Avenue, flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction. This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction. Based on conversations with applicant 8" sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. Page 56 Item 6. F236] 1.2 To alleviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12" water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). 1.3 Tie into the existing 12"water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1) 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. Page 57 Item 6. F237] 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for 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 Page 58 Item 6. F238] 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT hllps://weblink.meridianci , .org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191391&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT hgps://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191282&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192685&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223592&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCity G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223468&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCity H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191393&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192801&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223625&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity Questions from City Staff and ACHD response: https:11weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.asp x?id=222896&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity ACHD confirmation that a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required for this project. https://weblink.meridianciU.org WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222887&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. REZONE(UDC 11-5B-3E) 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 rezone of the subject site to the C-G and R-40 zoning districts is consistent with the associated MU-COM and HDR FL UM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property proposed to be rezoned. Page 59 Item 6. F239] 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to C-G will assist in providingfor the retail and service needs of the community while the map amendment to R-40 will assist in providing for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in accord with the purpose statements for the districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds that the proposed rezone 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 Stafffinds that the proposed rezone 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. Because this application is for a rezone and not an annexation, this finding is not applicable. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and TMISAP if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions, conditions of approval in Section IX and ACHD conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposedplat is in substantial conformance with scheduledpublic improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Page 60 Item 6. ■ 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 61 Item 7. L241 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for The Oasis (H-2021-0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Item 7. F 42 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for The Oasis (H-2021-0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land 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: March 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO Av C' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: The Oasis (H-2021-0004) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 ye- 2 f3 s x I�� 4 6 X No 7 8 I A� 10 11 12 Z IA[�>A 13 � S e� 14 A�j 15 fo � I ,� N � PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: The Oasis (H-2021-0004) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 V/ 2 , I 4 Air � fV 1LEjZ Ida b � 6 &v #t/rte4- wo Y��" /VO �LS A/ MC� be- 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/18/2021 Legend DATE: I�l U Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ®- SUBJECT: H-2021-0004 q _ - The Oasis _; IBM 'J Ey LOCATION: The site is located on a portion of 3185 E.Ustick Road, at the southwest corner of N. Eagle Road and E. Ustick Road,in the NE '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 5, Township 3N.,Range IE. ' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment,music venue,and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district,by Brian Tsai, Balboa Ventures. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage Portion of 3.29(C-G zoning district) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Regional Existing Land Use(s) Vacant but being developed Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial Lots(#and type;bldg./common) On 1 of 5 building lots Physical Features(waterways, Milk Lateral runs along southern boundary of property; hazards,flood plain,hillside) easement being respected and verified in CZC approvals. Neighborhood meeting date;#of January 14,2021— 15 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2019-0082(DA Modification to remove the subject site from an existing DA and enter into a new one specific to this site;DA Inst.#2019-121599);H-2020-0104(Pre-plat approval to subdivide property into 5 lots);A-2019-0376& A-2021-0010(CZC for parking lot,landscaping,and other relevant site improvements);A-2021-0012(CZC and Design Review approval of the building proposed to house requested business). Page 1 Item 7. F244] Description Details Page Public Testimony Due to the controversial nature of this project,there has been a number of written and verbal testimony both for and against this project.Please go here to review this public testimony. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes;Comply with letter noting review that occurred with urgent care CZC(A-2020-0163). • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a proposed shared driveway into Hwy/Local)(Existing and the development from E.Ustick Rd.No direct access is Proposed) proposed or allowed to E.Ustick Rd.or N.Eagle Rd. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Subject site has existing cross-access agreements in place Access for sites within the original 3 acre parcel. Staff is unaware of any cross-access agreements with adjacent sites to the west and south(Villasport approvals). Existing Road Network Internal drive aisles and adjacent drive aisles are currently under construction. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ The required sidewalks and landscaping are currently Buffers under construction commensurate with the approved CZC plans(A-2019-0376). Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not required to perform any road improvements because Ustick and Eagle are at their full- build out at this time. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.2 miles from Fire Station#3 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. 1 • Resource Reliability Fire Station#3 reliability currently 80% • Risk Identification Risk Factor 3—commercial • Accessibility Proposed project meets all Fire required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Police Service • Distance to Station 3.5 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 3.5 minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 2/1/2019- 1/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 2,967 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 251. Between 2/1/2019- 1/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 198 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns Following any approvals,Police will want to meet with Applicant on expectations of Police. Page 2 Item 7. F 45 C. Project Area Maps .Future Land Use Map .Aerial Map Legend Legend Project Location = lProject Location � 1 n Medium- Density " rh , . Resident°aII a ® MU Cornrnercial y r_ -Low Density MU-RG :�F Residential rTTTTTM Civic ®� • ° t-°. .Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 Project Location I El Project Location G-1 R-3 City Limits �R-8 Planned Parcels ie ® C-N C-G RUT �R--2�, CSC - r7i-'! R-8 RI H-- -J -RUT,jR-2� RUT �I ' qO Rl R=2RI - o R-4 ----- -- ' ono R-2-R1 R-4 L-O IC-C R-40 �4 __ =--' `�R1 CM=G , III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Brian Tsai,Balboa Ventures-PO Box 109204,Boise,ID 83719 B. Owner: Nate Ballard,Wadsworth Development- 166 E. 14000 South, Ste. 210,Draper,UT 84020 Page 3 Item 7. F246] C. Representative: N/A IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 2/23/2021 Site Posting 3/7/2021 Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property was annexed in 2003 as part of a larger annexation area(AZ-03-018). There was a Development Agreement(DA) associated with this annexation which was modified in 2019 to remove this property from that DA(H-2019-0082) and enter into a new one serving just this site(DA Inst.#2019-121599).The land owner received approval to subdivide the property for future ownership purposes. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)—In general,the purpose of mixed-use designations is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers. The intent is to promote developments that offer functional and physical integration of land uses,to create and enhance neighborhood sense of place, and to allow developers a greater degree of design and use flexibility. Specifically,the purpose of the regional 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 subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of E. Ustick Road(an arterial street) and N. Eagle Road/SH 55. Staff and the Applicant understand the importance of providing more commercial uses in this area, especially on an undeveloped corner. To the east and across Eagle Road are two large commercial centers; to the north is an additional commercial center. These surrounding areas provide a plethora of commercial uses that are used at a regional level. Directly to the west of the subject site is intended to be a high-end indoor gym (Villasport) and further to the south of the site is existing residential and some community serving commercial.As these lots get developed over time, Staff believes that they will continue to add to the City's commercial base and will likely be a higher benefit to users of the future Villasport and residents to the southwest of this site. The proposed business of a nightclub and music venue offers a new commercial use not only to this area of Meridian but to Meridian as a whole. Staff is of the opinion that despite being on a relatively small site, the proposed use would have regional pull for patrons. Therefore, this project, in conjunction with the approved uses to the west, should satisfy the comprehensive plan and mixed-use policies. Page 4 Item 7. ■ B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridiancity.orglcompplan): Some applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily,and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D). There is no neighborhood directly adjacent to the subject site but the closest home is approximately 330 feet from the southern property line. Future commercial buildings and parking lots will separate this project from existing residential to the southwest. However, with the recently approved CZC and Design Review approval for this multi-tenant building, the approved landscaping meets all code requirements and helps to beauty the property while offering an appropriate visual landscape buffer to the closest neighborhood to the southwest. Likely, the subject site will not be directly viewable from the nearest residential neighborhood once other properties redevelop in the near future. The parking is located on the interior of the overall property which will be largely screened by buildings and helps screen the parking lot from adjacent properties, usually one of the most noise inducing elements of a commercial site. The approved building that is to hold the proposed use is constructed with a modern and urban design that should integrate with the overall design of the other properties and with those adjacent to the site. However, according to the Applicant, the real buffering of the proposed use comes from within the building where there is proposed soundproofing materials, techniques, and technologies. When it comes to screening and buffering any incompatibilities of the proposed use, Staff finds the proposed landscaping and internal building materials to be sufficient in integrating the use into the existing and planned development. "Diversify Meridian's economic base to establish and maintain a self-sustaining, full-service economy."(2.06.01).Meridian does not have a business of the kind being proposed within this application. The Applicant appropriately described within their narrative the lack of entertainment, art, and music activities available within the City. The Applicant discusses this as a major need for the City. Staff can see the proposed use as adding to the economic base of the City because it would be a new type of use and offer a commercial use in the hours after IOpm, which is not a normal occurrence within the City. "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A).Pedestrian connectivity to this site is not one of the major issues for this proposed use. Where feasible, each building site will have pedestrian connections to one another and will have connections to the sidewalks along the adjacent major roadways on the north and east sides of the overall site. So long as these connections are required with each CZC review, Staff believes the subject site will have adequate pedestrian circulation especially due to the relatively small size of the overall commercial development. In addition, as future commercial sites to the south develop and additional pedestrian connections are introduced to the area,future patrons of this nightclub would have ample places to recreate before and after participating in this use and get to and from different uses safely. "Determine and respond to the community's art and cultural facility needs."(5.03.01E). The City is not working in collaboration with the Applicant so the context of this policy is not precisely what is called for within the comprehensive plan. However, a private business can add art and cultural facilities just as easily as the City. According to the Applicant, a nightclublindoor recreation facilityldrinking establishment can and should add to the community's art and culture. It is the Applicant's intent to increase the availability of a music venue for Meridian residents to have more opportunity to share in music as art and potentially bring new cultural experiences to Meridian through this business and venue. Page 5 Item 7. F248] "Enhance crime prevention awareness through the education of neighborhood watch groups, multi-family property management companies,homeowners'associations, and other organizations." (4.11.02F). The Applicant has been eager to work with the Meridian Police Department in order to help mitigate any future negative impacts of the proposed use. The Police cannot give an "approval"of the proposed project but they are working with the Applicant and have had conversations with the Applicant. MPD has shown interest in educating the Applicant on any and all crime prevention techniques here in Meridian. "Support efforts to evaluate and plan for future transportation services such as public transit, on- demand services, autonomous and shared vehicles."(6.01.04A).Again, the City is not partnering with the Applicant in pursuit of this policy but the Applicant has discussed thoroughly the applicability of ride-sharing for patrons of their proposed business. The Applicant noted that in most markets an average of 40%of the patrons for a business like this utilize ride-shares like Uber and Lyft in order to offset parking or having to drive at all. Staff cannot confirm these statistics but with the lack ofpublic transportation within the City and the overall car dominant landscape we live in here in Meridian, it is unlikely that the 40%usage would occur for those attending The Oasis. There should be no doubt this service would be utilized but not at a level that Staff can overlook the parking and traffic issues presented by the proposed use. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent and in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan as noted above. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject site is currently having its basic improvements completed(grading, drainage,water& sewer,and parking lot)but generally is a vacant parcel.Recent site visits also show a foundation of one of the approved buildings within the site(nearest Eagle and in the southeast corner of the subject site).All road improvements along Ustick and Eagle Roads are existing. With the approved CZC,the building,utilities,and drainage will be completed regardless of the proposed use being approved or denied. D. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The submitted conceptual elevations are those approved with the recent CZC and Design Review approvals. The approved commercial building complies with the UDC and the Architectural Standards Manual. The elevations show modern architecture with glazed glass storefronts, awnings,vertical trellis,and varying wall modulation on all sides of the building. hi addition,the elevations show brick,polymer, and rustic corrugated metal panels as finish materials. As noted, these elevations have already been approved by Staff at an administrative level. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The building proposed to contain the proposed use has recently received CZC approval and meets all dimensional standards for setbacks,parking,building height, and access. The proposed use of a music venue falls under the Indoor Recreation Facility specific use standards(UDC 11-4-3-2) and if one is to be located within 1,000 feet of an existing residence a Conditional Use Permit is required;part of the Applicant's CUP request is to satisfy this requirement. In addition,one of the proposed uses is for a Drinking Establishment and is also subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-10); the required dimensional standards noted within this code section are being met with the CUP request. F. Proposed Use Analysis: The administratively approved building,Eagle View Retail Center,will be approximately 8,300 square feet in size with two tenant suites. The Oasis is proposed in the larger suite at an Page 6 Item 7. F249] approximate size of 7,000 square feet. The uses allowed on the subject site are those listed in UDC Table 11-213-2 for the C-G zoning district. The proposed business is a combination of a nightclub and music venue which falls under Drinking Establishment and Indoor Recreation Facility uses within the development code,respectively. The indoor recreation facility use is a principally permitted use within the C-G zoning district unless it incorporates a music venue and is located within 1,000 feet of an existing residence which then requires a conditional use permit; this is the case with the proposed use of the music venue because the building is approximately 330 feet from the nearest residence. A drinking establishment is a conditional use within the C-G zoning district. Therefore,the Applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval for these two uses to reside within one building and one business,The Oasis. Staff recommends the Commission review the Applicant's narrative to gain further insight into how the business is intended to operate in terms of soundproofing techniques,security,business operations, and alcohol consumption. Staffs use analysis is not exhaustive as the Applicant's narrative details more of their proposals than is necessary to discuss within this staff report. According to the Applicant, The Oasis is meant to be a premier music venue and nightclub that offers entertainment and a nightlife for those in Meridian, much like other prominent cities. The Applicant also understands the negative stigmas surrounding a "nightclub"and provided a detailed response to this within their narrative. Staff agrees with some of the points made by the Applicant but must analyze the proposed uses against development code. As noted, the approved building and proposed uses meet all required dimensional standards as they are not directly adjacent to a residential district(approximately 330 feet from the closest residential district) and meet all building and landscaping setbacks. It is anticipated that directly south of the approved building there will be additional landscaping, a larger parking lot, and a drive aisle. This parking lot and landscaping received preliminary approval with the Villasport applications and a user is currently in process on this site that would make these improvements more tangible. This parking lot and landscaping would abut the drive aisle that extends from N. Cajun Lane to the south and continues north adjacent to this subject site and connects to Ustick, the main access to this commercial development. This drive aisle is currently being constructed with the site improvements for Eagle Commons as a whole to ensure there is more than one way to get to the entrance of the site. Further discussion on this is in the Access section below, V.G. With the proposed uses of a music venue and nightclub, capacity and hours of operation are integral factors in determining the compatibility of the uses with neighboring and planned development. The Applicant proposes hours of operation for The Oasis as 4:OOPM to 1:OOAM on the weekdays and 4:OOPM to 2:00"on the weekends.It is unclear what specific days the Applicant is referring to as "the weekends;"Staff is recommending for future analysis, discussion, and conditions of approval purposes that this is in reference to Friday and Saturday nights only. The Villasport site was approved to remain open until 12:OOAM, midnight which would cover a majority of the same operating hours proposed with this application. Both proposed uses, Villasport and The Oasis, are likely to drastically increase activity on this currently vacant corner. However, the Villasport approvals are set to expire soon unless that Applicant applies for a time extension. This calls into question how this corner will look in the coming years and it is not feasible for Staff to speculate too far as there could be many unknowns. Staff must analyze this project based on the current situation known which includes the Villasport development. The Oasis is further away from the existing residential than Villasport but this does not mean any negative impacts are automatically alleviated. Therefore, Staff recommends weekday (Sunday thru Thursday) hours for The Oasis be limited to 4:OOPM to 12:OOAM. These hours of operation for the weekdays match the closing time of Villasport making it more compatible with that use and nearby residential development. The opening time is of less concern to Staff because these Page 7 Item 7. ■ types of businesses do not generally have peak hours of operation earlier in the evening. It can be assumed that the 4:OOPMstart time is likely more associated with private events like that of weddings than it is associated with the nightclub or concert uses. In addition, the hours of operation are only applicable to use of the site by those other than employees; ancillary indoor business activities are allowed beyond these hours for employees, as outlined in UDC 11-2B-3B. Staff recommends the weekend(Friday&Saturday)hours are also limited to help with being compatible to nearby residential. These hours should be limited to 4:OOPM to 1:OOAM, a reduction in one hour of operation from the Applicant's request and one more hour than the weekdays. The Applicant's original narrative estimated a capacity of approximately 1,000 patrons for the 7,000 square foot tenant suite.After receiving a conceptual floor plan,preliminary discussions with Fire plan reviewers discussed a maximum capacity closer to 700 persons; the exact number for maximum building occupancy cannot be known until architectural plans are submitted with building permit submittal at a later date. However, through the CUP process, capacity can be limited further. Because of the issues outlined in this staff report, Staff recommends capacity be limited to no more than 500 persons to include employees. Employees will likely take up parking spaces for the entire hours of operation so they should be included in the maximum capacity. The Applicant and Staff have discussed this number and there is preliminary agreement on this condition. Staff arrived at this number because it is the same ratio as the minimum parking ratio for the proposed use, a 1:4 ratio. 500 persons and 125 parking spaces equate to one(1)space for every four(4)people; drastically improved from one (1)space for every 6 or 7 people with a capacity over 700. Further analysis on the parking is below in section V.H. IF the Applicant can adhere to the recommended conditions of approval noted below, Staff finds the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in that it should be mitigated appropriately. Commission may determine further mitigation is needed through this CUP process. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Main access to and for this development will be via a shared driveway connection to Ustick Road limited to a right-in/right-out access—the land owner is currently constructing this shared driveway access for their development because this site is developing before the Villasport project. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and therefore no stub streets are proposed. Instead,there are private drive-aisles as are standard for commercial developments. The Applicant has an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties(Inst. #106169335)but this agreement does not include a cross-parking agreement. As previously discussed above, the subject site abuts a drive aisle that connects to Ustick and is the main access to this commercial development. This commercial drive aisle will be a continuation of N. Cajun Lane, a private street,from the south but in fact will not be a named street. This off-site drive aisle is currently being constructed with the site improvements for Eagle Commons as a whole because Cajun Lane connects to Seville Lane and is an access point to Eagle Road. Constructing this connection ensures there is more than one way to access the site entrance other than from Ustick. The Eagle Road access is an existing access that is off-site and limited to a right-in/right-out only access. Because the overall site, Eagle Commons, has received preliminary plat approval to subdivided the property, cross-access and cross parking between the five proposed lots is required. In the recorded Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (Inst. #2020-075457) this cross-access is discussed and dictated for each lot and future user. In addition to the shared drive aisle that abuts the property to the west, The Villasport site improvements and recorded cross-access agreement will include an additional Ustick Road Page 8 Item 7. F251] access point further west, N. Centrepoint Way. These access points to the arterial are long approved for the site. Staff finds there is adequate and safe access to the site at full build-out and with only the most adjacent Ustick access in conjunction with the drive aisle connection to Cajun Lane and then out to Eagle Road. However, to help mitigate any residential cut-through traffic this Applicant and land owner should work with the Villasport Applicant to construct a driveway through their site in-line with where they plan to construct one in the future. This driveway would provide a more direct means of accessing Centrepoint Way and the existing traffic signal at that intersection without having to use the roads adjacent to the residential subdivision further to the south. Staff also agrees that at peak hours of business (after 8pm) access to the site should be improved as adjacent traffic levels on Ustick and Eagle should be much less than at 5 or 6pm. This is due to the fact there are not many businesses open beyond 9pm within Meridian that draw the kind of customers that can be assumed for the proposed business. However, once the Villasport project is constructed this may change and traffic along Ustick will likely increase in the hours between 8pm and midnight due to their approved operating hours as noted. ACHD is the leading agency on access points for the City of Meridian and because peak traffic times should not be drastically affected by the proposed use on any access point,ACHD did not require a Traffic Impact Study for this application. Even with the assumed capacity of 1,000 persons in the initial submittal this was not required and restricting the capacity to 500 persons should help with the traffic concerns of this type of use. Further analysis regarding access should be addressed to ACHD. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Minimum off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 for a restaurant use at the ratio of one (1) space per 250 square feet of gross floor area because the Applicant has noted the business will be serving food. If food was not being served,the minimum code required parking ratio would be one(1) space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. In order to meet UDC minimum requirements for the approximate suite size of 7,000 square feet, a total of 28 parking spaces should be provided. With the approved CZC and the additional spaces on the site specific site plan, 102 parking spaces are proposed on-site and would likely be used because there is an existing cross-access and cross parking agreement in place for the site. Both the land owner and Applicant understand the entire site will likely be used for parking for the proposed business. The approved plans do not show any parking along the future northern commercial lots and the land owner has guaranteed that those spaces will be built prior to this use commencing. Staff recommends a condition of approval commensurate with these conversations and assurances. Stafffinds this condition and assurance incredibly important to the project because those additional spaces could amount to the 125 total spaces previously mentioned—depending on how the parking is configured on the north side of the site, there is physical room for approximately a maximum of 37 additional parking spaces at the required 9 feet of width and including four landscape planters in line with code requirements.Again, this is a maximum but does show additional parking spaces will be provided on site beyond what is currently being shown. With 30 additional spaces, a total of 132 spaces would be provided throughout the entire site, exceeding the UDC minimums by approximately 45001o. However, not just this use can be analyzed on site because only two other users are currently known and there is potential for additional commercial buildings along the north side of the site. The two other uses currently known are an Urgent Care Facility and Jamba Juice. Jamba Juice is intended to share the same building as The Oasis and would be located in the 1,200 square foot suite to its east, requiring five(5)spaces at a minimum. The urgent care facility will be closed by 5pm and requires only 7 Page 9 Item 7. F252] spaces per UDC,• these hours of operation for the urgent care facility should not affect The Oasis and are a preferred set of hours when adjacent to a use such as a nightclub and/or music venue that has peak operating hours later in the evening and night. As noted, other future uses on the undeveloped north half of the site are not currently known. Preliminary discussions with the land owners have yielded assumptions that those future uses are likely office uses with a potential for an additional drive-thru but nothing concrete is currently known by Staff. With the potential of additional traffic and parking spaces being utilized during the operating hours of The Oasis once future uses come online, Staff recommends the Applicant and land owner obtain a cross parking agreement with the adjacent properties to the south and to the west to increase the amount of available parking for the proposed use. In addition, a minimum of 125 total parking spaces shall be constructed within Eagle Commons to obtain a parking to patron ratio of 1:4 in accord with previous approvals. IF these conditions can be met, Staff finds the proposed uses of the property should minimize the impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Minimum 5-foot wide sidewalks are required adjacent to all commercial buildings as outlined in UDC 11-3A-17. The building containing the proposed use has been approved with approximate 8-foot wide sidewalks on the north and west side of the building. These areas of the site are where patrons would congregate as the south and east side of the building contain a drive-thru. The subject building is not directly adjacent to any public streets and was therefore not required to directly connect to those sidewalks. However,the building will have easy access to proposed sidewalks along the drive aisle to the west of the subject site which is being constructed by this land owner because this site is being developed prior to the Villasport site. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 5-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to the drive-through along the southern property line. This landscape strip has been reviewed and approved with the existing CZC and complies with code requirements. Furthermore,as the commercial site to the south develops in the future,additional landscaping will be provided to screen the building and any future use from the residences to the southwest. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit application per the conditions of approval in Section VIII and the Findings in Section DX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. Page 10 Item 7. F253] V11. EXHIBITS A. Overall Site Plan(dated: 1/13/2021) ............. cll! dnoig juawd019AG(I qjJQMSPUM C-4 ca 319V3 ONY m3usn iv SNDWW03 3183 H HO �q !NWHIOM as M!2 -am A P i R-C oil- m Ll . ... . .... ... .... ... ... ..... ... .......... oe ILL IIoi L: T L.J. The Oasis— Proposed 46 (7 Page 11 Item 7. F254] B. Site Specific Site Plan(date: 2/26/2021)Approved under A-2021-0012 I I � . I I I { I I 90id�PAS.F�Ea ... 'O THE`dG E WrA.1F.FOEr N LFT}:< MTHE EMLE I T-: I CCMMOMATLUM •,j' AND EAGLE PHLECT a0 a ,, riY NO FPhT.PEFER PROPOSED I T9 iiE 5lGiE i ]7M0.10hS AT L5,ICN T BUILDING s pXt7 EA61f PRGEC 'J,. . * I 2 � ••• CCMYONS Ai J:nC7i ,la Tut WE&GLEF IE7 mam L __- --- WT-AFART.96ER '�...'