Loading...
2021-04-01 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Lisa Holland Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the March 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) by The Land Group, Generally Located South of E. Ustick Rd. on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] DEPARTMENT REPORTS 3. Fire Department: Introduction of Meridian Fire Chief Kris Blume and Department Update ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Jaker's Drive-Through Addition (H-2021-0012) by BRS Architects, Located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through in the C-G zoning district at an existing restaurant. - Continued to April 15, 2021 5. Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020- 0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. - Recommended Denial to City Council 6. Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H-2021-0008) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel A. Request: Annexation of 4 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district to develop the property with a fire station and police station. - Recommended Approval to City Council 7. Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason & Associates, Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000 square-foot office building in lieu of residential development. - Recommended Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing for Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision (H-2021-0007) by The Land Group, Located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 360 dwelling units on 15.89 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, located at 2700 E. Overland Rd B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. - Recommended Approval to City Council ADJOURNMENT - 9:37 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 1, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 1, 2021, was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Andrew Seal. Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Maria Lorcher. Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Lisa Holland X Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley Bill Cassinelli Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman Seal: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 1 st, 2021. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present at this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as the city planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be -- to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity. org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it by going to meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with the roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Seal: Okay. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Tonight Jaker's Drive Through Addition, H-2021-0012, will only be opened for the sole purpose of continuing the item to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 15th, 2021. It will open only for that purpose. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that particular application, we will not be taking testimony this evening. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Holland: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 2 of 63 Grove: Second. Seal: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the March 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021-0006) by The Land Group, Generally Located South of E. Ustick Rd. on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd. Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. Approval of the minutes from the previous Planning and Zoning meeting. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sadie Creek Drive -- Drive Through, H-2021-0006. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Grove: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Seal: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] DEPARTMENT REPORTS 3. Fire Department: Introduction of Meridian Fire Chief Kris Blume and Department Update Seal: Now we have a Department Report from the Fire Department. So, Chief Bongiorno, if you want to jump in, please, feel free. Bongiorno: Mr. Commissioner, this one is actually going to be the fire chief. He's here tonight. He will be taking care of that one. There he is right there. Blume: Yes, sir. Okay. Well, Commissioners and those in attendance, by way of introduction my name is Kris Blume and I'm the new fire chief for the City of Meridian Fire Department. I am originally a native of Idaho and I have spent the past 21 , 22 years in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 3 of 63 the fire service and couldn't be more thrilled to be up here in Meridian. One of the things that I would just like to talk about really briefly is noticing that Meridian is expanding. It's expanding horizontally, it's expanding vertically, and myself and my team are very focused on ensuring a sustainable service delivery model for the community of Meridian. Truth be told, we are struggling with our response to liability time. The adopted five minutes we are nowhere near. We are in the six and a half to seven minute response to emergencies to the community of Meridian. Even with the addition of Station 6 last year we have three stations that are continuing to trend down about three percent in that response -- response reliability. We are lucky to have an 80 percent response reliability and I'm hoping that we are going to be able to improve that, bring that into the mid 80s for the city. We have noticed call volumes increasing, as well as the density of population coming into Meridian increasing and so we are looking to improve and meet those needs and to that end this week on -- I'm sorry this upcoming week on Tuesday I'm looking forward to -- I anticipate a robust discussion on the construction of, hopefully, Stations 7 and 8, one or the other, and my hope and intention is that we will move forward with both of those. That will also lend itself to an increase in improved ISV rating for the city, reducing commercial, as well as residential insurance costs. So, again, I'm very excited to be here and really looking forward to watching the growth of this community move forward and hopefully -- and it's my intent with my team that we are going to be able to meet the expanding community of Meridian. