Loading...
CC - Updated Staff Report and Commission Recommendation to Council 4-13 Page 1 HEARING DATE: April 13, 2021 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0047 Prescott Ridge – AZ, PP, PS, ALT LOCATION: South of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. McDermott Rd., in the North ½ of Section 28, Township 4N., Range 1W. (Parcels: S0428233640, R6991222210, S0428120950, S0428131315, S0428131200, S0428211102) NOTE: At the December 1st hearing, the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the commercial development to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Since that time, the Applicant has acquired the out-parcel and submitted updated plans that include the parcel in the development area. The staff report has been updated accordingly. The Commission heard this project on January 21st and recommended approval of the updated plans and annexation boundary. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of 126.53 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (18.17 19.85 acres) zoning districts; and, Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 377 371 buildable lots [316 323 single-family residential (94 102 attached & 222 215/detached), 63 38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 39 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.26 123.53 124.81acres of land in the proposed R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Private streets are proposed within the townhome portion of the development for internal access and circulation. Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.4, which requires a limited gated development when townhomes are proposed, is also requested. Alternative Compliance is no longer required based on the revised plan which includes a mew. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 122.8 124.07 Existing/Proposed Zoning Rural Urban Transition (RUT) in Ada County (existing)/R-8, R-15 and C-G (proposed) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR) (3-8 units/acre) (113.5+/- acres) with Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) (9 10.27+/- acres) along W. Chinden Blvd. Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural with 1 existing single-family home Proposed Land Use(s) Residential (single-family attached/detached, townhomes & multi- family) & commercial (medical campus with a hospital and medical offices and retail/restaurant uses) Lots (# and type; bldg./common) 395 377 371 buildable lots (316 323 317single-family residential, 63 38 townhome, 14 multi-family, 1 commercial and 1 school)/32 39 42common lots/6 other (common driveway) lots Phasing Plan (# of phases) 9 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 316 323 317 single-family (94 102 attached/222 215 detached), (63 38) townhome and (56) multi-family units Density (gross & net) Overall - 3.63 2.96 units/acre (gross); 7.86 7.68 units/acre (net) R-8 area: 4.87 3.07 units/acre (gross); 7.19 7.07 units/acre (net) R-15 area: 12.87 7.57 units/acre (gross); 21.39 13.8 units/acre (net) Open Space (acres, total [%]/buffer/qualified) 11.56 12.41 12.43 acres (or 11.8 15.41%) (10.51 8.04 acres required based on 105.08 80.42 acres of residential area) Amenities Swimming pool, clubhouse, large and small children’s play structures, a dog park, multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space beyond the minimum standards Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Two (2) segments of the West Tap Sublateral cross this site Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 12/18/19 - 11 attendees; and 4/1/20 - 13 attendees; 12/16/20 7 attendees History (previous approvals) A portion of the site is Lot 18, Block 1, Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space – non-farm that has since expired). B. Community Metrics Description Details Pag e Ada County Highway District • Staff report (yes/no) Not yet Yes • Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) A collector street access (W. Rustic Oak Way) is proposed via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 at the half mile which runs through the site and connects to a future collector street (N. Rustic Way) in the Oaks North development from McMillan Rd. An access is proposed via N. McDermott Rd., a collector street. Traffic Level of Service McDermott Rd. – Better than “D” (acceptable level of service) W. Rustic Oak Way/Levi Ln. – Better than “D” (acceptable level of service) Page 3 Description Details Pag e Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cros s Access Two local stub streets are planned to be constructed with the Oaks North development at the southern boundary of the site and extended with this development. Two stub streets (N. Serenity Ave. & W. Fireline Ct.) are proposed to the north for future extension. A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the MU-R designated property to the west. Existing Road Network No public streets exist within the site; N. Levi Ln., a private lane, exists on the northern portion of the site via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers There are no existing buffers or sidewalks along N. McDermott Rd. or W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 Proposed Road Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3 miles from Station #5 to Serenity Ln. on Chinden & 4.4 miles to the McDermott side of the project (Station #7 once constructed, will serve this development) • Fire Response Time Some of this development falls within the 5 minute response time area as shown on the priority growth map; the McDermott side is 8 minutes away and does not meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 80% from Station #5 – meets response time goal • Risk Identification 2 – current resources would not be adequate to supply service (open waterway) • Accessibility Project meets all required access, road widths and turnarounds as long as phasing plan is followed. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device for the multi-family development – cannot meet this need in the required timeframe. Eagle Station #1 is the closest truck company at approximately 8.4 miles away. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour for the single-family homes; the multi-family areas will require additional water (may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered) • Other Resources NA Police Service No comments submitted • Distance to Police Station 9 miles • Police Response Time No emergency response data can be provided because this development is near the edge of City limits • Calls for Service 56 (within a mile of site between 4/1/19-3/31/20) • Accessibility No concerns • Specialty/resource needs None • Crimes 5 (within a mile of site between 4/1/19-3/31/20) • Crashes 4 (within a mile of site between 4/1/19-3/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits, service can be provided if this development is approved. Page 4 West Ada School District • Distance (elem, ms, hs) • Capacity of Schools • # of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services This proposed development is not currently serviceable by Meridian Sanitary Sewer service. The sewer trunk line designed to service this development is within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application • WRRF Declining Balance 13.92 • Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes • Impacts/Concerns • Additional 4,662 gpd has been committed • Sewer mains are not allowed in common driveways. Please remove. • The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way • Sewer line in N. Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd • This development is subject to paying sanitary sewer reimbursement fees (see Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval for detail). Reimbursement fees for the entire subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. Water • Distance to Water Services This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian City water system. Water mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes • Impacts/Concerns None Page 5 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Providence Properties, LLC – 701 South Allen Street, Ste. 104, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: Joseph Hon – 16790 Rose Park Dr., Nampa, ID 83687 Raymond Roark – 5952 N. Serenity Ln., Meridian, ID 83646 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Page 6 Lonnie Kuenzli – 6210 N. Levi Ln., Meridian, ID 83646 West Ada School District – 1303 E. Central Dr., Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering – 9233 W. State St., Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 6/26/2020, 8/28/2020, 1/1/21 11/13/2020, 2/5/2021 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 6/23/2020, 8/26/2020, 12/29/20 11/10/2020, 2/2/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/2/2020, 8/27/2020, 1/5/21 11/10/2020, 2/4/2021 Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020, 8/27/2020, 12/29/20 11/10/2020, 2/2/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates 9 10.27+/- acres along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 as Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R); and the 113.5+/- acres to the south as Medium Density Residential (MDR). The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D (pg. 3-17). The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow small lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MU-R designated area is located adjacent to a major intersection, W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and N. McDermott Rd. (future SH-16). The MU-R area is proposed to develop with a medical campus, including a regional hospital, and multi-family apartments. A larger MU-R area than currently designated on the FLUM is proposed which incorporates an additional 9.5+/- acres to the south and east of the current designated area. Because FLUM designations are not parcel specific and the proposed development provides needed services, employment opportunities and housing consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas, Staff is supportive of the expanded MU-R area provided that a retail component is also included and integrated as part of the development. The MDR designated area is proposed to develop with a mix of single-family attached, detached and townhome units at a gross density of 3.46 2.96 units/acre, which although at the low end of the desired density range, is consistent with that of the MDR designation. Page 7 The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • “Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian’s present and future residents.” (2.01.02D) The proposed single-family attached, detached, townhomes and multi-family apartments will provide a variety of housing types for future residents in the northwest portion of the City in close proximity to the proposed employment uses on this site and across Chinden Blvd. to the