}�J. ! iC 1E 4LL'Sa]R' f _._4- �, ,..... � CIC-Site Plan Page 12 Item 7. F255] C. Landscape Plans(date: 01/13/2021 &2/26/2021) pp dnoig juawdoiM(I qijomspeM 31 DV3 a mv mousm SNOWWOO 319V3 gH H H FA- gs N 5M -A Peqj 4 1 II II IR II jj T If eC Tl I 11 F6 P4 Page 13 Item 7. ■ +nV� ..........,,��,, 7 _- � IT ..—_________ r mi 41 r iI PROPOSED r BUILDING aEU " W H9: M7d CIC-Landscape Plan Page 14 Item 7. F257] D. Conceptual Floor Plan MFZZ ExIT ONLY REST SO NDCABNET .......................... ROOM MEZZANINE MEZZANINE xon ABOVE 2,M OUTLINE INE F2-DFFIOE DASHED (HEAVY) FI-OFFICE LIGHT(S) LIGHT(S) SOUNDI --- FRIGGING RIGGING LIGHTING MEzz --- ------ ABOVE movE EAR CFKH) Fl-ST. TOI : : STAGE BOARD JWBAJUICE -GORR� Z0725-8' T-02 �F2 OASIS RESTAURANT 1,205 SF IL--- AND EVENT MR 7 016 Sr ------------ F2-OFFIOE ------------- ------- ABOVE .......................... REST ROOM ,I-0FFlm II MAIN ENTRY FUTURE I% STOREFRONT "101T I EXIT1111E. LICATIO N Page 15 E. Approved Building Elevations .. 2/05/2021) �'� Ar■ err+�� -�_- ����,� L i. d U. 31D VIEW FROM THE AP OM THE NORTHWIN r � irrr, ■�A■ n-viEwoz Page • Item 7. F259] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The Applicant and/or assigns has the ongoing obligation to comply with the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-121599) and all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site: H-2019-0082,H-2020-0104,A- 2019-0376,A-2021-0010, and A-2021-0012. 2. The Applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards for a Drinking Establishment(UDC 11-4-3-10) and Indoor Recreation Facility(UDC 11-4-3-2). 3. The Conditional Use Permit is approved with the following conditions: a. The proposed business shall have operating hours as set forth: Sunday through Thursday, 4:OOPM to 12:OOAM and;Friday and Saturday,4:OOPM to 1:OOAM. b. The maximum number of patrons and employees allowed at any one time shall not exceed five-hundred(500)persons. c. A minimum of 125 parking spaces shall be provided on the overall Eagle Commons site prior to commencement of the proposed uses. d. The Applicant and/or land owner shall obtain a cross-parking agreement with the adjacent sites prior to commencement of the proposed uses(Parcels 51105110111 and/or 51105110120). e. Prior to obtaining Certificate of Occupancy for the building,the drive aisle connection from Ustick Road to N. Cajun Lane shall be constructed. 4. To establish the new uses,the Applicant shall apply for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance- Change of Use prior to commencing the proposed uses—with this submittal the Applicant shall provide the cross-parking plan with adjacent sites as well as their plan to incentivize patrons to use ride-sharing services to get to the site during events. 5. The Applicant and land owner shall work with adjacent land owners to construct a driveway connection to the west commensurate with the Villasport approvals and site layout to have more direct access to N. Centrepoint Way. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I I-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all previous ACHD conditions of approval. 8. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements,acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F.4. Page 17 Item 7. F261] 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Staff finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services because all services are readily available. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Staff finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic is sure to increase in the vicinity with the addition of the proposed business, all major roadways adjacent to the site are already at their full width and the peak operating hours should be later than peak traffic hours.In addition, if the Applicant complies with all conditions of approval, Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord.05-1170,8-30- 2005,eff. 9-15-2005). Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features within the development area, therefore, Stafffinds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 19 Item 7. F260] B. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223212&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty C. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223054&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223661&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222985&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit Findings(UDC 11-5B-6D: 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. If all conditions of approval are met, Staff finds the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development regulations in the C-G zoning district in which it resides and compliance with the required specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-2& 11-4-3- 10) 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed uses are, with Staffs conditions of approval, is harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Regional and the requirements of this title. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses nearby to the southwest, Staff finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be more compatible with other uses in the general vicinity and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, so long as the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval and maintains all required landscape buffers. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Page 18 Project Information: Landscape Notes: Landscape Calculations: •� �.•.� VILLASPORT SWC USTICK ROAD & EAGLE ROAD A. IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY, NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. NUMBER OF STREET TREES AND LINEAL FEET OF 29 TREES, 1009 L.F. =j '�� THE WE B. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO INITIATION OF ANY DEMOLITION OR STREET FRONTAGE LAND . DEVELOPER:SADIE CREEK COMMONS, LLC CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE CONTRACTOR'S 0 ADDRESS: 10789 W.TWAIN AVE.#200 RESPONSIBILITY. WIDTH OF STREET BUFFERS 25-FT MINIMUM � GROUP LAS VEGAS, NV 89135 C. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMAN'S REQUIRED FOR NATIONAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. ARTERIALS, 29-FT ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, PLANNER:THE LAND GROUP, INC. D. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEGINNING AT THE DATE OF MINIMUM PROVIDED CONTACT:TAMARA THOMPSON, PLANNER ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. REPLACE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOUND DEAD OR NOT IN A HEALTHY CONTACT:JAMES LEO, LANDSCAPE DESIGNER CONDITION IMMEDIATELY WITH THE SAME SIZE AND SPECIES AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. WIDTH OF PARKING LOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPE STRIP SEE PLAN, 15.9-FT E. FINISH GRADES TO BE SMOOTH AND EVEN GRADIENTS WITH POSITIVE DRAINAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINIMUM PROVIDED ADDRESS:462 E.SHORE DR., SUITE 100 SITE GRADING PLAN. EAGLE, ID 83616 F. FERTILIZE ALL TREES AND SHRUBS WITH'AGRIFORM'PLANTING TABLETS. QUANTITY PER BUFFER WIDTH BETWEEN DIFFERENT LAND USES SEE PLAN, 10-FT PHONE: 208.939.4041 MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. MINIMUM PROVIDED G. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER DETAILS AND CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. USTICK ROAD _ _ I H. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 18"OF TOPSOIL, SOD AREAS A MINIMUM OF 12"OF NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS AND PERCENT OF 548 STALLS + 14 TOPSOIL. SPREAD, COMPACT AND FINE GRADE TOPSOIL TO A SMOOTH AND UNIFORM GRADE 3"BELOW PARKING AREA WITH INTERNAL LANDSCAPING ADA STALLS, 8.82% SURFACE OF WALKS AND CURBS IN PLANTING BED AREAS,AND 1/2"IN LAWN AREAS. (19294.97/218744.51) I. IN ALL PLANTER BED AND LAWN AREAS,THE TOP 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL WILL BE AMENDED AT A RATIO --- OF 3 CUBIC YARDS OF COMPOST/ORGANIC MATTER PER 1000 SQUARE FEET. ROTO-TILL ORGANIC TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES AND TREE SPECIES MIX 204 TREES, 14 SPECIES MATTER A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES INTO TOPSOIL.ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE A MIX OF SEVEN PARTS MIX A , ¢ ;❑ii 'i; �ii '' " A TOPSOIL (AS SPECIFIED IN THESE NOTES)AND THREE PARTS COMPOST/ORGANIC MATTER, BY VOLUME. J. ALL NON-TURF PLANTERS SHALL RECEIVE 3"DEPTH 1"PERMABARK MULCH. MITIGATION FOR REMOVAL OF EXISTING TREES, SEE PLAN, &TREE INCLUDING NUMBER OF CALIPER INCHES BEING MITIGATION KEYNOTES K. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE PLANTING WITH IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR. L. NO SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE REMOVED THIS SHEET ARCHITECT. Landscape Requirements: M. LANDSCAPE REPAIR ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED WET AND DRY UTILITY TRENCHING AND — + , , , +j , . i% + ' • + INSTALLATION WITHIN EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL MATCH EXISTING GRADES, SLOPES AND PER MERIDIAN, IDAHO CITY CODE: AREA A - — AREA B - MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS. ° N. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL HAVE AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM WHICH (1)TREE PER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG STREETS (11-3B-7-3) ° L1 ■U1 �F��rlr 7Ciil+inr L1 �02 I ENSURES COMPLETE COVERAGE AND PROPERLY ZONED FOR REQUIRED WATER USES. ONE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER.E (35) LINEAR FEET WITH SHRUBS, LAWN, OR OTHER 36"GIRR I 0. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY FUNCTIONAL, INCLUDING CONTROL SYSTEM, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANT MATERIAL. STREET TREES REQUIRED TREES PROVIDED P. REFER TO TREE PLANTING DETAIL, SHEET L1.50 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Q. REFER TO SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL, SHEET L1.50 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. USTICK ROAD (732 L.F.) 21 TREES 21 TREES R. NO TREES SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN 10OF ANY ACHD STORM DRAIN UTILITY, INCLUDING PIPES, OD (DO �* EAGLE ROAD (277 L.F.) 8 TREES 8 TREES ,� .a/,,,; �,:,�; �- i,, � ,+/ � �►'- s' ' INLETS, SAND AND GREASE TRAPS,AND MAN HOLES. (D(D a ��� r - I S. NO TREES SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN 5'OF ANY CITY WATER SERVICE. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING (1 1-3B-8-C-1) ONE (1)TREE PER THIRTY-FIVE (35) LINEAR FEET WITH SHRUBS, LAWN, OR OTHER VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER. + + + PERIMETER TREES REQUIRED TREES PROVIDED PARKING LOT 1 TREE EVERY 35 LINEAR FT SEE PLAN. Q ®® ®®® ®®® g� ® PERIMETERS ABUTTING 1 TREE EVERY 35 o000 ® ®®®® ®®® ® DRIVEWAYS LINEAR FEET ° ®® ®®® ®®®® ®® � I AT EVERY ® PERIMETER UJ ®®® ��� o WHERE SITE ELM ° ®® ELM UTILITIES X X - UTILITIES ° �, ®® gB — X�X I PERMIT �Gr' ® _ __w- CZ ® � X X X_X- ° X X_ I NORTHERN PERIMETER 7 TREES 0 TREES* ®® x� x PARKING LOT(255 L.F.) � _ X— W ®� 6'GI R 1 36"GIRR X X1 ®®®®®® QIRF �a SOUTHERN PERIMETER 5 TREES 5 TREES �� ®®®®®®® PARKING LOT(162 L.F.) �� ® � 0� I m *ZERO (0) OF SEVEN (7)TREES PROVIDED IN NORTHERN PERIMETER PARKING LOT � 5 m0a i DUE TO GRAVITY IRRIGATION UTILITY AND EASEMENT. HOWEVER, SEVEN (7) ADDITIONAL TREES HAVE BEEN ADDED THROUGHOUT THE SITE TO SATISFY ®®®® ® I%� / n1 • QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS. AREA C - ® ®®® ® p i ® ®®®® ®® AREA D - AREA E - INTERIOR PARKING LOT(11-3B-8-C-2) ®® d O ONE (1)TREE AND LOW SHRUBS, LAWN, OR OTHER VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER L1 .03 L1 .04 j L1 .05 / PER EACH INTERIOR PLANTER THAT SERVES A SINGLE ROW OF PARKING SPACES. v ® AREA TREES REQUIRED TREES PROVIDED 41 INTERIOR ISLANDS 73 TREES 73 TREES .; w 1 0 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO ADJOINING USES (11-3B-9-C) a Cn Cr MIX OF EVERGREEN AND DECIDUOUS TREES, SHRUBS, LAWN OR OTHER VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER.THE REQUIRED BUFFER AREA SHALL RESULT IN A BARRIER THAT CA J ALLOWS TREES TO TOUCH AT THE TIME OF MATURITY. IF A WALL OR FENCE AT o C'3 LEAST SIX FEET(6)TALL IS PROVIDED,THE PLANTING REQUIREMENT MAYBE CZ ' W REDUCED TO A MINIMUM 1 TREE PER 35 LINEAR FEET PLUS SHRUBS, LAWN, OR mi C _ w OTHER VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER. 31: � c AREA LANDSCAPE PROVIDED SOUTH PROPERTY SEE PLAN :21111 C LINE BUFFER WEST PROPERTY SEE PLAN Revisions LINE BUFFER 1 Material Legend: `D LANDSCAPE TURF SOD // / / PLANTING SHRUB BED AREA EXISTING TREE- TO BE REMOVED CD Tree Mitigation Keynotes: PER MERIDIAN CITY CODE (11-313-10-C-5): NOT FOR 1. EXISTING WEEDY AND WEAK-WOODED TREE-TO BE REMOVED, NO REPLACEMENT REQUIRED. CD Landscape Keynotes: n 1. PROPOSED SCREEN WALL- MATCH EXISTING SCREEN WALL STYLE, COLOR, AND HEIGHT AS INDICATED ON KEYNOTE 1.1 R 1.1. EXISTING WALL TO BE REPLICATED ON KEYNOTE 1. SEE DETAIL 4/1-1.50 CONSTRUCTION 2. TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 3. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING WOOD FENCE Project No.: 117108 Date of Issuance: 10/18/2018 Project Milestone: C.U.P. Landscape Plan Landscape Plan-Overall 6°' 12°' Overall tqEa Ll mOO Horizontal Scale: 1" = 60' Material Legend: � �•—:' T H E LANDSCAPE .� LAND TURF SOD / / / PLANTING SHRUB . BED AREA - GROUP EXISTING TREE- TO BE REMOVED — G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G — G G G Tree Mitigation Keynotes: PER MERIDIAN CITY CODE (11-313-10-C-5): 1. EXISTING WEEDY AND WEAK-WOODED TREE-TO BE REMOVED, NO REPLACEMENT REQUIRED. USTICK ROAD �, Landscape Keynotes: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - --- - - - - - - -- - - - - 1. PROPOSED SCREEN WALL-MATCH EXISTING SCREEN WALL STYLE, COLOR, AND HEIGHT AS INDICATED ON KEYNOTE 1.1 �S SS ISS SS SS SS SS EXISTING POWER 2.1 1 TRASHXISTING WALL TO BE REPLICATED ON ENCLOSURE, PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS OTE 1. SEE DETAIL 4/L1.50 40' X 40' CLEAR I EQUIPMENT UTILITY - 3. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING WOOD FENCE VISION TRIANGLE i RETAIN AND PROTECT PLANT SCHEDULE DECIDUOUS TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER COMMON NAME IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN O�IP P AA ACER FREEMANII 2"CAL. B&B OHP OHP OHP OHP HP OHP 0 UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP 'ARMSTRONG FREEMAN OHP kd OHP / / o / 97 — — — — — — — — -� T f T /� MAPLE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — T UGP T — — — — —� / / // AC ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B UGP C — oo_ — — — 'COLUMNARBROAD' / - -O- -m - - - - - - - - - - \- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / - - - - - - - - �� - - - - 00 - - - W 7 0 — e, , / / / / / / / �/ / // // / PARKWAY MAPLE END 1 36 9 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / T/ T ob � G/q � � / / / / / / / / / / / / / / a AD ACER PLATANOIDES 2 CAL. B&B 'DEBORAH' /DEBORAH MAPLE . / FA FRAXINUS AMERICANA 2"CAL. B&B Lu AUTUMN PURPLE' / AUTUMN PURPLE ASH mmi GI GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 2"CAL. B&B CID INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' TM/ a — X 16.5' 16.5 + SKYLINE THORNLESS O� uJO O� O�O�O�O�O�O� HONEY LOCUST TG TILIA CORDATA 2"CAL. B&B 'GREENSPIRE' / C/) Od X / I UD I GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN Q 'F EVERGREEN TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER XCOMMON NAME �/ / \ �Q I C„ PA PICEA ABIES/NORWAY 6' HT. B&B X CIO' I SPRUCE �0- - - - - - — - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - PF PINUS STROBUS 6' HT. B&B X // O L �� I O O FASTIGIATA' /PYRAMIDAL / cn . O WHITE PINE IRR 36"GIR 36"GIRR J J CO X Ir 36"GIRR 36"GIRR / / I I ili�� X _ PG PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' 6 HT. B&B Q m /� /COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a a Q/ — — — — — — — _ _ W W CZ / I I — - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — PIN PINUS NIGRA/AUSTRIAN 6' HT. B&B Q BLACK PINE O / // / 16 5' I 16.5' FLOWERING TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER ' CA/ / COMMON NAME b I 11.95' CP CRA AEEGUS PHAENOPYRUM 2"CAL. B&B 1 Cr, Lw 1. I /WASHINGTON HAWTHORN Revisions a a 4- MP MALUS X 'PRAIRIFIRE' / 2"CAL. B&B PRAIRIFIRE CRAB APPLE �17.51' / / / a ` MS MALUS X 'SPRING SNOW' / 2"CAL. B&B/ / SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE C� X / // P P� P I Lw / PC PRUNUS VIRGINIANA/ 2"CAL. B&B 0.41' / / CHOKECHERRY W + + + .. . .. : .. : .. : . o Li NOT FOR / Io EnF FT-M FT-M FT-M � - �o � F U �o / I ss _ SS -- 0I - - - - - �o �o � �: o 0 r-rT1 rTTI ITT1 fTT / / I I I CONSTRUCTION AREA A - L1 .01 Project No.: 117108 Date of Issuance: 10/18/2018 �' , /' ,/ � P � AREA C - L1 .03 � _ �O Project Milestone: C.U.P. P d P ,, Landscape Plan T Landscape Plan-Area A 2°' 4°' Area A ELL Ll mOl Horizontal Scale: 1" = 20' Material Legend: %= TH E / LANDSCAPE .� LAND TURF SOD / // / PLANTING SHRUB MOS / BED AREA1710 W-4 G R O U P C/D EXISTING TREE- TO BE REMOVED cn G G G G G G G G G G — G G G G G G GT G G G 0 U3 Tree Mitigation Keynotes: W PER MERIDIAN CITY CODE (11-3B-10-C-5): 1. EXISTING WEEDY AND WEAK-WOODED TREE-TO BE REMOVED, NO USTICK ROAD REPLACEMENT REQUIRED. `�_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ — Landscape Keynotes: 1. PROPOSED SCREEN WALL-MATCH EXISTING SCREEN WALL STYLE, COLOR, SS _ SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS _ SS SS AND HEIGHT AS INDICATED ON KEYNOTE 1.1 1.1. EXISTING WALL TO BE REPLICATED ON KEYNOTE 1. SEE DETAIL 4/L1.50 EXISTING POWER 40' X 40' CLEAR 2. TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS EQUIPMENT UTILITY - VISION TRIANGLE 3. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING WOOD FENCE RETAIN AND PROTECT PLANT SCHEDULE 14 1 DECIDUOUS TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER COMMON NAME / y 0 UGP — —�� P— �H� — AA ACER FREEMANII 2"CAL. B&B P - - - - - - - - - -U - - -U� - - - - �� - - - - - - - - �J - - - - - -VGP - - —(�#P — � - - — — o 'ARMSTRONG' /FREEMAN ' MAPLE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — / E , , — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — C ACERPLATANOIDES CAL. &B - -� - - - - / - - — � — - - - - - - - - - - - / — - - - - ee- - - - — e- - — — — — ea — / - - - - - i UGP o A COLUMNARBROAD' / 2 B / / / / / / / / / / / • / / / / / / / / / / / / • PARKWAY MAPLE AD ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B ❑ ILL / / / '4 DEBORAH' /DEBORAH 77 MAPLE /.&�/ + // // / , FA FRAXINUS AMERICANA 2"CAL. B&B/ / / I AUTUMN PURPLE' / AUTUMN PURPLE ASH 22.46' CZ GI GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 2"CAL. B&B INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' TM/ 44 O I + SKYLINE THORNLESS W HONEY LOCUST TG TILIA CORDATA 2"CAL. B&B GREENSPIRE' / 06 GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF / /+ / / / LINDEN EVERGREEN TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER COMMON NAME PA PICEA ABIES/NORWAY 6' HT. B&B SPRUCE Cm C O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O PF PINUSSTROBUS 6' HT. B&B — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ p �FASTIGIATA' /PYRAMIDAL � I r WHITE PINE R V 0 "GIRR Q 36"GIRR PG PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' 6' HT. B&B CA 36"GIRR 36"GIRR Q 36"GIRR 36"GIRR I m /COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE y W W GIRR oc oc ❑ I Q � \ a a o W � — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I PN PINUS NIGRA/AUSTRIAN 6' HT. B&B :2— Q BLACK PINE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CZ I I � 0 o I I FLOWERING TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER ' y 19.07' COMMON NAME CP CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM 2"CAL. B&B 1 * ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 7F/ / I /WASHINGTON HAWTHORN Revisions I I I MP MALUS X 'PRAIRIFIRE' / 2"CAL. B&B / / I I PRAIRIFIRE CRAB APPLE MS MALUS X 'SPRING SNOW' / 2"CAL. B&B SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE PC PRUNUS VIRGINIANA/ 2"CAL. B&B +/ / , / I CHOKECHERRY I NOT FOR W ❑ / 70 II o 0 ❑�� -. I CONSTRUCTION AREA B - L1 .02 O � Project No.: 117108 Date of Issuance: 10/18/2018 i= AREA D - L1 .04 � I W I Project Milestone: C.U.P. ,� I �' � Landscape Plan Landscape Plan-Area B 20' 40' Area B �❑ Ll m02 Horizontal Scale: 1" = 20' ' o ; III I ' Material Legend: ,,._ AREA A - L1 .01 T H E TURF SOD / LANDSCAPE ., LAND ' � / / BED AREA PLANTING SHRUB . P I AREA C - L1 .03 0 , ,/ , P I GROUP D 1 � EXISTING TREETO BE REMOVED o�czuz_3 1 _ 10 '� Tree Mitigation Keynotes: BEGIN � PER MERIDIAN CITY CODE (11-3B-10-C-5): �iui l� � = � 1. EXISTING WEEDY AND WEAK-WOODED TREE-TO BE REMOVED, NO I O — - REPLACEMENT REQUIRED. Landscape Keynotes: 1. PROPOSED SCREEN WALL-MATCH EXISTING SCREEN WALL STYLE, COLOR, AND HEIGHT AS INDICATED ON KEYNOTE 1.1'yl 1.1. EXISTING WALL TO BE REPLICATED ON KEYNOTE 1. SEE DETAIL 4/L1.50 , 2. TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS / 3. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING WOOD FENCE N x / / PLANT SCHEDULE X DECIDUOUS TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER COMMON NAME \X AA ACER FREEMANII 2"CAL. B&B ARMSTRONG' /FREEMAN MAPLE N Cn I O AC ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B f 'COLUMNARBROAD' / 3 T PARKWAY MAPLE cf)N ❑0 / / >a AD ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B DEBORAH' /DEBORAH / MAPLE /j FA FRAXINUS AMERICANA 2"CAL. B&BLU N / / o 'AUTUMN PURPLE' / mmi o V - AUTUMN PURPLE ASH 0 / 0 GI GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 2"CAL. B&B CZ INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' TM/ a cn SKYLINE THORNLESS Cn HONEY LOCUST W TG TILIA CORDATA 2"CAL. B&B / 'GREENSPIRE' / Od GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN EVERGREEN TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER COMMON NAME PA PICEA ABIES/NORWAY 6' HT. B&B SPRUCE PF PINUS STROBUS 6 HT. B&B FASTIGIATA' /PYRAMIDAL = PICARD STREET WHITE PINE `, ,i PG PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' 6' HT. B&B CO� SS SS SS SS 55 55 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS /COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE y = o ss O a T T PN PINUS NIGRA/AUSTRIAN 6' HT. B&B � J J BLACK PINE I CZ CJ � Q Q FLOWERING TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER ' y W W COMMON NAME aa CP CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM 2"CAL. B&B 1 (D /WASHINGTON HAWTHORN Revisions 1(D MP MALUS X 'PRAIRIFIRE' / 2"CAL. B&B PRAIRIFIRE CRAB APPLE z o CL MS MALUS X 'SPRING SNOW' / 2"CAL. B&B WCC . SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE 1— z W PC PRUNUS VIRGINIANA/ 2"CAL. B&B U CHOKECHERRY NOT FOR OO 0 CONSTRUCTION 3 Project No.: 117108 Date of Issuance: 10/18/2018 Project Milestone: C.U.P. Landscape Plan T Area C E 0 20' 40'Landscape Plan-Area C LL Ll m03 Horizontal Scale: 1" = 20' ' Material Legend:IQ �� �,._� o AREA B - L1 .02 � /' ON � reog% THE LANDSCAPEAND TURF SOD 7//]' PLANTING SHRUB� / BED AREA AREA D - L1 .04 - GROUP = I I EXISTING TREE- TO BE REMOVED o X X_X— I _ Tree Mitigation Keynotes: rn PER MERIDIAN CITY CODE (11-313-10-C-5): \ � I C5 I o P P d 1. EXISTING WEEDY AND WEAK-WOODED TREE-TO BE REMOVED, NO REPLACEMENT REQUIRED. - ` Landscape Keynotes: I 1. PROPOSED SCREEN WALL-MATCH EXISTING SCREEN WALL STYLE, COLOR, GIRR 36"GIRR AND HEIGHT AS INDICATED ON KEYNOTE 1.1 GIRR 1.1. EXISTING WALL TO BE REPLICATED ON KEYNOTE 1. SEE DETAIL 4/L1.50 2. TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROPOSED I / 3. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING WOOD FENCE VILLASPORT - - - - - - - - PLANT SCHEDULE O� DECIDUOUS TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER ,�J O o i , c� / COMMON NAME AA ACER FREEMANII 2"CAL. B&B o O�O�L/ P / / ° 'ARMSTRONG' /FREEMAN MAPLE O O O P1 / / AC ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B 'COLUMNARBROAD' / PARKWAY MAPLE AD ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B 'DEBORAH' /DEBORAH MAPLE FA FRAXINUS AMERICANA 2"CAL. B&B UJ O�O�O AUTUMN PURPLE' / mmi AUTUMN PURPLE ASH CID o GI GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 2"CAL. B&B INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' TM/ a O O SKYLINE THORNLESS W HONEY LOCUST Q / TG TILIA CORDATA 2"CAL. B&B 'GREENSPIRE' / Od GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN Q o EVERGREEN TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER 3 / PA PO EA ABIES MMON NAME 6' HT. B&B SPRUCE PF PINUS STROBUS 6' HT. B&B FASTIGIATA' /PYRAMIDAL WHITE PINE Q PG PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' 6' HT. B&B CA /COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE aPIP o o / CZ PN PINUS NIGRA/AUSTRIAN 6' HT. B&B mi CM3 :2 BLACK PINE LU FLOWERING TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER CO) W W / / / / / / W W COMMON NAME aa UGP Q Q CP CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM 2"CAL. B&B Q O /WASHINGTON HAWTHORN Revisions SS SS SS SS SS SS SS � Gp // 1. SS UGP 6/ / / / (D MP MALUS X 'PRAIRIFIRE' / 2"CAL. B&B SS 0 PRAIRIFIRE CRAB APPLE SS / 3 SS MS MALUS X 'SPRING SNOW' / 2"CAL. B&B IJGp / SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE SS �F PC PRUNUS VIRGINIANA/ 2"CAL. B&B CHOKECHERRY 0 Q 0 SS U � UGP UGP // �� � SS � UGP zG Ss P\ � SS I NOT FOR Cn SS SS III 40' X 40' CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE IS o 0 CONSTRUCTION 3 Project No.: 117108 Date of Issuance: 10/18/2018 cn Project Milestone: C.U.P. cn Landscape Plan T Landscape Plan-Area D 0 20' 40' Area D ELL Ll m04 Horizontal Scale: 1" = 20' Material Legend: `1 ��,� �•-. TH E - / Z/ / LANDSCAPE LAND TURF SOD PLANTING SHRUBAREA E - L1 .05 � BED AREA GROUP G G G G �— G G I x EXISTING TREE- EXISTING TREES I TO BE REMOVED NORTH OF PROPERTY LINE - x— x—x— TO BE RETAINED I • • . x— I Tree Mitigation Keynotes: _ —x—x—X—X—x PER MERIDIAN CITY CODE (11-3B-10-C-5): —X _ d — — 1. EXISTING WEEDY AND WEAK-WOODED TREE-TO BE REMOVED, NO X x x x—x—X—X REPLACEMENT REQUIRED. - — — - - - - - - - - - � —X X _ X—X— —x— _ Landscape Keynotes: - - - - - - - - - - — — _ — — — X x x—x—X— I 1. PROPOSED SCREEN WALL-MATCH EXISTING SCREEN WALL STYLE, COLOR, x—x— I x—x _ I AND HEIGHT AS INDICATED ON KEYNOTE 1.1 "GIRR — X - 1.1. EXISTING WALL TO BE REPLICATED ON KEYNOTE 1. SEE DETAIL 4/L1.50 36"GI R 3 "GIRR / '36��GI R GIRR — - X—X—x alh �� —x_ GIRR � 2. TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 36 R GIRR 3. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING WOOD FENCE 6"GIRR 36"GIRR 36"GIRR GIRR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ OH_ _ PLANT SCHEDULE GAR DECIDUOUS TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER COMMON NAME 00I AA ACER FREEMANII 2"CAL. B&B / / / / / /� o ARMSTRONG' /FREEMAN / �b LU / / / / / / MAPLE AC ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B o COLUMNARBROAD' / PARKWAY MAPLE LU CD 10 / / I AD ACER PLATANOIDES 2"CAL. B&B 'DEBORAH' /DEBORAH MAPLE LU/ P a / / e e I I UGP UGP UGP UGP FA FRAXINUS AMERICANA 2"CAL. B&B LU � AUTUMN PURPLE / AUTUMN PURPLE ASHmmi CIDo / I w / GI GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 2"CAL. B&B e e I INERMIS 'SKYCOLE' TM/ cc I SKYLINE THORNLESS W + / _ I HONEY LOCUST TG TILIA /A 2"CAL. B&B GREENSP / b P w / d GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF Od / I LINDEN EVERGREEN TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER / ® FUTURE / 9 I COMMON NAME / P / w DEVELOPMENT I I QC `� �'; PA PICEA ABIES/NORWAY 6' HT. B&B a / I W _ _ SPRUCE / PAD a / I W PF PINUS STROBUS 6' HT. B&B UJ // FASTIGIATA' /PYRAMIDAL Cs WHITE PINE O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 PG PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' 6' HT. B& CO B /COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE y = LO i Ins � O O P CZ FIN PINUS NIGRA/AUSTRIAN 6' HT. B&B mi CM3 :2 b J BLACK PINE / o LU w / a / / FLOWERING TREES CODE BOTANICAL NAME/ SIZE CONTAINER ' CO) LU LU �/ COMMON NAME d / / / / CP CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM 2"CAL. B&B Q / LU / /WASHINGTON HAWTHORN Revisions a MP MALUS X 'PRAIRIFIRE' / 2"CAL. B&B PRAIRIFIRE CRAB APPLE A S "' /y / Cr SS SS � / a MS MALUS X 'SPRING SNOW' / 2"CAL. B&B SS oS SS SS // / SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE P SS SS � S$ w SS PC PRUNUS VIRGINIANA/ 2"CAL. B&B CHOKECHERRY C/) P b / GP UG NOT FOR Cn I 40' X 40' CLEAR 0 0 VISION TRIANGLE Oi / — 3 _ CONSTRUCTION IV _ I Iv Project No.: 117108 IV ® cc Date of Issuance: 10/18/2018 cn CD Project Milestone: C.U.P. Landscape Plan ono Landscape Plan=Area E0 20' 40' Area E Ll m05 Horizontal Scale: 1" = 20' NOTES: NOTES: _ 1. THE STAKING OF TREES IS TO BE THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION; HOWEVER,THE CONTRACTOR IS REMOVE DEAD/DAMAGED BRANCHES AND PRUNE TO 1. THE STAKING OF TREES IS TO BE THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION; HOWEVER,THE CONTRACTOR IS REMOVE DEAD/DAMAGED BRANCHES AND PRUNE TO i1 �� T H E RESPONSIBLE TO INSURE THAT ALL TREES ARE PLANTED STRAIGHT AND THAT THEY REMAIN RESPONSIBLE TO INSURE THAT ALL TREES ARE PLANTED STRAIGHT AND THAT THEY REMAINMic WE STRAIGHT FOR A MINIMUM OF 1 YEAR. ALL STAKING SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE END OF THE ONE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE STANDARDS; STRAIGHT FOR A MINIMUM OF 1 YEAR. ALL STAKING SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE END OF THE ONE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE STANDARDS; LAND YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD. IMPROPERLY PRUNED TREES (AS DETERMINED BY THE YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD. IMPROPERLY PRUNED TREES (AS DETERMINED BY THE . 2. IN THE EVENT OF A QUESTION OR LACK OF CLARITY ON THE DRAWINGS,THE CONTRACTOR IS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. 2. IN THE EVENT OF A QUESTION OR LACK OF CLARITY ON THE DRAWINGS,THE CONTRACTOR IS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. � _ G R 0 U P NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING. a 3. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO 3. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL. PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL. PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION 4. WRAP RUBBER CINCH TIES AROUND THE TREE TRUNKS AND STAKES USING EITHER THE 4. WRAP RUBBER CINCH TIES AROUND THE TREE TRUNKS AND STAKES USING EITHER THE STANDARD OR STANDARD OR FIGURE EIGHT TYING METHOD. SECURE THE TIES TO THE STAKES WITH TREE WRAP TRUNK PROTECTION, FIGURE EIGHT TYING METHOD. SECURE THE TIES TO THE STAKES WITH GALVANIZED NAILS TO GALVANIZED NAILS TO PREVENT SLIPPAGE. PREVENT SLIPPAGE. a 5. WATER TREE TWICE WITHIN THE FIRST 24 HOURS. REMOVE AFTER INSTALLATION 5. WATER TREE TWICE WITHIN THE FIRST 24 HOURS. RUBBER CINCH TIE ao 6. IN THE EVENT HARDPAN SOILS PREVENT TREE PLANTING AS DETAILED, NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE RUBBER CINCH TIE 6. IN THE EVENT HARDPAN SOILS PREVENT TREE PLANTING AS DETAILED, NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. a o o� 2 x 2 x 8 CEDAR STAKE-DO NOT PENETRATE ROOTBALL. o 0 2 x 2 x 8 CEDAR STAKE-DO NOT PENETRATE ROOTBALL. 0 ROOT PROBE / SEE NOTE 1. SET STAKES PARALLEL TO PREVAILING WIND. ROOT PROBE o SEE NOTE 1. SET STAKES PARALLEL TO PREVAILING WIND. 0 SOIL LINE 3"THICK MULCH LAYER, KEEP MULCH 3"AWAY SOIL LINE —' 3"THICK MULCH LAYER, KEEP MULCH 3"AWAY FROM TRUNK FROM TRUNK UTILIZE SOIL/ROOT PROBE AROUND TRUNK " \ BACKFILL WITH SOIL PLANTING MIX. SEE UTILIZE SOIL/ROOT PROBE AROUND TRUNK r BACKFILL WITH SOIL PLANTING MIX. SEE (APPROX. 3-4"AWAY FROM TRUNK)TO LOCATE 3" SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. (APPROX. 3-4"AWAY FROM TRUNK)TO LOCATE 3" SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. HIGHEST ROOTS. HIGHEST ROOTS SHOULD BE HIGHEST ROOTS. HIGHEST ROOTS SHOULD BE POSITIONED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE GRADE LEVEL. \ \� \ \ \ FINISH GRADE POSITIONED AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE GRADE LEVEL. \ _ v FINISH GRADE REMOVE BURLAP,TWINE,AND WIRE BASKET FROM TOP /VA/VA V v v v v - ` v v v f /V/ Y \ A/ \ v v _ _� v v �////�// �REMOVE BURLAP,TWINE,AND WIRE BASKET FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL, REMOVE ALL NAILS,TIES,AND PLASTIC \ \ COMMERCIAL SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLETS /OF ROOTBALL, REMOVE ALL NAILS,TIES,AND PLASTIC \ \ COMMERCIAL SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLETS FROM ROOTBALL. IF SYNTHETIC BURLAP IS UTILIZED TO \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\/\\/ FROM ROOTBALL. IF SYNTHETIC BURLAP IS UTILIZED TO \/ \/A � V/VA VA v v v /VA WRAP THE ROOTBALL, IT SHALL BE COMPLETELY \/\\ \ s \ \/\\/ WRAP THE ROOTBALL, IT SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED. ONLY BIODEGRADEABLE BURLAP SHALL BE \\/ \/\/\/\/\/\ \ /\/\/ \ REMOVED. ONLY BIODEGRADEABLE BURLAP SHALL BE LEFT ON THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOTBALL. \\\/ \\/\ \ \ \ \ \ \ LEFT ON THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOTBALL. SET ROOTBALL ON NATIVE UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL AVA VAAjj\jj\jj\jj\jj\jAAjj\jj\jj\/AAj j SET ROOTBALL ON NATIVE UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL 2x ROOTBALL DIAMETER 2x ROOTBALL DIAMETER Deciduous Tree Planting 3x ROOTBALL DIAMETER Coniferous Tree Planting 3x ROOTBALL DIAMETER 1 Scale: NTS Scale: NTS W WATER RETENTION - .. a W BASIN MULCH LAYER 3" DEPTH :� � ; IOU COMMERCIAL VAS//\�/ /jam/ // / / / / / / / / / // BACKFILL WITH SOIL PLANTING FERTILIZER TABLETS VAj / /\j/AA MIX. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. O z = w y Cz CJ Shrub Planting Existing Screen Wall Scale: NTS Scale: NTS 3 4 � y Revisions A 1. NOT FOR O � CONSTRUCTION 3 Project No.: 117TO08 Date of Issuance: 1OVONRM8 Project Milestone: C.UP.P. Landscape Plan Details Ea Ll m50 Item 8. L262 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Item 8. F 63 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: March 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 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: March 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 8 PROJECT NAME: Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO i 1 X 3 2 cv 3 4 i 5 ' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 8. ■ STAFF REPORT C� fERjD1AN,,-, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 3/18/2021 Legend DATE: 0 Project Um-of km TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0127 Skybreak Subdivision IJ --a LOCATION: 7020 S. Eagle Rd. &3487 E. Adler Hof Ln., in the south 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4, T.2N.,R.IE. (Parcels# S1404244250 & S1404233650) s r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots,40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one(1)private street lot and one(1)lot for the existing home). • Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two(2)gates; and, • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6,which prohibits common driveways off private streets,to allow such in three(3)locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units. The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020(H-2020-0079). This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all of it single family detached. This proposal was scheduled for the October 15,2020 Planning Commission meeting. Following staffs report to the Commission recommending denial, the applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family attached units in the northwest corner of the project. Page 1 Item 8. r265] II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 80.46 Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County(existing),R-8 and R-15 proposed Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)&Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type; 328 SFR buildable lots/40 common lots/14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway bldg./common) lots, 1 private street lot& 1 lot for the existing home) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases Number of Residential Units 30 attached SFR homes (type of units) 298 detached SFR homes(one is existing) Density 4.1 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total 14.99 acres(or 18.8%)qualified open space [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities (2)dog parks;3/a acre park with play structure,climbing rocks,a shade structure and benches;entry park, 1-acre sports park,passive open spaces and pathways Physical Features The Farr Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site;hillside/topography (waterways,hazards,flood within southern rim area. plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; 5/27/20; 14 attendees,December 16,2020;9 attendees #of attendees: History(previous approvals) Property boundary adjustment(Record of Survey#12358,Eisenman 2020), previous proposal similar to this one was withdrawn just prior to Planning Commission due to staff recommendation of denial. (H-2020-0079) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study(yes/no) Yes Access One(1)public street access(Street A)is proposed via S.Eagle Rd.,an arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street.Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,gutter or Hwy/Local)(Existing and sidewalk. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Eagle Rd.—Better than"E"(acceptable level of service) Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and Street/Interconnectivity/Cross interconnectivity as depicted on the plat. Southern stub streets only have Access emergency access.The area in the NEC of the proposed development(Phase 8) Page 2 Item 8. M Description Details Page cannot develop until Pura Vida extends a public street;Phase 9 of the development currently does not have the right to access the private lane and cannot develop until a public street is extended to the proposed development Existing Road Network There is an existing private street(E.Adler Hof Ln.)that provides access from S. Eagle Rd.to the existing homes on this site.This roadway should terminate with development of the site as proposed. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road in 2024. • Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road in 2023. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the west leg,and reconstructed/signalized in 2023. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the 2016 C I P to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the 2016 CIP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south,2-lanes east,and 3-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 2030, Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.9 miles(Fire Station#4) Fire has expressed concerns with only one point of access from S.Eagle Rd.Fire would prefer a second access to the north to E.Lake Hazel Rd. Fire has also expressed concerns with the private gates causing additional delays. • Fire Response Time Most(3/4+l-)of this development falls outside of the 5 minute response time goal from Fire Station#4. • Resource Reliability Current reliability is 77%from Station#4 does not meet targeted goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service. A wildfire safety plan is required. • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required(fire station is 5.9 miles away). • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the development.In the event of a structure fire,an additional truck company will be required—this will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the City. Police Service • Distance to Police 5.5 miles Station • Police Response Time There is no call data in this area because the proposed development is at the edge of City limits. • Calls for Service 7(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • %of calls for service See Section IX.D split by priority • Accessibility No concerns Page 3 Item 8. F 67 Description Details Page • Specialty/resource needs None at this time • Crimes 1 (within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Crashes 9(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits,service can be provided if this development is approved. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) Enrollment Ca par Miles Dew.m school • Capacity of Schools **Silver Sage Elementary" 230 425 5.1 miles Lake Hazel Middle School 928 1000 2.4 miles • #of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2302 2175 4.8 miles **Enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped. Students in this development will be attending Silver Sag mmill Elementary until anew school is built to eliminate overcrowding at Hillsdale Elementary." • Predicted#of students 247+/- generated from proposed development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Sewer will be available with the development of Keep Subdivision on the West side of Services Eagle Road. • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.08 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Water and sewer mains should not be in common driveways. Concerns have been expressed regarding the width of the private streets and that the required 30' easements may overlap onto private properties,rendering these areas unbuildable. The City is applying the following requirements for Common Driveways. • Three or less lots—services from main in adjacent road • Four or more lots—Sewer in common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain.Manhole needed in the common drive at the property boundary with"Private"on the lid. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's Page 4 Item 8. F 68 • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Common drives that have both water and sewer mains will require a 30'easement •As currently designed,most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure.There are multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12"and a secondary connections. •Coordinate with PW Engineering on main sizes,connection at the SW corner and connection at the NE corner. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend r Legend Pro" t Lflcfliior ® t Locaioi: •H!gALE 14 .. ® I PE - Y Residential IV iC Medium ��n sity Residential LOW Den .ihy Rid�nti�l LLMBIA r Page 5 Item 8. F269] Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend r Pro" i Lacai�or i Location Jea �-$ Prima 11'-11 City urnitr RUT' R-15 — Planned Parcels 5 i R-4 R-2 �y �y i t i i i t 1 R RR Iwt1 �, r r III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Peter and Dana Eisenman—3487 E.Adler Hof Ln.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise,ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 2/26/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property 2/23/2021 owners within 300 feet Applicant posted public hearing 3/5/2021 notice on site Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 Page 6 Item 8. F270] V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the 6+/-acres at the southwest corner of the site, south of the Farr Lateral, as Low Density Residential(LDR)and the remaining 74+/-acres as Medium Density Residential(MDR).A City Park is designated in the general area at the southwest corner of the site. Per the Comprehensive Plan,the LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre.Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The Applicant proposes to develop this site with 328 single-family residential homes at an overall gross density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre(An additional lot will contain the existing house).A total of 23 units are proposed within the 6+/- acre LDR designated area for a gross density of 3.8 units per acre in that area,which exceeds the density desired of 3 or fewer units per acre. Smaller lots, instead of the large or estate lots as desired in LDR designated areas, are proposed along with open space areas along the southern boundary and along the northern boundary adjacent to the Farr Lateral. There are several larger one-half acre lots proposed at the southeast directly abutting the adjacent residences in Vantage Point Subdivision. However,the rectangular lots are oriented as such that the abutting lot lines are half or less than the width of the neighboring residential lots, so there are several lots abutting one neighboring lot. The applicant proposes to limit the height of the houses in this area to one story to help protect view sheds. The units proposed in the MDR designated area meet a gross density of 4.1 units per acre in that area,which is consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas of 3 to 8 units per acre.A City park is not proposed,but the Park's Department has determined a City park is not needed in this area. B. Comprehensive Plan Analysis(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The applicant isproposing 328 lots, with 30 of the lots containing single family attached at the northwest portion of the site. The remainder of the 299 lots are intended for single family detached units. The applicant's narrative references housing types such as large rim lot houses, two story golf course houses, large lot homes, 255 single story homes and the attached single-family product. The single family attached product does contribute to the variety of housing types in the overall area. However, the remaining single family detached houses contribute to a diversity of housings les but notparticularly the variety of housing Upes intended by the Comprehensive Plan for all needs,preferences and financial capabilities. Page 7 Item 8. F271] • "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. Currently, this development can be served by the Fire Department. However, most of the development is outside of response time goals, does not meet resource reliability goals, and has risk factors including a steep hill with a potential for wildfire if the hillside isn't maintained(see the Fire Department's comment in Section VII below). Additionally, with the main access and secondary access both from Eagle Rd., if access is blocked from the north via Eagle Rd. it may delay emergency services by having to travel 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site,potentially creating a life safety issue. If the applicant is able to secure legal secondary access to the north this would alleviate concerns but this would be contingent upon whether those properties develop, and staff might recommend only some number of lots being developed until that occurs. The Southern Meridian Fire Station adjacent to Discovery Park is anticipated for construction in 2023; if this occurs, there will be significantly improved fire service to the subject property. The annexation is currently in process and scheduled for a public hearing. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The subject property abuts Pura Vida Ridge Ranch to the northeast, the Boise Ranch Golf Course to the east, and Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south. This development proposes R-8 zoning and lot sizes of approximately 5,000 sq.ft. to 6,000 sq.ft. adjacent to Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, whereas Pura Vida Ranch includes lot sizes of comparable sizes and the same R-8 zoning. To the southwest(Phase 9), the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6,000—6,500 sq.ft. whereas the adjacent Vantage Pointe Subdivision is comprised of lots one-acre in size and greater(although there are four lots proposed with this development directly abutting the south area and are % acre to 3/ acre in size). The development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in Vantage Point. The development also proposes one story homes in this area. An abutting neighbor has submitted written testimony stating the buffer as proposed and the lot sizes are not appropriate transitions in this area. It is staff's opinion the lots should be at least one-acre in this area and have property line lengths that better orient to adjacent off-site properties. The Planning Commission and City Council should assess whether there is an appropriate transition in this area. "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family attached homes at the northwest are generally compatible as they directly abut S. Eagle Road and there are no adjacent homes directly to the north. The single family detached homes are generally compatible with existing rural residential homes as they are all residential in nature. However, with the exception of the larger lots and open space on the south boundary, the proposed plat depicts smaller lots (i.e. 4,448-4,950 sf.) than those of the lots in the abutting Vantage Pointe Subdivision. The Commission and Council should determine if the applicant has provided an adequate transition. Page 8 Item 8. N • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The Pathways Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the eastern boundary of the site; a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed in accord with the Plan on the northern portion of the development but transitions to a 5-foot wide pathway to the south and does not stub to the south for future extension as shown on the Plan. However, the Park's Dept. has indicated they are supportive of the proposed design. This pathway will eventually provide a connection to Discovery Park to the west and Hillside Elementary and the YMCA to the north. There is also a 10' multi-use pathway proposed adjacent to the Farr Lateral, as is shown on the pathways plan. These pathways will be valuable amenities to the project. A golf cart pathway is shown as Lot 41 on Block 5, which terminates at the Boise Ranch Golf Course. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter,pathways, two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements, which are located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site and are not centrally located. Although much of the open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC(i.e. at least 20'in width and 50'in length with an access on each end) a significant portion of what is proposed as qualified open space consists of street buffers and end caps with parkways.Also, it is important to note that the applicant's narrative contains a pedestrian connectivity exhibit which shows narrow private roads with no sidewalks and common drives as `pedestrian connections"which staff believes is somewhat misleading. However, the private street standards do not require them. Additionally, staff believes the entire development should contain public streets which would require the 5-foot sidewalks per City code. The Commission and Council should determine if the pedestrian circulation plan is adequate for the proposed development with the inclusion of the private system. • "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and values." (2.02.01B) Because the average lot size proposed in the development is only 6,280 square feet, Staff is of the opinion the end caps could be re-oriented/consolidated with other larger common lots to increase the usable open space within the development. This was discussed during the pre-application meetings with the applicant and they are of the opinion the open space as proposed exceeds UDC standards and is designed to meet the needs of the development. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and through with this development. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The subject property abuts portions of the city limits at the northwest and northeast corner, but the majority of the property perimeter is surrounded by unincorporated Ada County. The proposed project is located near the fringe of the City and does not meet the definition of an infill development. • "Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design."