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, Chief Blume. Is there any comments or questions that other Commissioners have? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just a quick question. You talked about the response times being down. Is that just because the city is growing outward and it's harder to get to the far reaches? Blume: You know, it's interesting, because we have some empiric, as well as anecdotal information to that. COVID was a bubble; right? I mean it's a snapshot in time. But what's very interesting about that is we had our in-service times, meaning our fire apparatus were not out of service doing training, adopted schools, station tours, we were not going to nursing homes for fall injuries or -- or non-life threatening emergencies and so even with the reduction in those calls, as well as an increase in service time, we were still seeing an increase in responses. Now, I would -- I will go back to the statement that I made that the city is expanding -- the horizon has been defeated. The horizon of Meridian -- we know the expansive boundaries of the City of Meridian, but what we are starting to see are those high density populations, mid rise three and four story apartment complexes, creating higher density of population, not on a vertical plane, but -- I'm sorry -- not on a horizontal plane, but in a vertical plane and so some of the areas have started to generate higher and higher call volumes and increasing out-of-service times and delays in responses in that regard as well. Certainly there are areas within Meridian that are very difficult to reach and certainly -- they are not within a five minute response time on a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 4 of 63 -- in a best case scenario and just a bit further on that, I drilled down on that, I wanted to help far off the Meridian Fire Department was that five minute adopted rule. We are at six minutes and 17 seconds and that's response time. Built in on the front side of that is a 90 second -- what's called chute time. So, from the time the 911 call comes in to the time we have wheels rolling, we are given 90 seconds. That's not built into the six minutes. So, we are approaching closer to eight minutes in a response time, which is quite impressive. From the time of the 911 call dispatch to having emergency services at somebody's door. Yearsley: That's impressive. Seal: Any other questions from other Commissioners? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yes, Commissioner Grove. Go ahead. Grove: Sir, is there -- you mentioned the vertical aspects of what's happening. Is there the ability to service higher development as -- as the city continues to grow? Blume: Well, certainly -- certainly -- thank you for the question, Commissioner Grove. The -- certainly with looking at developing and getting approval for Stations 7 and 8, part of that is bringing a second ladder truck to -- to the community and that's certainly going to help out. I mean it's exponential how much assistance to call volume and being able to meet the needs of the community that that's going to bring. As you probably are aware, the City of Meridian only has one ladder truck and so if that ladder truck is on a medical emergency and there is a call to a multi-level occupancy, we are waiting for Nampa or we are waiting for Boise to show up to handle the emergency in Meridian. Seal: Thank you. Commissioners, anymore questions? Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: I don't really have a question. I just wanted to say welcome and thanks for what you do. We appreciate you. Blume: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate being here. Thank you. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yes, Commissioner Lorcher. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 5 of 63 Lorcher: Is there any possibility with the COVID money coming through that we can allocate any of that to get another ladder truck for the City of Meridian or is that considered a different type of funding? Blume: Commissioner Lorcher, that's an excellent question. As far as that money goes, it is -- a ladder truck is impact fee eligible and that's sort of what we are looking to do at this point and, in fact, what we are -- what we are hoping and the intent of my office, as well as my team, is to utilize the ladder truck that's in -- in place right now and put it into a secondary position when we get a new ladder truck, which has already been purchased and it will be here in late fall, but instead of decommissioning that second ladder truck that would be decommissioned, we are going to keep it in -- in response status at Station 6, so that it can -- it can meet that -- that -- that growing need and demand. That's the intent right now. Seal: Anything else from the other Commissioners? All right. Thank -- thank you, Chief Blume. We appreciate you coming in, meeting with us and speaking with us while you have our undivided attention. If there is anything else that you want to share with the Commission -- no? You're good? Blume: No, sir. I love this community. It's fantastic. My family -- we couldn't be happier. I'm still pinching myself. So, I feel blessed beyond measure. Seal: Excellent. Welcome -- welcome and we look forward to speaking to you more. Appreciate that. Blume: All right. Thank you for your time this evening. Seal: All right. At this point I will go ahead and explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and began with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the application will --the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually and those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted in Zoom or you can come to the microphones in chambers. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. If you establish that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you would wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button in the Zoom app or if you are only listening on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple -- multiple devices, a computer or a phone, for example, please, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 6 of 63 be sure to mute those extra devices so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will return to your seat in chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a final decision or recommendation to Council -- to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Jaker's Drive-Through Addition (H-2021-0012) by BRS Architects, Located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through in the C-G zoning district at an existing restaurant. Seal: At this time I would like to -- I would like to open the public. Oh, sorry. I would like to continue -- or I don't know how to -- would like to open Jaker's Drive Through Addition, H-2021-0012, for continuous and I will take a motion on that. Holland: Mr. Chair, do we have a date to move that to? Seal: I believe it was April -- April 15th. Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we continue Jaker's Drive Through Addition, H-2021-0012, to the hearing date of April 15th to allow the applicant some additional time to meet requirements. Grove: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded for the continuance. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 7 of 63 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Seal: Okay. Now we will go on to Skybreak Neighborhood, H-2020-0127, continued from March 18th, 2021 , and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Commissioners. If you can see my presentation and hear me loud and clear, can you give me a thumbs up? Great. You never really know on this end. Okay. So, this is an annexation of 80.5 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district. It's a preliminary plat consisting of 328 buildable lots, with 40 common lots and 14 other lots and one of these lots in an existing house that will remain. It's a request for private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two gates and, then, two more escape gates, so four total. As a request for alternative compliance, which prohibited common driveways off private streets, to allow such in three different locations within the gated area, which -- and also there was a limit on the number of lots that could be served by gated, which the UDC says only 50 and, again, this would be 112. So, here is the zoning, the future land use map, and the aerial. The site consists of, as I said, 80 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in the county right now. It's located at 7020 South Eagle Road and 3487 East Alder Hoff, which is east of South Eagle Road south of East Lake Hazel Road. So, it's mostly within unincorporated Ada county, except that there is a subdivision to west called The Keep, which is being developed to the west and, then, right to the north you probably remember Pura Vida is being developed. The Boise Ranch Golf Course is to the east, but the majority of this, as you can see, is within unincorporated Ada county, although these maps are somewhat dated, because, again, there is one to the north now, northeast corner that you can't see, what's Pura Vida, which has now been annexed. So, a little history on this project. The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020. This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all single family detached. It was scheduled for the October 15th Planning Commission meeting. Staff mentioned to the applicant at the pre-app that there was issues and, then, when this went in -- when the staff report was released for the October 15th Planning Commission staff recommended denial. Based on that the applicant withdrew the application. Then they resubmitted this one in January of 2021 . So, a few months --few months later. This proposal is virtually the same with the exception that there is 24 or less lots. There is some slightly enlarged open space in several areas and there is 30 single family attached units at the northwest corner of the project. As I mentioned, staff does -- staff has had two pre-apps, multiple discussions, and in the staff report that we didn't support this project as proposed. The Comprehensive Plan recommends six acres to the south and west for a low density residential. The remaining 74 acres is recommended as medium density residential. At the time of the first -- at the time of the staff report when it first went out only one comment had been received. Since that time we have 11 more letters that have been received. The issues expressed are transition -- or a lack of transition in density. The R-15 zoning being inappropriate. Lack of sidewalks and -- and the -- the reasoning from the citizens of lack of sidewalks to be able to fit more houses. Inadequate green space. This being fringe development there were some concerns listed about school capacity, road design, and proposed usage of Vantage Point Road, which I will get into shortly. So, here is the proposed zoning for this project. The applicant proposes Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 8 of 63 R-8 on the western portion of the site. So, over here this will be residential eight. On the eastern part, which will be over here, this is proposed as R-15. R-8 requires 4,000 square foot lots in a 40 foot lot frontage. R-15 allows 20 -- or 2,000 square foot lots and it does not have a lot frontage requirement. This is important, because the applicant has requested R-15 zoning, so that they can do private streets that would not be allowed under R-8 or R-4 zoning. All of the development is proposed -- all of these lots would meet the minimum requirements of R-8 -- it's unnecessary, again, except for the reason of wanting the private streets. As proposed this zoning would zone the denser portions of the property to the less dense zoning -- so, this is the denser area, detached. These would be zoned to the less -- less dense -- or sorry. This would be zoned -- the denser area would be zoned to a lesser zone district -- less dense zone district and the lesser dense portion of the site over here would be zoned to the higher density zoned district. Staff has also mentioned to the applicant that we have a -- we have some issues with the transmission of lots. To the southwest the development proposed lot sizes of 6,000 to eight -- or sorry -- 6,000 and 6,500 square