north. • “Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services.” (3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are not currently available to the subject development, however the main/trunk lines intended to provide service are currently being developed in The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. This development is dependent on the development timing of the phase(s) within The Oaks North for services to be readily available for extension. This developer is attempting to work with The Oaks developer to hasten the timing of utility expansion. • “Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City.” (2.01.01G) Four (4) different housing types are proposed in this development (i.e. single-family attached/detached, townhomes and multi-family apartments) along with a wide range of lot sizes for diversity in housing types in this area. • “Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land.” (3.07.00) The proposed single-family residential development should be compatible with existing single- family homes to the west in Peregrine Heights and in the development process to the south in The Oaks North and the future school to the east. Larger lot sizes are proposed as a transition to the 1-acre lots in Peregrine Heights. Higher density residential uses are planned adjacent to the proposed medical campus at the north boundary and the future school site at the east boundary. A 30-foot wide landscaped buffer with a pedestrian pathway and 8’ tall CMU wall is also proposed adjacent to residential uses along the southern and western boundaries of the proposed medical campus to reduce conflicts. • “With new subdivision plats, require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities.” (2.02.01A) A 10’ wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and the north/south collector street (Levi Ln./Rustic Oak), and to the east to the future school site for safe pedestrian access to the school. A large central common area is proposed along the collector street with quality amenities. • “Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Page 8 Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.” (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems when available; services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • “Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit, Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers.” (2.01.01H) The proposed townhomes and multi-family apartments in close proximity to the regional hospital and medical campus will provide higher density housing options in close proximity to the employment center and major transportation corridor (i.e. Chinden Blvd/SH 20-26 & future SH 16). • “Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed use areas near in and around Downtown, near employment, large shopping centers, public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map.” (2.02.01E) Townhomes and a multi-family development are proposed in close proximity to the mixed use area along Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26, a major transportation corridor, where employment uses are proposed. • “Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe.” (2.02.02) The proposed project is located on the fringe of the northwest corner of the City. However, because the land to the north and south has been annexed into the City as well as land located a half mile to the east, services will be extended in this area. Therefore, public services will be maximized by the development of this property. • “Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities.” (3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure, when available, and curb, gutter and sidewalks is proposed to be provided as required. • “Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided.” (3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City’s vision in that a mix of uses are proposed including a regional hospital and medical offices in the MU-R designated area adjacent to a major transportation corridor. Residential uses are proposed at densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Public services can be provided and public infrastructure will be extended when available to this site. • “Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map (MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact.” (6.01.03B) The MSM depicts a collector street at the half mile between Black Cat and McDermott Roads in the current location of N. Levi Ln. at the northeast corner of the site from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to the south to McMillan Rd. A collector street is proposed in accord with the MSM which will connect to N. Rustic Oak Way to the south in The Oaks North subdivision. Page 9 In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 3-13): (Staff’s analysis in italics) • “A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone.” The proposed development includes two at least three (23) different land use types – residential and, office and commercial (retail/restaurant) uses. Staff recommends commercial (i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) uses are also provided as desired in Mixed Use and specifically MU-R designated areas to serve the employment area and nearby residents. A public school (i.e. civic use) is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area; however, it’s outside the mixed use designated area and not a part of the proposed development. • “Where appropriate, higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.” Multi-family apartments and townhomes are proposed adjacent to the Mixed Use designated area to provide a higher density in close proximity to the employment center located adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. • “Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed Use designation.” A Master Plan is proposed with the annexation request which will be incorporated into a Development Agreement to ensure future development is consistent with the Mixed Use designation. Staff recommends changes to the Master Plan as noted in Section IX consistent with the development guidelines for Mixed Use designated areas in the Comprehensive Plan. • “In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed, the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.” The Master Plan depicts an outdoor yard area at the south end of the hospital a shaded sitting area three (3) outdoor courtyard areas in front of around the medical office building, a large outdoor plaza/green space area in front of the hospital with a shaded seating area, and a pedestrian pathway within a 30’ wide landscaped common area along the southern and western boundaries of the commercial portion of the development abutting residential uses with two (2) shaded areas of respite. Staff recommends the concept plan is revised prior to the City Council hearing to reflect common usable area such as a plaza or green space more central to the development with buildings arranged around the common area in accord with this provision. • “The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development.” There are existing low density homes on 1-acre lots along the west boundary of this site in Peregrine Heights Subdivision adjacent to the area proposed to be zoned C-G and developed with a medical campus. A 30’ wide densely landscaped buffer is proposed along the west and south boundaries of the C-G zoned property adjacent to existing and proposed abutting residential uses along with an 8’ tall CMU wall as a buffer to future commercial uses. Parking is proposed along these boundaries except for a 4-story medical office building proposed at the southeast corner of the commercial development, which Staff recommends is shifted to the north to front on the main entry drive aisle off W. Rustic Oak Way as a better transition to the residences to the south. • “Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed -use developments.” Page 10 A future school site is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area but it is outside the Mixed Use designated area and not a part of this development. A hospital is proposed in the medical campus on the northern portion of the site adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 which will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City. • “Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.” A school is planned to develop on the eastern portion of the annexation area but is outside the Mixed-Use designated area and not being developed with this project. To ensure such spaces and places are included in the mixed-use portion of the development as desired, Staff recommends the concept plan is revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. A shaded sitting area Three (3) outdoor courtyard areas are is proposed in front of around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • “Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered.” No such spaces or design elements/amenities are proposed. To ensure future development in the MU-R designated area is consistent with this guideline, Staff recommends the concept plan is revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. A shaded sitting area is Three (3) outdoor courtyards are proposed in front of around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • “All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians.” The proposed mixed use development is directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by a collector street (W. Rustic Oak Way) that runs along the project’s east boundary at the half mile between McDermott and Black Cat Roads; a multi-use pathway is planned along the collector street for pedestrian connectivity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • “Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types.” There are no roadways separating the commercial/mixed use area from the single-family detached homes and townhomes proposed at the south boundary of the area proposed to be zoned C-G. However, there is a 30-foot wide densely landscaped buffer proposed between the commercial and residential uses. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that a street is constructed paralleling W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to distribute traffic in this area in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4B.3 and also as a transition between land uses. • “Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed Use standards listed herein.” The subject property is not located in Old Town, therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 3-16 thru 3-17): Page 11 • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas. Staff’s analysis on the proposed project’s compliance with these guidelines is included above. Because a development plan isn’t proposed at this time for the Mixed Use designated area, Staff has included recommended provisions in the DA to ensure future development is consistent with these guidelines. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non- retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. Multi-family uses are proposed at a density of 16.6 units/acre for approximately 27% of the mixed use development area. Non-retail medical office/hospital uses are proposed on the remainder of the mixed use development. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area. No rRetail/restaurant commercial uses (10,000+/- square feet) are proposed on the entire first floor of the medical office building. Because this site is proposed to develop with a medical campus including a regional hospital, retail uses will be minimal but should be provided as a third land use type as desired in mixed use designated areas as discussed above to serve patrons and residents. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development, the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school, the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated, the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park, tot-lot, or playfield, the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area, the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project, the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point (such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza, the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed in the MU-R designated area. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan if a commercial (i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) component is included in the mixed use designated portion of the development as discussed above. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC) A. Annexation & Zoning: The proposed annexation area consists of six ten (6 10) parcels of land totaling 122.8 128.21 acres designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R). Per the proposed conceptual Master Plans included in Section VIII.A, single-family residential attached and detached homes, townhomes, multi-family apartments and a medical campus featuring a regional hospital and medical office Page 12 building with retail and restaurant uses is proposed to develop on this site. As discussed above, Staff recommends commercial (i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) uses are also provided as proposed in the C-G zoned area as desired in Mixed Use and specifically MU-R designated areas to serve the employment area and adjacent neighborhood. The medical campus is proposed to include “boutique” medical services geared toward women’s health and pediatrics. Two buildings are proposed – a 4 3-story 220,000 181,000+/- square foot (s.f.) hospital with approximately 90 60 in-patient beds and a 4 3 4-story 90,000 80,000+/- s.f. medical office building which is proposed to include 10,000+/- square feet of retail uses and 10,000+/- square feet of restaurant uses on the entire first floor. Most services anticipated to be performed in the hospital will be out-patient procedures. Areas not used for inpatient beds will be used for surgery, radiology, an emergency department, labor rooms, physical plant and a cafeteria. The hospital is proposed to be similar in scope and size to the St. Luke’s and St. Al’s campuses in Nampa. West Ada School District plans to develop a public school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. The parcel was included in the subject AZ and PP applications because it was created outside of the process required by Ada County to create a buildable parcel. Including it in the proposed plat will allow building permits to be obtained for future development. The single-family attached/detached portion of the development is proposed to be annexed with R-8 zoning (99.53 acres), the townhome and multi-family portions are proposed to be zoned R-15 (8.82 acres) and the medical campus is proposed to be zoned C-G (18.17 19.85 acres, including adjacent right-of-way to the section line of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26), which is generally consistent with the associated MDR and MU-R FLUM designations for the site as discussed above in Section V (see zoning exhibit in Section VIII.B). Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached homes and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; multi-family developments are listed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; and public education institutions are listed as a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district per the Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts table in UDC Table 11-2A-2, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14. A hospital is listed as a conditional use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-22; and healthcare and social services is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district; retail uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district; and restaurant uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 per the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts table in UDC 11-2B-2. Evaluation of the multi-family development for consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 and the hospital’s consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 22 will occur with the conditional use permit applications for such uses. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care requires that the location shall have direct access on an arterial street; the proposed hospital is planned to provide emergency care. Because UDC 11- 3H-4B.2 prohibits new approaches directly accessing a State Highway, access is proposed via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, at the project’s east boundary located at the half mile mark between section line roads. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement; if so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not, City Council may consider a modification to the standard prohibiting new approaches directly accessing SH 20-26 (UDC 11-3H-4B.2a) upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible as determined by City Council. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Note: ITD denied the Applicant’s request for access via SH 20-26/Chinden Blvd. for the medical campus. Page 13 The property is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.B. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application and future development meets the Mixed Use and specifically the MU-R guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a DA as a requirement of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The Applicant requests three (3) separate DA’s are required – one for the R-8 and R-15 residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district’s parcel. Staff is amenable to this request as there are three (3) distinct components of the project. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 433 422 lots – 395 377 371 buildable lots [316 323 single-family residential (94 102 attached & 222 215/detached), 63 38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 39 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.26 123.53 124.81 acres of land in the proposed R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. A portion of the proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 18, Block 1, Peregrine Heights Subdivision, a formerly deed restricted agricultural lot that was only to be used for open space (i.e. non-farm) – this restriction has since expired. The minimum lot size proposed in the single-family residential portion of the development is 4,000 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 6,060 5,982 s.f.; the average townhome lot size is 2,037 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 3.63 2.97 units/acre with a net density of 7.86 7.68 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 zoned portion is 4.87 3.07 units/acre with a net density of 7.19 7.07 units/acre and the gross density of the R-15 zoned portion is 12.87 7.57 units/acre with a net density of 21.39 13.8 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR & MU-R FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this site. Phasing: The residential portion of the subdivision is proposed to develop in nine (9) phases as depicted on the phasing exhibit in Section VIII.C over a time period of 4 to 5 years. The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north and extend to the southern boundary with the first phase of development. The single family portion of the site will develop first, followed by the townhomes and then the multi-family apartments. The commercial portion of the development (Lot 80, Block 8) and the school property (Lot 84, Block 12) are is not included in the phasing plan as they are it is under separate ownership and will develop separately from the residential and commercial portions of the development. The Applicant estimates development of the hospital and medical campus will commence in 2021 at the earliest; and the school in 2023 at the earliest, assuming services are available. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home on the Kuenzli property and some old accessory structures on the Roark property that are proposed to be removed with development. All existing structures should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Page 14 Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the subject property is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district, 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-2B-3 for the C-G district as applicable. Lot Layout: The lot layout/development plan for the townhome portion of the development on Lots 16-79, Block 8 is not consistent with UDC standards as it depicts common driveways for access to homes off the private street, which is prohibited per UDC 11-3F-4A.6; additionally, each common driveway may only serve a maximum of (6) dwelling units per UDC 11-6C-3D – 8 units are proposed off each driveway. Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those than create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated development – neither a mews nor is proposed but no gates are proposed (alternative compliance is requested to this standard – see analysis below in Section VI.C, D). Alternative Compliance may be requested to these standards and approved upon recommendation of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal and the Director when the Applicant can demonstrate than the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and where private streets are determined to enhance the safety of the development by establishing a clear emergency vehicle travel lane. However, the Fire Dept. and Staff would not be in support of such a request as Staff is of the opinion approving such at the number of units and density proposed would result in a neighborhood that is severely under parked, which could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if emergency services were not able to access homes within the development due to parking issues on the private street . Staff recommends this portion of the development is redesigned with public streets (alleys and/or common driveways may be incorporated), or if private streets are proposed, each unit should front on and be accessed via the private street(s) and the design should include a mew or gated entry in accord with UDC 11-3F-1 – however, public streets are preferred. Alternatively, a multi-family development (i.e. one structure on one property with 3 or more dwelling units) with townhome style units might be a development option for this area. A revised parking plan should be submitted for this area as well that provides for adequate guest parking above the minimum UDC standards (Table 11-3C-6) to serve this portion of the development. A revised concept plan and parking plan should be submitted prior to or at the Commission hearing for review and a revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing that reflects this modification. The lot layout/development plan for the multi-family development on Lots 70-83, Block 12 depicts parking and access driveways on buildable lots – the number of parking spaces varies with each lot and are not commensurate with the parking required for each building. Therefore, Staff recommends the access driveways and parking are placed in a common lot with an ingress-egress/parking easement for each buildable lot. A revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. A revised plat was submitted that depicts the private street in the townhome portion of the development within a common lot as requested, see Section VIII.C. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. Page 15 Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Block faces should not exceed 750’ in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided, then the block face may be extended up to 1,000’ in length. The face of Block 7 on the south side of W. Smokejumper St. exceeds 750’ at approximately 900’+/-; because the preliminary plat for the abutting property to the south did not include a pathway to this site in this location, Staff does not recommend a pathway is required for connectivity as it would dead-end at the subdivision boundary. Other block faces comply with the standard. Common driveways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 6C-3D. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street, the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway. Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Access (UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via one (1) collector street (N. Rustic Oak Way) from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20- 26, which extends through the site to the south boundary and will eventually extend to McMillan Rd. with development of The Oaks North subdivision to the south. A local street access (W. Sturgill Peak St.) is proposed via N. McDermott Rd., a collector street, at the project’s west boundary. A stub street (N. Jumpspot Ave.) is proposed to the out-parcel at the southwest corner of the site – Staff recommends W. Smokejumber St. is also stubbed to this property from the east; two (2) stub streets (N. Trident Ave. and N. Rustic Oak Way) are proposed to the south for future extension with The Oaks North subdivision; and two (2) stub streets (N. Serenity Ave. & W. Fireline Ct.) are proposed to the north for future extension – the stub street to Serenity Ln. will serve as an emergency access only to Peregrine Heights Subdivision and will have bollards preventing public access. A collector street (W. Ramblin St.) is proposed for access to the school site. A stub street (Sunfield Way) was approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat to Lot 37, Block 12, proposed as a common lot; this street is not proposed to be extended. The ACHD report states Sunfield Way cannot be extended into the site at this time as the stub street is aligned with the parcel line between this site and the school parcel. ACHD has required a permanent right-of-way easement to be provided and a road trust for the future extension of Sunfield Way with development of the school parcel. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west (Parcels # R6991221700 & R6991221600) and east (Parcel # R6991222101) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. As discussed above, a private street loop (N. Highfire Loop) is proposed for access to the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development (see analysis below under Private Streets). Staff is not supportive of the proposed revised design and recommends revisions to the plan as stated above and in Section IX.A. The Applicant’s proposal to curve McDermott Rd. north of Sturgill Peak St. to the east at the project’s west boundary does not meet ACHD policy and is not approved; the ACHD report states construction of this portion of McDermott will be completed in conjunction with ITD’s SH-16 extension. Page 16 Developments along SH 20-26 are required to construct a street generally paralleling the state highway that is no closer than 660 linear feet (measured from centerline to centerline) from the intersection (i.e. Rustic Oak) with the state highway. The purpose of which is to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the subject property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road. The street shall be designed in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3H-4B.3 and shall collect and distribute traffic. Frontage streets or private streets may be considered by the council at the time of property annexation or through the conditional use process. Frontage streets and private streets shall be limited to areas where there is sufficient access to surrounding properties and a public street is not desirable in that location. A frontage road is proposed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Chinden Blvd. with an access on Rustic Oak approximately 660’ south of Chinden as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A. Because residential homes exist to the west that are not likely to redevelop in the near future, a future interchange for SH-16 is planned east of the McDermott/Chinden intersection, and a north/south collector street (Rustic Oak) exists along the east boundary of this site, Staff believes there is sufficient access to surrounding properties as proposed without the provision of a public street. Emergency access: In response to the Fire Department’s estimated response time to the development, which are below the target goal on the McDermott side of the subdivision, the Applicant plans to include an AED (Automated External Defibrillator) device in the clubhouse and provide education related to the use of the device to ensure residents are aware of the benefits and function if the device is needed. Additionally, a connection is proposed from Chinden through the project to the southern boundary of the subdivision with the first phase of development to aid in emergency response times to the site; this should also benefit response times to The Oaks North to the south. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6; and for non-residential uses in accord with the standards listed in 11-3C- 6B.1. Future development should comply with these standards. A parking exhibit (and details in the narrative) was submitted with this application, included in Section VIII.F that depicts 46 15 extra off-street parking spaces in the townhome portion of the development and a total of 505 497 on- street parking spaces available for guest parking. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces are proposed for the 3,750+/- square foot clubhouse and swimming pool facility. Staff is of the opinion the proposed parking in the single-family and townhomes portions of the development should meet the parking needs. Off-street parking in the multi-family portion of the development will be evaluated with the conditional use permit application. Off-street parking is required to be provided for the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for commercial uses with the exception of restaurant uses; off-street parking for restaurant uses is required per the standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-49. Off-street parking is depicted on the conceptual Master Plan in accord with these standards and will reviewed again with the final design of the site to ensure consistency with these standards. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts segments of the City’s multi-use pathway system across this site. In accord with the Plan, the Park’s Dept. recommends detached 10’ wide multi-use pathways are provided within the street buffers in the following locations: along N. McDermott Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26, the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way from Chinden to the southern boundary of the site, and along W. Ramblin St. from Rustic Oak to the school site. These pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement. Page 17 Other pathways and micro-paths through common areas are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access within the development. Two (2) micro-path connections to the school site are proposed in addition to the multi-use pathway connection from Rustic Oak that extends along the northern boundary of the multi-family development. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaping shall be provided on either side of the pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are required to be provided along all arterial and collector streets; attached (or detached) sidewalks may be provided along internal local streets. Sidewalks are proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17, except for along the east side of Rustic Oak, north of W. Lost Rapids St., where an attached 7’ wide sidewalk is proposed. This sidewalk should be detached from the curb in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed adjacent to the north/south collector street (N. Rustic Oak Way) and are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Note: The Master Plan included in Section VIII.A appears to include landscaped parkways throughout the development; however, they are only proposed along N. Rustic Oak Way – the plan should be revised to remove trees where parkways aren’t proposed. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided within the development as follows: a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and N. McDermott Rd., an entryway corridor; and a 20’ wide buffer is required along N. Rustic Oak Way, N. McDermott Rd. and W. Ramblin St., collector streets, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25’ wide buffer is required on the C-G zoned property to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The buffer area should be comprised of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in a barrier that allowed trees to touch at the time of maturity. A 30-foot wide buffer is proposed with dense landscaping along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as required. Parkways where provided are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The total linear feet of parkways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the required standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G- 3E. The total square footage of common open space with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the UDC standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. If any existing trees on the site are proposed to be removed, mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins, Page 18 the City Arborist, to determine mitigation requirements if any existing trees are not proposed to be retained on site. Noise abatement is required to be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A detail/cross-section of the proposed noise abatement should be submitted with the final plat application for the commercial portion of the development that demonstrates compliance with the required standards. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the residential portion of the development. Based on 105.08 80.42 acres (excluding the 28-acre school parcel), a minimum of 10.51 8.04 acres of qualified open space should be provided. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted, included in Section VIII.E, that depicts 11.56 12.4 acres (or 11.8 15.41%, excluding the 28-acre school parcel) of open space consisting of the entire buffer along collector streets (McDermott & Rustic Oak), open space areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area and linear open space in accord with UDC standards. Note: Although a couple of the lots (i.e. Lot 30, Block 1 and Lot 29, Block 9) counted toward qualified open space don’t meet the minimum dimensional standards of 50’ x 100’, the rest of the area does qualify which still exceeds the minimum standards. Because the multi-family portion of the development is proposed to be subdivided with each 4- plex on its own individual lot for the option of separate ownership of the 4-plex buildings, Staff recommends a provision is included in the DA that requires one management company handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire project to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of (1) site amenity is required for every 20 acres of development area. Based on the residential area of the proposed plat (105.08 80.42 acres), a minimum of five four (5 4) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. A site amenity exhibit and renderings are included in Section VIII.E. A 3,750+/- square foot clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office and meeting room with an outdoor patio and a 54’ x 30’+/- swimming pool, one large tot lot on Lot 1, Block 9 and (2) smaller tot lots on Lot 1, Block 13 and Lot 12, Block 6 with children’s play equipment, an enclosed 5,500+/- s.f. dog park (although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired by future residents), segments of the City’s multi-use regional pathway system, and additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 square feet are proposed as amenities in excess of UDC standards. Amenities are proposed from the following categories listed in UDC 11- 3G-3C: quality of life, recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system, in accord with UDC standards. Details of these amenities should be submitted with the final plat applications for the phases in which they are located. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. Sub-surface drainage is proposed but swales could be incorporated if needed. Page 19 Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. This property is within the Settler’s Irrigation District and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District’s boundaries. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The West Tap Sublateral runs east/west across the southern portion of this site within a 20’ wide drainage district easement; and a 15’ wide irrigation easement runs east/west across the northern portion of the site as depicted on the Peregrine Heights subdivision plat. This waterway is planned to be relocated and piped. If the easement(s) for the waterway is greater than 10’ in width, it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20’ in width and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-6E. All waterways are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity of linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1 in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. Fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. Fences abutting pathways and common open space lots not entirely visible from a public street is required to be an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6’ in height as it provides visibility from adjacent homes or buildings per UDC 11-3A-7A.7. Staff is concerned there is not enough visibility from the street of the common area on Lot 1, Block 2 located behind building lots and around Lot 37, Block 12 and recommends the fencing type is revised on the perimeter of these lots to comply with this standard. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations and renderings of the different home types planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.G. Homes depicted are a mix of 1- and 2-story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone/brick veneer accents. Because the side and/or rear of 2-story homes that face collector streets (i.e. N. McDermott Rd., N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.) will be highly visible, these elevations, should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Conceptual renderings of the hospital and medical office buildings were submitted as shown in Section VIII.G. The hospital is proposed to be a 3-story building and the medical office building a 4-story building. The elevations for the medical office building incorrectly depict a 3-story building; these elevations should be revised prior to the City Council hearing to reflect the correct number of stories. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the medical office building, hospital, clubhouse, swimming pool facility, single-family attached, townhome and multi-family structures. The design of such is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Design review is not required for single-family detached homes. Page 20 C. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F) A private street loop (N. Highfire Loop) is proposed for access within the portion of the development where townhomes are proposed on Lots 17-70 17-44 and 54-67, Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development. The Applicant believes a private street in this area will enhance safety and vehicular circulation by creating a clear path of travel for emergency vehicles and residential traffic. Mews nor a gated development A mew is proposed but no gates are proposed as the Applicant believes a gate would detract from site circulation and would physically and figuratively disjoint the townhomes from the rest of the community. Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development per UDC 11- 3F-1. The applicability may be extended where the Director or Fire Marshall determines that private streets will enhance the safety of the development. The Applicant requests alternative compliance to UDC 11-3F-1 to allow the development as proposed, without a mew(s) or a gated entry. Alternative Compliance is no longer necessary as a mew is proposed on the revised plan. As noted above in Section VI.B, Lot Layout, Staff recommends changes to the layout of the portion of the plat where the private street is proposed. Staff and the Fire Dept. does not believe safety is enhanced by the provision of a private street in this area with the density and lot layout proposed and in fact, believes it creates a safety/emergency access issue due to the likelihood of vehicles parking in fire lanes due to inadequacy of parking for guests and overflow parking. Therefore, Staff does not recommend approval of the private street as proposed; a subsequent request for private streets may be considered if warranted by the redesign. D. Alternative Compliance (UDC 11-5B-5) Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-1, which requires a mew or limited gated development to be provided when townhomes are proposed, is also requested. The Applicant’s request is based on their belief that the townhome portion of the development will better integrate with the rest of the Prescott Ridge community and will be easily accessible and usable without a gated entry and will provide a safer path of travel for emergency vehicles. Because Staff is not supportive of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development with the private street, Staff is in turn not supportive of the request for alternative compliance. As noted above in Section VI.B, Lot Layout, Staff recommends changes to the layout of this portion of the plat. A subsequent request may be considered if warranted by the redesign. Because a mew is now proposed on the revised plans, alternative compliance is no longer necessary. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A and denial of the request for a private street and alternative compliance per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on (continued from July 16th and August 20th) September 17, 2020. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to a subsequent Commission hearing in order for the Applicant to revise the concept plan for the commercial/medical campus and plat for the townhome portion of the development. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: Page 21 a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering & Patrick Connor (Applicant’s Representative); Betsy Huntsinger, representing the proposed hospital; Randall Peterman (adjacent property owner); Mitch Armuth, Providence Properties b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Val Stack and Paul Hoyer; Sue Ropski; Cory Coltrin; Randall Peterman d. Written testimony: Josh Femreite, Chief of New Schools for Gem Innovation Schools e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Joe Bongiorno 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Gem Innovation School is in strong support of the project as their future campus lies approximately 300 yards to the south and will be able to provide K-12 public education options for future residents; b. Would like 30’ buffer extended along entire east and south boundaries of Peregrine Heights Subdivision for a buffer to higher density residential uses; would like more of a transition to the lots at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights Subdivision either with larger lots or common area instead of 5 building lots; not in favor of proposed access via Serenity Ln.; concern pertaining to future access for Serenity Ln. residents via Chinden; concern pertaining to obstruction of view sheds with proposed 4-story structures on commercial portion of development. c. Ms. Ropski’s concern with location of trash dumpsters and parking adjacent to their property; d. Preference for the hospital to be located closer to the Chinden/Rustic Oak intersection away from low density residential lots at west boundary; e. Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Preference for owner-occupied townhomes rather than rental or more multi-family units in the portion currently proposed for townhomes; b. Preference for the Applicant to obtain the out-parcel at northeast corner of site in order to develop commercial (retail, restaurant, etc.) uses on the site; c. In favor of the variety in housing types and lot sizes proposed; d. Not in favor of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development and the private streets – needs to be redesigned; e. The Fire Dept.’s preference for a direct unhindered access to the site via Serenity Ln. (i.e. not obstructed by a gate, bollards or a chain) – opposed to right-in/right-out at Serenity Ln./Chinden Blvd. as a fire engine will not be able to access the site from the east via Chinden. f. Conceptual development plan for the commercial/medical campus portion of the site needs to be revised as discussed. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items again on October 22nd. At the public hearing on October 22nd, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Patrick Connor, Providence Properties (Applicant’s Representative); Betsy Huntsinger, representing the proposed hospital b. In opposition: None Page 22 c. Commenting: Cary Pitman; Sue Ropski; Val Stack; Doug Haneborg; Heidi Wilson; Charles Hay; Bonnie Layton, WH Pacific (representing property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights) d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Preference for the parking on the east side of the 3-story medical office building to be relocated to the west side of the building and the building shifted further to the east so that the building is further away from adjacent residential properties; b. Concern pertaining to traffic on Serenity Ln. if it were to be open to the south and the safety of children as there are no sidewalks along the private street; c. Concern pertaining to future restriction of right-in/right-out access to Serenity Ln. from Chinden Blvd. and resulting delays for emergency services to Peregrine Heights; c. Request for provision of a fence or a gate at the south end of the Serenity Ln. cul-de-sac to keep it private; d. Request for the larger estate lots that abut the south end of Peregrine Heights to be carried over to the south side of W. Tanker Dr.; e. Property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights is in favor of the proposed frontage road along Chinden Blvd. for access to the collector street. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The provision of an electronic gate at the south end of Serenity Ln. for emergency access to Peregrine Heights and to keep the lane private; b. Impacts to the design of the site if the outparcel at the northeast corner of the site isn’t purchased by the Developer and developed as part of this site; c. Trash enclosures should be located away from adjacent residential properties; d. In support of the reduction in height from 4- to 3-stories for the hospital and medical office building; e. Preference for the medical office building to be shifted further to the east and/or rotated; f. The provision of only one (1) mew in the townhome portion of the development. g. In general support of the revisions made to the concept plan for the commercial portion of the development. h. Would like the Applicant to work with ITD on noise abatement along the west boundary adjacent to SH-16; i. In favor of the walkability of the development and especially the medical campus; j. In support of the changes to the townhome portion of the development and the additional open space; k. Would like the Applicant to work with Staff to reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary of the subdivision to provide a better transition to planned R-4 zoned lots in The Oaks subdivision. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Requirement for noise abatement to be provided along the project’s west boundary along N. McDermott Rd. adjacent to the future extension of SH-16 (see Section IX.A.1a.7 and A.3a); b. Relocate the parking on the east side of the medical office building to the west side of the building and shift the building further to the east away from the adjacent residential properties (see revised concept plans in Section VIII.A); c. The Applicant shall work with Staff to provide an electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Dept. for access to Serenity Ln. from the south (see DA provision #A.1a.6 in Section IX); and, Page 23 d. Reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary to provide better transition to the R- 4 properties planned to the south in The Oaks subdivision (lots were reduced by 5 along the south and southeast boundaries, see revised plat in Section VIII.C). 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, meets the intent of the UDC (11-4-3-22), which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. D. The Meridian City Council heard these items on December 1, 2020. At the public hearing, the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission in order for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Patrick Connor, Providence Properties and Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering (Applicant’s Representatives) b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Cary Pitman; Doug Haneborg; Cory Coltrin d. Written testimony: Randall Peterman (in favor) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Clint Dolsby, Joe Bongiorno, Steve Siddoway 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to the width of the frontage road and access to site from Serenity Ln.; b. Preference for the hospital to be shifted as far east as possible away from adjacent residents – concern that the 3-story building will overlook the rear yard of adjacent residential properties; c. Desire for a gated entrance to the medical campus portion of the site from Serenity Ln. to prohibit public access/traffic on Serenity Ln.; d. Concerns pertaining to light trespass on adjacent residential properties from the medical campus; noise; odors; need for more of a transition in lot sizes to lot at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights where there are 4:1 lots proposed; concern pertaining to Fire Dept. response time; location of water & sewer stubs to Peregrine Heights; location of fire hydrants in relation to Peregrine Heights. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by City Council: a. Fire response time to the site; b. Subdivision of the multi-family portion of the site allowing for separate ownership of individual apartment structures and concern pertaining to consistent exterior maintenance – should maintenance be governed by the HOA instead of a property management company to ensure consistent and timely upkeep of the development? c. Preference for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Council is not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without the out-parcel; remand back to the Commission for inclusion of the out-parcel in the annexation application. 4. City Council change(s) to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 24 E. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 21, 2021. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Patrick Connor, Providence Properties; Stephanie Hopkins, KM Engineering (Applicant’s Representative) b. In opposition: Cory Coltrin c. Commenting: James Jacobson, Attorney representing Peregrine Heights Homeowner’s Association; Sue Ropski; Cary Pitman; Doug Haneborg d. Written testimony: Stephanie Hopkins, Applicant’s Representative (response to the staff report) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Opposed to development of a medical campus directly adjacent to Peregrine Heights residential subdivision and request for C-G zoning to be denied; b. Concerns pertaining to where medical waste containers will be located, location of loading docks next to residential, opposed to 4-story medical office building structure which will obstruct views, location of frontage road/emergency access along north boundary of Peregrine Heights Subdivision from Chinden Blvd.; c. Not enough buffer between existing residential properties and proposed commercial development; d. Objections to a frontage road/emergency access driveway at the north end of Peregrine Heights subdivision along Chinden Blvd.; e. Concern pertaining to light trespass from the commercial site on the adjacent residential properties; e. Clarification from the Applicant that this is not a trauma center – most business will be related to women’s health procedures and not emergency services. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Supportive of the continued changes that have made to the development plan by the Developer at the request of Staff and the neighbors; b. In favor of the proposed medical campus in this location of the City and belief it’s an appropriate use for the MU-R designated property; c. Empathy for the impacts to the residential property owners adjacent to MU-R designated property and proposed commercial development; 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Add requirement for the buffer along the west boundary of the site to incorporate a 2- foot tall berm with an 8-foot tall wall on top of the berm to assist in blocking the noise from the commercial development. This requirement is contingent upon approval from the Peregrine Heights HOA; otherwise, if not approved by the HOA, landscaping and the wall shall be installed as proposed on the concept plan (see DA provision #A.1b.9 in Section IX). 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, meets the intent of the UDC (11-4-3-22), which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Page 25 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Master Plan Conceptual Rendering & Medical Campus Conceptual Development Plan - REVISED C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on February 23, 2021. At the public hearing, the Council moved to approve the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Patrick Connor, Providence Properties; Stephanie Hopkins, KM Engineering b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Sue Ropski d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to the frontage road and height of the proposed structures. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by City Council: a. Concern pertaining to direction of potential legislation in regard to property taxes and hesitancy to move forward with this application until more information is known. Council moved to continue this application to April 13th; public testimony will be limited to new information only. 4. City Council change(s) to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 26 Note: Although tree-lined trees are depicted, parkways with detached sidewalks are not proposed except for along the collector streets (i.e. N. Rustic Oak Way & McDermott Rd.) and on common lot end-caps; an east/west oriented mew with landscaping is depicted within the townhome portion of the development which is also not proposed. Page 27 Concept Plan #1: Concept Plan #2 (including out-parcel) (dated: 1/19/21): Page 28 B. Annexation & Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 C. Preliminary Plat (date: 8/28/2020 10/21/20 11/20/20 12/22/20), Phasing Plan & Lot Layout Exhibit– REVISED Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 D. Landscape Plan (date: 8/26/2020 10/9/2020 11/19/20 12/22/20) – REVISED Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit & Site Amenities (dated: 8/26/20 10/9/2020 12/22/20) – REVISED Page 51 Page 52 F. Parking Plan (dated: 4/8/20 10/21/2020) – REVISED Page 53 G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives - REVISED Page 54 Page 55 H. Parcel Status Exhibit Page 56 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION The conceptual development plan for the commercial, C-G zoned portion of the site, shall be revised and submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing to reflect conformance with the following guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use developments: • The buildings in the commercial C-G zoned portion of the development shall be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space in accord with the mixed use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 3-13). • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools shall be provided in the Mixed Use designated portion of the site; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count (pg. 3-13). The school planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area does not satisfy this requirement as it is not part of the Mixed Use designated area. • Development of the Mixed Use designated area shall be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi-public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered. • The 4-story medical office building proposed at the southeast corner of the commercial development shall be shifted to the north to front on the main entry drive aisle off N. Rustic Oak Way as a better transition to the residences to the south. • A commercial land use type shall be included on the plan in the MU-R designated area (includes retail, restaurants, etc.). 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. At the Applicant’s request, three (3) separate DA’s shall be required for each component of the project – one for the R-8 and R-15 zoned residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district’s parcel. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, Development Agreements shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer(s). Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicants to the Planning Division for each DA prior to commencement of the DA’s. The DA’s shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA’s shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the development: 1. Future development of the R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the site shall be generally consistent with the master plan, preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan, qualified open space & site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. Page 57 2. Administrative design review shall be required for all single-family attached, townhome and multi-family structures. Compliance with the design standards for such listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 3. The rear and/or side of structures on Lots 2-6, Block 4; Lots 2-7, Block 1; Lots 8 and 9- 15, Block 9; Lot 16, Block 7; Lot 2, Block 12; Lots 2-14, Block 10; Lots 2-16 and 29, Block 14; Lot 68, 70, 81-83, and 77-78, Block 12; and Lots 43-44, 75 42, 45 and 79 67, Block 8 that face collector streets (i.e. N. McDermott Rd., N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.), shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 4. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for a multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development. 5. One management company shall handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire multi- family development to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. 6. An electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Department shall be provided for access to Serenity Ln. from the south. 7. Noise abatement for the future SH-16 extension shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to N. McDermott Rd. constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. b. Medical campus/hospital: 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the master plan, preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevation included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. 3. Noise abatement shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. 4. A minimum 30-foot wide buffer with an 8-foot tall CMU wall shall be provided along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as proposed on the landscape plan in Section VIII.D. Dense landscaping consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at maturity is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The block wall shall be decorative and have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures – plain CMU block is not allowed. 5. A frontage road parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 shall be constructed as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A in accord with UDC 11-3H- 4B.3e. 6. The hospital building shall be restricted to 3-stories in height as proposed. Page 58 7. The entire first floor of the medical office building shall consist of retail and restaurant uses as proposed to provide a mix of uses as desired in the Mixed-Use designated area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The final design of the site shall be consistent with the general Mixed Use and Mixed Use – Regional guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (see pgs. 3-13 thru 3-15 and 3-18 thru 3-19). 9. The buffer along the west boundary of the site shall incorporate a 2-foot tall berm with an 8-foot tall wall on top of the berm to assist in blocking the noise from the commercial development if approved by the Peregrine Heights Homeowner’s Association (HOA). If not approved by the HOA, the landscaping and wall shall be installed as depicted on the conceptual development plan. The City Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital which provides emergency care from Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 via W. Rustic Oak Way meets the intent of the requirement in UDC 11-4-3-22A, which requires hospitals that provides emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. If so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not, City Council may consider a modification to the standard in UDC 11-3H-4B.2a upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible as determined by City Council. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. c. School Site: 1. The subject property shall develop with an education institution; any other uses shall require modification of this agreement. 2. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for an education institution in the R-8 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14: Education Institution. 3. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 2. The final plat(s) submitted for this development shall incorporate the following changes: a. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 unless otherwise approved by the City and the Idaho Transportation Department. b. Remove Lot 1, Block 15 as it’s ACHD right-of-way and cannot be platted as a common lot. c. Depict cross-access/ingress-egress easements to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west (Parcels # R6991221700 & R6991221600) and east (Parcel # R6991222101) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. d. Depict lot numbers for common areas in the townhome portion of the development in Block 8. e. Depict the easement(s) for the West Tap sub-lateral; if the easement(s) is greater than 10- feet in width, it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet in width and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6E. f. Re-design the townhome portion of the development (i.e. Lots 16-79, Block 8) with public streets (alleys and/or common driveways may be incorporated); or, if private streets are proposed, each unit should front on and be accessed via the private street(s). Alternatively, a Page 59 multi-family development (i.e. one structure on one property with 3 or more dwelling units) with townhome style units might be a development option for this area. A revised concept plan shall be presented prior to or at the Commission hearing for review and a revised plat reflecting this change shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. If private streets are proposed with a townhome development, a mew or gated private streets should be provided in accord with UDC 11-3F-1. Also, provide updated density calculations. g. Lots 70-83, Block 12 in the multi-family portion of the development shall be revised to depict parking and access driveways on a common lot with an ingress-egress/parking easement for each buildable lot. A revised plat shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing depicting this change. Done h. Extend W. Smokejumper St. as a stub street to the out-parcel (Parcel #S0428233620) at the southwest corner of the site. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a detail/cross-section of the berm or berm and wall combination required as noise abatement within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and N. McDermott Rd.; also address how the wall will be constructed to avoid a monotonous wall, that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. b. Remove Lot 1, Block 15 as it’s ACHD right-of-way and cannot be platted as a common lot. c. Depict a detached sidewalk/pathway (as applicable) along all collector streets (i.e. N. McDermott Rd., N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.) and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. A detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along N. McDermott Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26, the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St. d. Landscaping shall be depicted on either side of all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 12C. e. If existing trees are proposed to be removed from the site, the Applicant shall coordinate with Matt Perkins, the City Arborist, to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Mitigation information shall be included on the plan. If existing trees are proposed to be retained on site, they shall be depicted on the plan. f. A calculations table shall be included on the plan that demonstrates compliance with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E (common open space), 11-3B-12C (pathways), 11-3A-17 (parkways) and 11-3B-7C (street buffers); calculations should include the linear feet of pathways, parkways and street buffers and square footage of common open space as applicable, along with the required vs. provided number of trees. g. Revise the fencing type around the perimeter of Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 37, Block 12 to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7 to provide more visibility of the common areas in accord with CPTED design strategies. h. Include a detail of the amenities proposed with each phase of development. i. The CMU wall proposed along the south and west boundaries of the commercial portion of the development shall have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures – plain CMU block is not allowed; revise the detail (i.e. reference photo) accordingly. Page 60 j. Depict lot numbers and landscaping for common areas in the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. k. If a dog park is proposed on Lot 1, Block 2, demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.1h. l. Depict a small tot lot on Lot 12, Block 6 rather than a large tot lot, consistent with that shown on the site amenities plan. m. Modify the landscape plan consistent with changes required to the plat above under condition IX.A.2 above. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6, 11-2A-7 and 11-2B-3 for the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts respectively. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and for commercial uses in accord with the standards listed in 11- 3C-6B; bicycle parking is required in commercial districts as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A revised parking plan shall be submitted prior to or at the Commission hearing for the townhome portion of the development that reflects the changes noted above in condition #A.2f and that provides for adequate guest parking to serve this portion of the development. 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application(s) that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via common driveways; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street, the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. 7. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 8. Common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. This information may be included in a note on the face of the plat rather than in a separate easement. 9. The private street and common driveways off the private street as proposed on the preliminary plat in the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 are not approved. Consequently, the alternative compliance request to UDC 11-3F-1 is not approved as the private street isn’t approved. 10. All existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 11. Pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. 12. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the 10-foot wide multi-use pathways proposed within the site as required by the Park’s Department, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility, single-family attached, townhome, multi-family and commercial structures. All structures except for single-family detached structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 61 B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian City water and sanitary sewer systems. Mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. Until utilities are available to the south boundary of the proposed development, the City of Meridian will not accept an application for final plat. 1.1.2 Sewer mainline/manholes are not allowed in common driveways or under sidewalks. Run service lines down common drive but make sure required separation can be met. 1.1.3 The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.4 The sewer line in N. Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd. 1.1.5 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of $265.25 per equivalent residential unit (ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.6 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of $185.43 per equivalent residential unit (ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.7 As noted in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by GeoTek Inc., all artificial fill materials on site must be removed. 1.1.8 New 12-inch water main will need to be installed in parts of W Sturgill Peak St, N Jumpspot Ave, W Parachute Dr, N Streamer Way, W Smokejumper St and N Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.9 Construct water main in N Streamer Way between W. Parachute Drive and W. Fireline Drive. 1.1.10 Water connections to the north need to be facilitated either by extension of a mainline or and easement in common area Lot 19, Block 1, or off the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line. This is dependent on how road connections to the north are designed and developed in the future. 1.1.11 Remove the water main proposed in N Serenity Avenue. At the intersection of N Serenity Ave and W Tanker Dr, Install a tee at the branch off point with an isolation valve directly attached to it and then cap off the outlet side of the valve. This allows the tap to be installed and pressure tested so if the existing County Subdivision wants to connect in the future they can easily do so. 1.1.12 Water & sewer need to flip locations in N Backfire Way. Currently these lines are not in the proper corridor. Water should be located on the east side of the road & sewer on the west. 1.1.13 Eliminate stub/dead-end water main at each corner of the townhome section off of W Wildfire Dr of the development. Services are only allowed in these areas just like common drives. 1.1.14 A water connection to the east (near N Static Line Ave and/or townhome section off of N Rustic Oak Way) needs to be enabled by either an extension of water mains to the property line or an easement. This is dependent on road connections to the east. Page 62 1.1.15 Water modeling was completed both as an entire development and at each phase per the phasing plan included in this record. This development was modeled with the 12" mains through the subdivision as required above, and the rest of the mains were modeled as 8". Per this plan there are no pressure issues, but each phase will need to be modeled at Final Plat to verify there aren't any pressure issues. 1.1.16 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Page 63 Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. Page 64 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line it em cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188188&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK’S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191860&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=189738&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192646&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT (SID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188429&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity Page 65 X. 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; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and MU-R FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this property if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IX. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the mix of lot sizes and housing types proposed in the residential portion of the development will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed medical offices and hospital along with recommended retail/restaurant uses will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City in accord with the purpose statement of the commercial districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Comments submitted by WASD indicate that existing enrollment numbers are below capacity in area schools that will serve this development. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IX. B. Preliminary Plat Findings (UDC 11-6B-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; The Commission finds that the proposed plat, with recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information.) Page 66 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.). (See Section IX for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Street Findings (UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application, the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds that the proposed design of the private street does not meets the requirements in UDC 11-3F-4A.6 as common driveways are proposed off the private street which are prohibited as . Further, private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those that create a common mew is proposed through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development, of which neither are proposed. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds granting approval of the private street with the lot layout, density and parking as proposed could present a nuisance for area residents without adequate parking for guests and overflow parking and a safety concern for emergency vehicles accessing the site if fire lanes are blocked due to parking in unauthorized areas should not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property or uses in the vicinity. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private street do not necessarily directly conflict with the comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan; however, vehicle and pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods is desired which is decreased with private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the regional transportation plan. Page 67 4. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10- 1463, 11-3-2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The Director finds the proposed residential development does not incorporates a mew or gated development in the design. D. Alternative Compliance Findings (UDC 11-5B-5): 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 The Director finds strict adherence to the requirement in UDC 11-3F-1, which require mews or gates to be provided where private streets are proposed in townhome developments, is feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds an alternative to the UDC requirement is not proposed, a waiver is simply requested without an alternative means for complying with the intent of the code requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds an alternative means of compliance is not proposed.