(4.05.02C) The Ten Mile Creek crosses the northeast corner of the site; a common area is proposed for the creek area and a multi-use pathway is proposed along the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Page 9 Item 8. F273] • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) City sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with the public road portion of this development. The cross sections provided for the private road portion do not depict sidewalks. The applicant contends that the private streets provide an intimate setting for the residents and narrower streets decrease traffic speeds which do not warrant the additional improvements. It is important to note that the director has not approved the private street application, thus the plat should be redesigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development. • "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 project is in the City's `fringe"area; therefore, development in this area is not encouraged as are vacant/underutilized parcels currently within City limits. However, the City has recently approved several developments (Pura Vida and Poiema) north of the proposed development making this property more desirable to develop. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.01A) Eagle Rd. is currently a 2-lane roadway with no curb, gutter or sidewalks; no improvements are planned in the CIP/IFYWP to the segment of Eagle Rd. abutting this site. The Lake Hazel/Eagle Road intersection north of the site is planned to be reconstructed and signalized in 2023. The ACHD report states that the TIS estimates this development to generate an additional 3,343 trips per day resulting in an acceptable level ofservice (i.e. better than "E'). WASD estimates this development will house approximately 247 school aged children—enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped so students in this development would attend Silver Sage, which is currently under capacity; enrollment at Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School would be over capacity at build-out of this development according to the Community Development's school impact review included in Section VII. Water and sewer are being extended consistent with the City's master plan as noted above. Discovery Park, a 77+/-acre City Park, is located approximately a mile away from this site to the west on Lake Hazel Rd., which should be adequate to serve this development. • "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) Two types of housing are proposed—single family detached and 30 single family attached units-which will provide diversity in housing, and the density in the MDR designated area falls within the desired range. The density proposed in the LDR designated area at the southwest corner of the site is above the 3 units or fewer per acre desired in that area. However, the Comprehensive Plan states future land use designations are not parcel specific. An adjacent, abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used.A designation may not must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50%of the land being developed. The predominate land use designation is MDR and the applicant has the ability to design the project to meet density perimeters of the MDR designations provided other goals of the Comprehensive Plan are being met. Page 10 Item 8. F274] As discussed below, R-I5 zoning is proposed at the less dense eastern portion of the site to allow the option ofprivate streets without sidewalks., Staff has concerns with the private streets, specifically the long-term maintenance and interconnectivity with surrounding developments. If these roadways are not constructed to ACHD standards, the likelihood ofACHD accepting these streets in the future is slim. Also, stafffinds that although most of the open space meets the minimum dimensions, not all of it is quality open space(please see the qualified open space section below). The Fire Department has noted concerns with the access and serviceability of this project ahead of the fire station being constructed next to Discovery Park. Finally,public services are proposed to be extended near the fringe of the City rather than to vacant/underdeveloped infill parcels as desired. For these reasons, Staff is of the opinion the proposed annexation may not be the best interest of the City at this time. C. Annexation&Zoning: Portions of the annexation area are contiguous to a portion of the current City limits boundary and within the City's Area of City Impact at the east boundary. Most of the surrounding properties are still within unincorporated Ada County.A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VI.A. The proposed annexation area consists of two(2)tax parcels containing a total of 80.46 acres of land designated as LDR and MDR on the FLUM and contains land to the section line of S. Eagle Rd. The Applicant proposes to annex the two(2)parcels, zone the western 43.85 acres with an R-8 zoning district, and the eastern 36.60-acre portion with a R-15 zoning district. The R-8 zoning district allows lots as small as 4,000 sq. ft. with a minimum street frontage of 40'. The western 43.85 acres of the plat proposed for R-8 zoning reflects lots that meet this minimum lot and frontages requirements. The R-15 zoning district allows lots as small as 2,000 sq. ft. and has no requirement for a minimum street frontage. This zoning is typically reserved for higher densities,including single family attached, townhomes and multifamily.It is important to note that with the previous application, staff informed the applicant that the private streets that are proposed with a significant portion of this development were not allowed under the R-8 zoning that was originally proposed for the entire development. The provisions for private streets apply only to properties that do not have frontage on a public street or where frontage is not required per UDC 11-3F-2.The applicant has subsequently revised their application to propose R-15 zoning merely for the purpose of being eligible for private streets whereas all other dimensional standards would comply with the requirements of the R-8 zone. Staff believes the development should incorporate public streets within the entire development and zone the property in accord with the more appropriate R-8 zone(Please see the access section below for more discussion regarding the private streets).In previous discussions with the applicant,staff has suggested the applicant either rezone to PUD, or initiate a code change in regard to requirements for private streets. The applicant has chosen to move forward with a request to rezone to R-15. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two (2) existing homes and outbuildings on this site—the 5,892 square foot home constructed in 2002 at the east end of the site is planned to remain on a lot(Lot 64,Block 5)in the proposed subdivision; the home and accessory structures on the west end of the site are planned to be removed with development. These homes are accessed via a private lane(E. Adler Hof Ln.) from S. Eagle Rd. If annexed,the home proposed to remain is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service and change their address. Page 11 Item 8. ■ E. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed use,with two housing types,is mostly consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district in that a range of housing opportunities and a variety of dwelling types would be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC 11-2A-1 and 11-6A-1. However, proposing to rezone a portion of the property to the R-15 zone when R-8 zone would suffice merely for the reason of being eligible for private streets is not consistent with the purpose statement of UDC 11-3F-1. While this isn't an uncommon practice,this section states that"it is not the intent to approve private streets for single- family,duplex and/or townhouse developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development"as no single family attached are in this area and no common mews are proposed. Further, a limited gated community as specified in the UDC is 50 or fewer homes. As noted below,the applicant is proposing that 112 homes utilize the proposed private street in an area that doesn't have an established street network and limited access. Therefore,the director has denied the private street application(see below for analysis). F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 328 building lots,40 common lots, and 14 other lots(i.e. common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 80.46 acres of land. Development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Lots in the western portion proposed for R-8 meet the minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. with a 40' lot frontage. Although the lots in the 36.6-acre eastern portion proposed for R-15 meet the dimensional standards of that zone district(minimum lot size of 2,000 sq. ft. and no minimum frontage requirement)as presently proposed,they would also meet the minimum requirements of the R-8 zoning district. 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. 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 City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions as specified in UDC 11-6C-3F.3b. The face of Block 9 on the north side of the Farr Lateral is 1,000'+/- and does not contain a pathway or intersecting street or alley.This is also true of the section of Block 5 that is south of private street A of more than 850 feet. Council approval would be needed, or the plat would need to be revised to comply with the standard. At the northeast corner of the site, a street ending in a cul-de-sac is proposed which will likely exceed the maximum 500' length allowed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 depending on how the property to the north develops. Staff had recommended an internal street access to this portion of the development rather than the sole access being provided via a stub street from the north. The applicant has responded due to the topography in this area,they cannot provide the recommended internal access. However,just to the north of this cul-de-sac,the plat shows a golf cart path in this general area. Twelve(12) common driveways are proposed; such driveways should 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 Page 12 Item 8. M 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. Where two(2)common driveways are proposed that adjoin,bollards(or other barrier approved by the Fire Dept.) should be placed at the common lot line to prevent a through connection between streets. The applicant has submitted a phasing plan. The phasing plan shows nine phases,with the first phase occurring directly adjacent to S. Eagle Rd at the proposed public street.Number of lots being built out vary between 59 at the first phase,to 23 at the last phase. Phase 8 and Phase 9 are both disconnected from the rest of the subdivision, although staff does believe an access could be constructed across the Farr Lateral between Phase 1 or 2 and Phase 9. UDC 11-3F-4 prohibits common driveways off of private streets whereas this proposal includes three common driveways served by private streets. The applicant has requested alternative compliance from this standard. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3 The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,gutter or sidewalk. Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd. intersection in 2023. Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5-lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024; and to 5-lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030;no improvements are planned to Eagle Rd. south of Lake Hazel abutting the site. The applicant will be required to construct 5-foot-wide sidewalk on S. Eagle Rd abutting the site. One(1)public street, Street A, is proposed for access via S. Eagle Rd. as a collector street to the intersection of Street C, also a public street. Three(3) stub streets are proposed at the north, and two(2) stub street are proposed at the south boundaries of the site for future extension in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. One of these southern stubs is a secondary emergency access to E. Vantage Pointe Ln. to be constructed with the first phase of development. There is also a cul-de-sac at the extreme northeast serving 15 additional lots,which is intended to connect to a public road through the recently approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch. This area is shown as Phase 8 and does not connect to the rest of the Skybreak Subdivision, except for the connected pathway system. There are two southern roads shown to connect from the subject property to E.Vantage Pointe Lane to the south. E.Vantage Point Lane is a private road, and the applicant has only demonstrated the legal right to use this road for emergency access (Inst. #2020-063349);public access is not allowed. This is adequate for emergency access to occur from the cul-de-sac shown at the end of the public street shown as Street J. However,this application also shows an additional 23 lots being served from a double cul-de-sac shown as Phase 9. The applicant has not demonstrated they have primary legal access to these lots via E.Vantage Pointe Lane.The applicant has responded that they intend to eventually obtain this access and will build out this later phase when it is obtained,but staff is concerned with an application which proposes annexing and zoning 23 lots into the City without proof of access. The applicant should construct a roadway across the Farr Lateral to provide access to the portion of the development for better integration. The Fire Department has noted in a letter dated February 16,2021 that they are concerned with a large subdivision with only one access out to S.Eagle Rd. Two of the three northern stubs go to properties within unincorporated Ada County which are not proposed for development at this time.The third northern stub only serves Phase 8 which does not connect to the rest of the subdivision.If access from the north via Eagle Rd.is blocked,in the event of an emergency,emergency vehicles would have to travel an additional 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site creating a potential life safety Page 13 Item 8. F277] issue due to a delayed response time. Staff has recommended the applicant pursue a northern access to allow access from this subdivision via the public road in the Pura Vida Subdivision and to E.Lake Hazel Rd,but the applicant has responded that due to topography this is not feasible, although the applicant has managed to configure a golf cart path to the golf course at the north.In addition,the Fire Department has mentioned the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5-minute response area, and the nearest station(Station 4)has a low reliability rating.This would improve if and when the southwestern fire station adjacent to Discovery Park is constructed in 2023.The applicant has submitted a phasing plan which shows each phase has at least two accesses for emergency service,but as mentioned,except for Phase 8 at the northeast corner,all the other phases rely on only S.Eagle Rd for access. Staff is aware that access will improve in this area over time however,it is contingent on other properties developing in the area to provide the necessary road network. A combination of public and private streets are proposed for access within the development—public streets are proposed on the west and private streets serving 112 lots are proposed on the east end of the subdivision. Three (3) common driveways are proposed for access off private streets(see analysis below). The applicant has provided sections of the private streets with this plat application(see Section VI). Although the plat does not indicate exactly which private street cross sections are proposed in which area,the street sections show private streets as narrow as 27',none of which include sidewalks. Since the time of the pre-application meetings,staff has responded that staff does not support this many lots being served by private streets. This is because this results in streets that would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners through the HOA, as ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Staff has requested the developer state the reason for requesting private streets other than the additional costs to build them to the standard template,and the only responses staff has received thus far is that there is a demographic of senior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates and private streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there are probably buyers that would prefer gated communities and private streets,but still does not understand why narrow private streets are preferable to streets built to standard templates and containing landscaping and sidewalk.As noted above,staff finds the proposal is not a limited gated community,exceeds more than 50 homes.Therefore,the plat should be resigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development.As noted below the applicant has requested alternative compliance (ALT)to allow 112 homes as proposed. The director has denied the applicant's ALT request. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The applicant proposes 112 gated lots, and 3 common driveways off a private street.UDC 11-3F-4 states a proposed(gated) development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units, and no common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street. However, 11-3F-4 also allows the director to approve, or recommend approval of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this article and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when one(1)or more of the following conditions exist: a. Topography, soil,vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical; b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot; c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable; d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the requirements of this article; Page 14 Item 8. F278] e. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism", "neotraditional design",or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed use neighborhoods; f. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance. In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The applicant's alternative compliance letter mentions there is a demographic ofsenior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates andprivate streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there is probably a demographic that would prefer gated communities, but this is not a condition required for alternative compliance. The Director finds the applicant has not demonstrated the need for a private versus public streets as noted above. The plat indicates private street sections with no sidewalks and minimal landscaping, whereas ACHD templates require S'sidewalks and landscaping.Also, the applicant proposes alternative compliance to allow three common driveways from the private streets, whereas this is not allowed by UDC 11-3F-4-6. Staff does not understand how what is being proposed is an equal or superior means to meeting requirements. Providing narrow private streets with no sidewalks, minimal landscaping, and common driveways from these private streets is not an innovative design features that promotes walkable neighborhoods. Finally, as was already mentioned, gating the community will also slow response times when there are already fire access concerns, which would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C : Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. A parking plan is included in Section VIII.J that depicts a total of 334 on-street parking spaces along public and private streets;parking along private streets must be approved by the Fire Marshall. 1. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts a north/south segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the east side of the subject property and along the south side of the Farr Lateral at the southwest corner of the site. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept.pathway coordinator on the design proposed along the east boundary; the pathway along the south side of the Farr Lateral is consistent with the PMP. The pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement or a note should be added to the plat which allows public access in the common lots intended for pathways. Ten-foot(10')wide segments of the City's multi-use pathway are proposed within the street buffer along Eagle Rd., along the south side of the Farr Lateral, along the Ten Mile Creek and the northern portion of the east boundary of the site and a golf cart path. Other pathway connections are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access to common areas within the development.A pathway connection is proposed between the pathway on the eastern portion of the site to the sidewalks along internal public streets on the west end of the site. A total of 5,167 linear feet of pathways are proposed in this development(see exhibit in Section VI).All pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. Page 15 Item 8. F279] Where pathways are proposed in common driveways(i.e. Lot 25,Block 9)they should be located in separate common lots with landscaping on either side in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C. I Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): A 10' pathway is proposed along S. Eagle Rd. with a combination of detached and attached sidewalks along the internal public streets.No sidewalks are required or proposed along private streets except for along private Streets K& S where a detached sidewalk is proposed for a pedestrian connection between the pathway on the east end of the site to the sidewalk along public Street I on the west end of the site. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17 : Eight-foot wide parkways with detached sidewalks are proposed along the entry street(Street A)and in a few other areas; sidewalks are mostly attached with no parkways in this development.All parkways 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. L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Street A where it is designated as a collector street(i.e. from Eagle Rd. to the intersection of Street C), landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 50' foot+/- wide buffer is proposed along Eagle Rd. and a 30-foot wide buffer is proposed along the collector street(Street A)landscaped with grass and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in excess of the minimum standards. Parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed within parkways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Landscaping is proposed along pathways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Landscaping is depicted in common areas in excess of UDC standards except along the Farr Lateral and Lot 46,Block 5 (the ridge lot with the trail). There are existing trees on the site within proposed building lots that are proposed to be removed that may require mitigation. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. M. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/- acres), a minimum of 8 acres of qualified open space should be provided. The Applicant landscape plan notes the development provides 14.99 acres(or 18.4%) of qualified open space. This open space consists of parks, street buffers,linear open space,parkways and common areas greater than 50' x 100' in area, including the slope area on the east end of the site(see qualified open space exhibit in Section VI).Although the open space complies with the minimum UDC standards in regard to dimensions, Page 16 Item 8. F280] some of the open space area being credited consists of unusable arterial/collector street buffers and end caps with parkways,the easement for the Farr Lateral, and areas that aren't centrally located for easy access. It is staff s opinion that the applicant has the opportunity to reconfigure the plat to consolidate additional open space to make it more accessible and useable. UDC 11-3G-3-E requires that at a minimum, common open space areas shall include one(1)deciduous shade tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet and lawn, either seed or sod. There are areas being credited on the applicant's open space exhibit as qualified open space, such as land within the Farr Lateral easement, and all the challenging and steeply sloping land in Lot 45,Block 5 at the east that do not meet the minimum landscape requirements. In addition,the pathway shown along Lot 45,Block 5 would need to be landscaped with one tree per 100 linear feet of pathway as required per UDC 11-3B-3-12 in order to be credited for qualified open space. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/-acres), a minimum of four(4) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter/shade structure, pathways,two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements. Dog owner facilities are required to be improved with a dog washing station with a drain to sanitary sewer system and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal; or fencing to enclose a minimum 0.75 acre of open space for an off-leash dog park and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal per UDC 11-3G-3C.h.Although the proposed amenities meet the minimum standards,they are primarily located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site or in the gated portion of the development and are not centrally located(see details in Section VII.D),which Staff is of the opinion is not ideal. Staff would prefer the open space be reconfigured to allow more useable open space and amenities toward the center of the development. Further,UDC 11-3G-3D.3 requires common open space and site amenities to be located in areas of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas,unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime. Staff does believe the sports park,playground and pathways are adequate amenities,but as mentioned above,believes more useable open space and centrally located amenities should be incorporated into this project. O. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. P. Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15) An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided with development to each lot within the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. Irrigation water is provided from the New York Irrigation District. Q. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Farr Lateral runs across the southwest corner of this site within a common lot(Lot 51,Block 9)and Ten Mile Creek runs along the northeast corner of the site. The Applicant proposes to leave these waterways open and improve them as linear open space with a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway. However, if these waterways are intended to be improved and credited as linear open spaces,they should be accessible and usable, and Page 17 Item 8. M landscaped in accordance with UDC 11-313-12 and UDC 11-3G-3-E, including one tree per 100 pathway feet and one tree per 8,000 square feet of open area,as well as vegetated with seed or sod. R. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-6C and I I-3A-7. Six-foot tall open vision vinyl slat top fencing is proposed along connection pathways and the Farr Lateral,4- foot tall open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed adjacent to the dog parks and 6-foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along street buffers and the perimeter of the subdivision as shown on the landscape plan. UDC 1I- 3A-6C.3 requires open laterals to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6-foot in height and having an 11-gauge,2-inch mesh or other construction equivalent in ability to deter access to the lateral. Staff recommends open fencing is installed between the lateral and the pathway to preserve public safety. S. Building Elevations (UDC I I-3A-19 1 Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VI. Homes depicted are predominantly single-story, some with a bonus room,with a few that are 2-stories in height proposed on the east end of the development on or near the rim. All but 44 of the homes are proposed to be restricted to single-story with the option of a bonus room;the larger lots on the east end of the development are not restricted to single-story homes (see exhibit in Section VII.J). Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials(i.e.horizontal and vertical siding and stucco) with stone/brick veneer accents. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested annexation and preliminary plat based on the Findings in section IX. and the Director has denied the private street and alternative compliance based on the Findings in section IX. Page 18 Item 8. F282] VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map (date 1/20/21) AAk ;wtzoth Lar1d 5urvin lr1q, PLC +� � YYl�']rFrl r7�F SriJG I_RITrC.t IS:Ir[!I �' Skybreak Annexation Legal Description BASIS OF BEAFUNGS 15 S. 01,12'S2"VV. betwRr~n a fount#alurn4wirm tap maekimg the W114 corner and 6 found alurninum cav marking ttM NW comer of 5ect.4n ap,T. 2 J., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, A parcel of(land locates In the 51{2 nF Me 144Ij4 oP Section 4 Township 2 Northr Range 1 East Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly dlesur�tw as Foll : COMMENCING at an akiminum cap marking the NVV ctrrher of said Section 4; Th€fxa S, 00=`W., coindderk with the west line of Said NWJIJ and the ceniviine of S. Eagle Road, 1342.07 feet to an aiurnlnum cap PrS 13550, markiW the N1�1<6 com-Rror said Seetkon 4 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence S. BcrS2'22rr f;, to incident with tha mrth Irnr*of Said 5112 cf ltar NYr+114r d dl-qance od 1321.03 feet tD a Sf8"remrlcap PI-5 645. matking thr5 NVV 11 t6 dormer of wick Section 4j, ThQnse N, 89°56'41"'E.,c01110derit with said narttr kirm, 13Z1.1D feet to aI 510"reber/cap PIS 4347, rnarkir% the CN11tE carver of said Seclran 4; Thence 5-CG'37'07"W-, cainudLIA whir t1-re Iasi Me of Sid NVVV4, a fturice of 1313.72 feet to a 3�4' rebar{cap PtS 645, marl ing the C1/4 corder'of Salo Sermon 4; The"M N.8"W 12"W,r oncldent with the South tlrre of Sald Sectron 4,a d9�kance of 2632.7[ reef to an ilQg iwa altrminurn ram, marking the YVIJ4 of said Section 4; Thenrre N. 00012'52-f_,, cvirlcldent With said viest loner 1326.27 Feet to the EGINT OF BEGINIMING. The above dewrbQd parmJ cofltains 00.4GI -scan More:ok N-m. a 1 ,574 f I'D BEA " Page 19 Item 8. F283] R Of BEARDWrH piq h,i7iffre _ rq r I rIi � i i I I4 I 4 I I I w I � I I � I � � I 1 '�I I [.fd1A�177�1 ~ I 1k Page 20 Item 8. F284] B. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map (date: 1/20/21) ti awwct1 Ladd urveyinL3T LLC x , L - r F WLibI 398•b 113.4 F: 1-2081 398.31 0511574 � k060 IgW Ave 6n+n�rk Q 8561 r' Skybreak R-8 Zoning Description ► '� GASM OF BEARINGS Is 10912Z SZ"W. benveEn a found ailuminum cap marking the W 114 corme and a FUL Md alominPm-cap marklog the NW mrr1er-of Seabn 40 T. .4 N., R- 1 E„ B,M„ Ada County. L-laho. A pam6 of rand iocaLed in the S1{2 of the NV11�4'nF SeUbOn i ToWnshrp I Narthr Range 1 EQSt, 1301se Meridians Ada (:aunty, Tdahr), snora particular+y tk.6hvi;hed as Follows: COMMENCING at nn aluminuro cap marking the NW corner of said 5action 4; Thincv 5. 401V52"W.{cuiriciderit Mth the west line al said NW114, a distance or 1352.07 feet to an alumrrurn -�ap PL5 13559, mark{ng the 141116 turner cF saad SeOjon 4 and the POINT OF BEGINNING1 Tlw-nw 5. WP52'17" F,, coincident with the north iine of sand SW2 of the NWI14, a distance or 132103 feet tQ a 5}8"rebarftap KS 645, matking the NW1/16 corner of S-aid Sechgrr it; Thence%. 139P5W41"F., a�dncldent wO said north Ilne, 2Li1.71J Feet; 1lnevice 5, 1312"52"W,, paraMlel wrdr said West line, 1137;56 Feet; fhedce K. WVLOU"W-r 5.43 FM; Fhence S. 001,12'5Z"W., parallO wb sold wit Mine, 4S4,7'd fw�; Them N. 89134173"W.r 73.73 feet; ftrence N. 711155"29"W, 3.5.46 fleet; 1174ena.� N. 9V44250 W., tP.79 feet, fhanee S. 00012'!iV W-r paralbel With sold west line, 146,02 ftvtr Thence S. 89047,0$rt E,, ax fit; Thence S. 001112'52" W., pamile v d said west line, 601.9S reat ko the south lFnp-of said NW1�4; Thence N. :1390W1Zn V1,, m4nddent wO said-moth line, M4.42 feet hn air iilegfbbe aiurmnuMn cap, markeig bt}c W1J4 of Sold Section 4; TheKe N. 00'112'52" E., eoinddent with salt#wesr liner 1326.27 Feet to the P01W OF REGy3l,M"ING_ The above desctibizd Varcel contains 411158 acres rricre ior less. Page 21 Gm& 35 _ _ � • --—--_-- & �� -- - ,_���- . - a 71 � � - � � p � �■§ � | � | . r . , I{ �§i , §�q 9 � 2� A � i 2 | � � . . . . _ | g�■ �.£ @ m � - - in a � -. � ■� / ` � m§ 5��w � � � - -- -- �-- � 2 , / j §j I q �§ \ 3t E .�( %2w2 k� I _ .x ,& �w � , §� i kt I � Page 2 { Item 8. 5a t� L.Srid ory 1r1 , L LF 286 AA L 2030 3, Wmh5rigtqm Awl. r--i, , i- .�8G1 7 dtf I va YA'A OF VD Skybreak -15 Zoning Description BAS 5 OF BEAMAIG$ Ls S. V12'52" W. between a f-oUrrd aluminum cap marking the W114 tamer arkd a faund sl umi rrurn rap marking the NV4 corner-of Sectron 4, f. � N,t R. t 1E,, 13,M„ Ada Qounty, Idaho A pEWCal of land IdtatW in the 5112 of tttie NVw1/4 of 920jun 4 T-nwnth"rp 2 Northr Ranee 1 E&sL Boise Meridian, Ada Gold sty, xdaW, n}ore panlcula0y descried as rollDws: COMMEf+lCING at an o1wnirium cap marking the NW comer-Df said Seaicil 4; -r'Mena 5. noi2'52"W., ❑ incident vyIth the west llrie of said NVw1/q, a d1€Wry or 1352.07 Tenet m arh aiuminLr ri cap PLS USSO, marking [he N 111E cornier of sawl Secoon -T; thence S. SW52'72"E, uDWdent with the north Ilne of said 5112 of the NVV111, a disirmwe or 1321,03 feet Lu 6 5JH"re-bar/cap PL-5 645, FTwrkirg the NW1115 cormr Df sold Section 4; 'rri N. W5041"�-:, eaineident W#1 said -iorth Irma, 263.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Theoct wntlnuiny 74, 641355'41" F., coincident wihh swd north lirn�, 1.059.31 Feet W a 5j8" rabarftao PLC A34j, rri,rking the CN3/16 Cwher of said Saran 4; Ttarrice S. W13707"W.. tn+ncjdencv+ kh the east ilrke of saW Secbon I, i� di€Lance of IS33-72 feat t-a o 3?4" rebar/cap Pt_5 645, marking the C114 currier a pica Section 4; Tf emoe W 891148'12" W,, roincrOent with the sotO lhne of sa-d NWL14t a di5tance of 7 ZH9.29 (elt; Thalou N. 001112'52" E.. parallel with Said WeA ihie, 6D1.95 reetr Thence N. 99°47'08"W.. 22,31 fit; Thence N. -W117 "E., parallel with said west qn- 1-46_02 Wtr Thwxe S. 89"44"25" E., !57.79 feet, Tt ance S. 7105529" L, 3&.z;6 feet; Thence S. S41141 23" E-, 13.11 fear, Thonm N. OUL'12'52"E., paralaei Wit-, said west km2, 454.70 feel; lance S. 139047'OS" L. 5.43 few; Theme N. COP 12'S2'E-r prailel with said wezr lint 137.56 feel l.)Ve POINT OF BEG3NNIqG. he above de5crft2d oarcei Contains 36.604 arre-s MOFR or iess. Page 23 Item 8. 287 at"UR X*kwl It 07 h 1l213I' ui�u y I I R �uI I I w I� I� I I � I I � I I I im rri ILI I � �II N h i 1 � I R's PAMLrm Page 24 Item 8. F288] C. Preliminary Plat(date: 12/11/2020) 5M'52'M'E 12919Q' NN-,' E !?'AV . L 3 + 3 Y � • i � � n •i �Y p 5i i „ M l5 if R } ^� �- __• __ 17• R � ,X I y YY 'ly a I =--,d l• NMl4 �� -- — k k 1! �• - I MG• IIP 1A Nalbilld P. ! rY 4 R R I % I llF IN •X 1N _ iSl _—SiBf 4F�x,4'- r Y i t — I H x µ r p —•n�swagq — — 1 / 371w ` • lY %001 E -R amY�� � • ® i• '� N747E'267Y'12Y7.76 NW'4$'18•W 131$.36' A Landscape Plan (date: 12/11/2020) I� Page 25 Item 8. F 89 E. Gated versus Non Gated(date: 2/11/2020) All streets shown in gated portion are private streets -— _ ----� w'■ ! I W 1 art IIk 1L �■+ 1 y I I� ir - ..00 i {.. I i'M�} 1 Traditional «�i�hborhoGd Gated Community F. Open Space Exhibit(date: 12/30/2020) Item 8. F290] G. Zoning Exhibit(date: 12/10/2020) I - - -- - R-8 SingleM � - -- — Story. ;1 �- ------� -•. . R-15 two Story, j Attached ` � � I [ l Single Family j R-15 Large Rim Lot I I_ 1�_ �•� ���" CCEG Housing„) r' R-15 Gated Single -Story. Single - - - R-8 Single Story, I~�I _ ��(-Family - j Single Family _ - - f -R-15 Gated, Single Family _,CustomIMMIX l H. Phasing Plan (date 2/10/21) - - ---- - - Ih ---- - - _ , — _T iiil ` �ryry� i e _ - T n n� `r i i .._ _ '•,zip*-51 ` - I I Item 8. F291] I. Proposed Private Street Sections L L L LL TrG li I TE T.- V w PRWATE-YMEFT mcmk AT GAIT EHOLK- LE L L `TMI I f 7L.M PIP- PRUATE MaTSKMN WfflH MEDM MLMD 7-LE ,frT-. .JLE PI,3..D L L -r in o I IL L TV M 29 PSI VATESTREMYT�7FET Al —LE Jr W, kE �FF ID 2,TPRIVATE ST;[E-T(S MEETS L,M. N 0, P.G.P) io ....0 -.-Tr .1C L ----j L M,.LL JL VWAL 2-T FR I VATE STREET Wj 0 ETAC H ED WALK 0 N2 93 DE(9-M EEC 14 AND S) :1 F-37- Page 28 Item 8. F292] J. Phasing Description (date: 12/10/21) PROJECTED PROJECT TIMELINE Milestone Date Z021 - ■ City Council Approval est. Aril 2021 ■ Eagle Road-Amigr to Victor Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2021 2022 - ■ 20 Homes Occupied 151 home available April 2022 Au ust 2022 2023 - ■ Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road Intersection Construction 2023 ■ Eagle Road-Victory to Amity Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2023 ■ Fire Station #8 - Completed and Staffed December 2023 ■ 50 Homes Occupied September 2023 Z0z - ■ Lake Hazel Road - Ea le to Cloverdale Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2024 ■ 100 Homes Occupied June 2024 Z025 - ■ 150 Hoines Occupied June 2025 Z026 - ■ 200 Homes Occupied June 2026 Z027 - ■ 250 Homes Occupied June 2027 Z028 - ■ 300 Homes Occupied June 2028 2a29 - ■ Com letion December 2029 Page 29 Item 8. F293] K. Proposed Amenities (date: 2/10/21 —please refer to Narrative for more details) .a :F R _ A. Large 3 f4-Acre,Tot Park(Block 9, Lot 52)—The 35,142 5gft 5kybreak Neighborhood park vJiil contain the following recreation facilities: • Play Structure • Seating Benches • Shade Structure • Climbing Rocks • Large Grass play area • Attractive Landscaping • Playground fencing for safety B. pathways—The Skyhreak Neighborhood will include the following pedestrian pathways: • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along Eagle Road—1,326 LF • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along the Farr Lateral—1,120 LF • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along Ten Mile Creek-526 LF • 10'Wide Golf Cart Path- 760 LF • Natural Path—1,435 LF Pedestrian pathways within the 5kybreak Neighborhood will total nearly one mile in length. Page 30 Item 8. C. Dog Parks (Black 2, Lot I and Black 5, Lot 121) - The 5kylareak Neigh barhood pa rk wil I oanta i n t 4 29a (2-) .114 Ac small dog,, dog parks th at wil l in cl ud e ;h e fol lowing: • 0I)e n Vision Fencing _ • Dual Gate System • Seating Areas ARIL ATg • Attractive Landsc•al)ing ' � L vanor.r y i D. Entry Park(BI-ock 5,lot 114)—TI rnain Collector Roadway will - - terminate in an attractively landscaped open space that will provideforanaestheticaIly appeasing entry statement that will convey a sense of arrival, - • Specimen Tree - Plantings • Seating Areas • Attractive landscaping • Pathway E.Open Sports Park (Blo(k 5, Lot - 97)—This park will include: * Large 1-a cre ope n s ports a rea * Pathway Connection • Seating Areas - * Attractive Landscaping Page 31 Item 8. Landscaped Passive Open Spaces —Located throughout the Lleigh borhood: F295] * Attractive Land9caping * Buffering of side yards Premier 5ignage and Entry Monuments t �, f � ` •`�ti 'off _ J � _a•V �•� I! H. Pedestrian Connection Exhibit ---- -P1 21C&. Pt: _---man Coineclion Internal Pathway System Rno6r.al Pathway i Pedestrian GoV Cart Path Page 32 Item 8. 296 L. Parking Plan I _ r - - On-Street Parking 334 Spaces Page 33 Item 8. F297] M. Common Driveway Exhibits wAta Ea,seuEwr I I.: 1s 14 j I I _ AO.ca'row�wr I 12 I~ L J � 13 J 5.0'31DE LOT 13 T1 n IHRECT SIRFFf UN EA5T 510E OF �.. --- - — FRONT —' sErEaxlc scw�c 17 — — '' f — / -------------- TB / Eor 1e rw Es aaEcr smEl / f 1 pX E+STM RNEN'+ TEO '. .p' I 1 LOT YD 7FIIS5 DIRECT 5TREFL - I I ACCESS. DRIYEWAv LOCaTIDON M29M SIpE OF LPT, r— s - I s ia1 t i`FM-j3S TtP 17 34dp' W,4Tt?Ef F Sk�IR r�YEMr I if 15 i� I } SMACKI I yl ,-� ^l.FE"5 T-IVID p BEET OW EAST 916E OF Wr ur --- - s� rage S4 2 ]. . . ........ F98 7 MEE QN'VGE Wl A.1—E. h Wo EMNMW LGCAlEP —Flcm-w Tf Gi5 EkTr SILT GF LOT. it 23 I Lf 25 34 35 I I tig 3T REFM=M EWEeGD4L+ AMESS DkL, L 33 12.M' RrAN SMW-J� TI& 21 32 -TRE]ET LOT M TAKES URECr STREETLET 2- TAKES DIRE)Tr Arcas. lN4E64Av L%,AlEt AVEM Ord Ulftmr Tk�ON WMH IADE OF Lgr. ON 50LIRi 3rDE OF LOT. LOT 24 TAXES DRECT-rRErr A= EIRNEftv MUM) GIM5KTH 9ME UF LM RE&W UTWX TYP I S.a ti 26 5m, SIDE sEraxcK L'T 7 TAKE-9 PREU YREEF i ACCESS.DMVFWI LOCATED 27 ON W-%PC U LjYT. ?Vp BLOCK 9 rage j:) z� J L BLACK 9 1 S LOT 67 TmE5 upa r ;iETHA" SiT�EET — —— — ADME E.➢RhEWhl LGGNFfl [:h a-vr 90E OF LpT �. �1�OL) IiEN1 ———————— SETWIX TIP 74 I fi' dAr w _ I WFFM 1 �s 7D wf, nRWE/TaEc rumxkw -- - -- � -a II Lfli S iH45 W LOCATED aTiEEf L sun uE or nv LOUVTEO 9M + fAl1fV1$ItlE OF LCT. II y " I - - - --- - . 'I I T4 I li '< ------------- --- 72 II rL^r 73 r+uEs aAEcr srTiEEr I ESS.OphENd�LOATEo ,3 I iI l ;I BUCK 9 �� w I I I I 74 _` I � I I BLFFEF wmwR I 7S upME 77 I sEl�rac,� r Mow LOT r------------ ; I I I I+ I za�o•��r; I � I Page 36 Item 8. F 00 I r L{,T SI TWEs 3k-=S'1pIEET t • 'Q� I xlf E55. [IRTYS. Y LCCATEn On 110MH SrE OF L01 I' I I ti I i T]RNE 7 I � I I II.VD� R£Nt I PED HIIPWAY ———— 7,EF9+,ew Tw— —�o�a5€TfiFWWT L6T 77 TMES DIRECT 3-RGEr ArCE!,5. nMWMdY UrAMM '• - f'H EAST ME OF LM 77 I I I 3.0, Aul= SFTUb R LQi IRS TAKES 71REQ ZHFFf I -� +-. kmE I I BLOCK 5 I — nN WL'T DnNEKAr 5IU OF LY.hTE6 I l I a LAi +fia iNSES ]RECT STT+EEi l l ice" l I 'o �T Sp " i, Tea I I 76, ,s7 ,se ass j 1 f"EGI 70 NEl:.1;1 X�CMS 0& { - T80 1 758 — ` — — ———— f I ti �'s I ! - I 1 79 159 v ' LpT 1 FY i111[E3 pI1LECi S-MVMT L.OT 5+59 TakEl tlI-n Tr— -ir ACCESS C—!EWgr LCu4TED I AOM!2i. UHIVE✓rA" L;�raTE-, I ON SOUTH 91DF CF LOT. -- — 19H-%LrH 51OE DF LOT -- I: 126 gr Page 37 Item 8. F301] I Lfl-r 19 TWES UREGT STREET hMESS. DRf4EW-%v L)GkTED .4W WWH NPE :]F LQT I � I I+.• I I � I - i I 17 °. . I a 16 EILrFF'EH —-- — I ——— — — —— — — — I ' 13 rrp LM 13 T-WES DIREi:f %MEET I Fir 5 L. EAKEWAV LDC4TM I S6T8Mtk ']W WESTI ti41E MW LM. I ,.nm' sraE TRACK T— a g Y �wr S] r} r'1 Page 3 8 Sul VIP. _ ArkANEW I` aerr A'h �� ii it � � II� ■■ ■■ �n� ��� I�I�I I� III, -- �j IS�M �r � r r ra■i !ill 'w ■ !�■ No _ y Page 0 i�� I�■ �. 1 ���i- _� w..,• ���� i��, � Iw �� lei �� 1 m� �W I�� �� sl .ti � i �.—. --■ ��� l��A+ lams. ��� ai� , � ;,� I ■ ��, 1�i� ■ � �� �� ■ I ;; i a ds��G. �.�_ �i■� �s�s� Item 8. F305] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial. B. PUBLIC WORDS No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=214368&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&c1=1 F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193035&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianci(y.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222788&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX L NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193631&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancitE.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX K. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=203469&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX L. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT REVIEW: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203 755&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX M. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https.Ilweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222984&dbid=0&repo MeridianCity Page 42 Item 8. ■ N. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orz/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222907&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity 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 the proposed map amendment to R-8 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan density recommendations of 3-8 dwelling units per acre for the majority of the site except for the southern portion adjacent to the Vantage Pointe Subdivision where there is an inadequate transition in lot sizes. Staff finds zoning the property to the R-1 S district for purpose of allowing private streets is not suitable for providing the necessary infrastructure. As mentioned in Section V above, the 30 attached dwelling units would contribute to more diversity of houses, but the remaining 299 would not. The development does exceed what is required in regard to amenities, however stafffinds some of the open space is not the useable open space as anticipated by the Plan and believes better orientation and consolidation of open space could occur. The property is near the fringe of the City only adjacent to the City limits in a select few places; this development would not be considered infill. The proposed private streets serving a significant portion of the site would not meet the intent of the Plan in regard to requiring urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including sidewalks. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the lack of variety in housing types (i.e. all single-family detached homes except for 30 attached) and lack of diversity in lot sizes is not consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts, which states a range of housing opportunities should be provided consistent 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 could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The significant portion of the development proposed for private streets may pass the maintenance costs on to homeowners through the HOA, and because private streets are proposed with inadequate templates,ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Also, the Fire District has voiced concerns with service to this development until the southern fire station is constructed, has concerns with all but Phase 8 having S. Eagle Rd as the sole point of access, and does not prefer the proposed number of lots being served by gates. 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 Both West Ada County School District and the Community Development School Impact Review indicate this proposal would increase the number of students on schools that are already over capacity. Page 43 Item 8. M 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time as it is located near the fringe of the City and may not maximize existing public services. Further, Stafffinds the design of the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as discussed above in Section V. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is not in substantial conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to maximizing public services by prioritizing infill development over parcels on the fringe,provision of a variety of housing types, density in the LDR designated area, transitional densities, adequate provision of services (Fire Dept), usable open space, and construction of infrastructure without sidewalks, etc. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available and can be extended to accommodate the proposed development although services would be maximized by development of infill or underdeveloped parcels already in the City instead of on the fringe as is the subject property (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, 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 ofsupporting services for theproposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). 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.Public testimony has been submitted from adjacent residents to the south on 1-acre lots stating there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes or zoning to theirproperties/subdivision. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Page 44 Item 8. Z 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds the proposed development preserves the natural topography/hillside along the eastern boundary of the site. Staff is unaware of any other significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Streets(UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The private streets meet the design requirements of not connecting to an arterial street, allowing sufficient maneuvering for emergency vehicles, and meeting the minimum width of 27 feet.However, the proposal exceeds the limitation of no more than 50 units being served by a gated development, and three common driveways are proposed whereas UDE 1103F-4-5 states common driveways cannot be allowed on private streets. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity The Director has safety concerns in regard to whether there could be pedestrian safety issues with residents usingprivate streets with no sidewalks and believes, at the minimum, there should be sidewalks on at least one side, or pathways that connect to all residential lots in the gated area. The Fire Department has commented they do not prefer 112 gated lots. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Proposing private streets with no sidewalks does not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multi-purpose pathways, ensuring safe routes and access, encouraging safe, physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikeable community and providing necessary infrastructure. D. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. The proposed development is a gated development,but exceeds the provisions of UDC 11-3F-4.b which limits gated developments to no more than 50 dwelling units. Page 45 1 A PRIEMER GOLF COMMUNITY SKYBREAK 2 PREMIER VIEWS 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT 5 esruoC floG hcnaR esioB daoR elgaE SITE PLAN 6 esruoCfloG hcnaResioB daoR elgaE GATED COMMUNITY 7 50’ –60’ SOUTHERN RIM SLOPE 2.5 : 1 to 3:1 SlopeFoothills type trailHillside Landscape maintained by HOA per CC&R’s. Ridge Slope As tall as a 5 or 6 story building 8 STREET CONNECTIVITY 9 PREMIER PARKS AND PATHWAYS 10 LARGE PLAY PARK 11 TWO DOG PARKS 12 esruoC floG hcnaR esioB GOLF CART PATHWAY 13 ENTRY MONUMENTS AND PARKS 14 PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENTS 15 GATED ENTRY MONUMENT 16 LARGE PARKS AND PATHWAY 17 HILLSIDE 18 NO END CAPS VS. END CAPS 19 esruoC floG hcnaR esioB daoR elgaE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY 20 TRANSITIONS 21 Transition ½ Acre to 1 Acre Existing Lots.Landscape buffer and park area. TRANSITION TO VANTAGE POINTE 22 eniL ytreporP htuoS 77’ 108.5’ OPEN SPACE TRANSITION 23 TRANSITION BERM AND LANDSCAPING 24 LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25 TRANSITION DETAIL 26 TRANSITION 27 50’ 70’ 75’ EXISTING SETBACKS TO LIVING AREA 28 New High School and Elementary SchoolRedistricting Completed Skybreak Approved by ACHD, October 2, 2020 Transportation Schools Sewer and Water Capacity Available to the SitePower and Gas Capacity Available to the Site Within the 5 min Response TimeFire Department ApprovalWithin ½ Mile of the New South Fire Station Public Utilities Emergency Services SERVICES 29 40’ –55’ x 105’ Single-Story Homes = 45’ –55’ x 110’ Gated Single-Story Homes Attached Single Family Homes = 9.1% Large lot homes 80’ x 120’= 4.3% Large Rim Lots +/-½ acre 4.5%Two Story Golf Course Homes = 4.5% 15 -15 -14 -30 -84 -= 26%171 -52% Housing Diversity HOUSING DIVERSITY 30 THANK YOU A PRIEMER GOLF COMMUNITY SKYBREAK 31 PRIVATE STREETS –NO SIDEWALK 32 FIRE ACCESS 33 SKYBREAKFIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER 34 PinnacleNorth PinnacleSouth PINNACLE (APEX) FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER 35 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 14.99 AC. Qualified Open Space18.8% Open Space (88% more than required)14 amenities (10 more than required) 36 2021 -Eagle Road –Amity to Victory, 5 lanes 2023 -Eagle Road –Amity to Lake Hazel, 5 lanes2023 -Eagle Road and Hazel Intersection2024 -Lake Hazel –Cloverdale to Eagle, 5 lanes Approved by ACHD October 2, 2020: Consent Agenda ACHD Programed Road Improvements TRANSPORTATION 37 ADDITIONAL ON-STREET PARKING 38 PATHWAY MASTERPLAN 39 NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES 40 EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN 41 HOUSING STORIES 42 WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER New High School and Elementary SchoolRedistricting CompletedThe District has a Plan Schools 43 WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER 44 SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 45 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT 46 CUL-DA-SAC LENGTH