feet. That's in here. The applicant has noted in a response letter that future development in the unincorporated land directly adjacent -- that would be down here and vacant now -- would likely develop into density of 8,000 to 9,000 square foot lots and a density of three units per acre. However, the future land use map actually recommends this area for less than three dwelling units per acre. So, staff is not convinced that that would be the case. At the middle south, which is here, here, and around in here, the development does include prior roads and it includes common open space as a buffer between the 80 feet and 120 feet, between the smaller lots of the subject property, which are here and the larger lots, which is in Vantage Point Subdivision here. These are one acre lots. At the southeast, like I said, the larger lots are proposed at approximately half acre. So, here these lots are bigger. Again they are about a half acre. However, if you notice the way that they are turned, they are turned long wise, so even though these are half acre lots, this particular house is going to be looking at three houses. So, that the density we believe does not transition very well. mentioned that in the staff report. I incorrectly mentioned that this whole area was phase nine, when it's actually three different areas. Phase nine, phase four, and phase seven. Staff does appreciate that the applicant proposes to limit many of the houses in this subdivision for one -- to one story, including many of them that are in here. At the time that the staff report went out the applicant had submitted drawings proposing additional screening and buffering in this area. The Planning Commission is to determine whether the applicant has provided an appropriate transition in lots to the Vantage Point Subdivision. Everybody hear me and see me okay? Okay. The fire department has noted that this development can be serviced by the fire district, but has noted that there are concerns with this. Here is some of the concerns. The major one is that there is a large subdivision, 329 lots, that's only going to have one access. Now, it has multiple points -- or it has two points of access to Eagle Road, one to here and there could be an emergency access here, but what's important to mention is that only Eagle Road is the only point of access. If Eagle Road was blocked for any reason, then, the fire would have to go all the way around. This would really slow down the time. Fire has mentioned that they prefer a connection to Lake Hazel to the north. They had mentioned that they think the preservation of the southern rim would prevent such an access. Planning isn't convinced. We know that maybe there could be some discussions about the properties Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 9 of 63 to the north to get a northern access in here, but we do have concerns with only one road in, one road out. The west end, which is in here, does fall within the five minute response time, but the majority of the subdivision is outside of that five minute response time as you heard this evening. The nearest station right now has a low reliability rating. This would improve if and when the new southern station were built, which, in fact, you are going to hear that case next tonight. Fire has also noted that the gates would cause delays. Staff would prefer, as I said, that the applicant work with one or some of the property owners to the north to achieve access to Lake Hazel to give a second point of access out of the subdivision. The applicant has noted in their March 17th response letter that Pura Vida, Pinnacle and Lavender Heights Subdivisions -- Subdivisions are all at the same distance or further and have the same reliability as Skybreak and they were approved. However, staff notes that these other subdivisions have access from multiple streets, not just one street, and although Pura Vida has only one access from East Lake Hazel, it has a development agreement that limits the number of lots that can be built until there is a bridge built to the east. So, it's really not apples to apples. Pura Vida is also less than half the size of this development. The applicant has submitted a fire phasing plan, which includes 59 lots in phase one, only phase nine -- only phase nine proposes access from anywhere other than Eagle Road -- or, sorry, phase eight, would be the one up here. Phase nine here only has emergency access and I'm going to talk a little bit about that shortly. So, here is access. As already-- as already mentioned, all lots, except for 15 in phase eight, which would be the phase that is over here. All of these lots utilize Eagle Road as the only point of access. Phase eight cannot be built until Pura Vida builds out. So, unless this happens this phase here isn't going to happen. Phase nine does not have any improvement access. There is an emergency access only easement that's allowed here, which makes appropriate access for this particular phase, but this -- all 23 lots here cannot be served at present unless the applicant gets legal access to do that. Staff has concerns with supporting a project where we do not know if we have legal access and the developer at this point does not seem to have control over that. This applicant -- this application proposes 112 lots to be served by a private road and two gates. I have outlined in the red outline here -- this is the area that would be served by the private roads. The private roads proposed as narrow as 27 feet and you have no sidewalk or landscaping. The applicant's comment in their letter that 27 feet is a minimum width for ACHD, but it does not meet the ACHD template, because there is no sidewalks here. These roads -- because these roads aren't built to the minimum ACHD standards, they pass the maintenance costs onto the homeowners in perpetuity or the homeowners association, as -- because they don't meet ACHD standards, if there were financial constraints or anything else in the future, ACHD would not accept these roads. Staff does not understand how narrow roads and sidewalks is innovative or preferable to streets without sidewalks. Staff has asked the applicant to explain why this is preferable, other than the ability to increase lots or reduce building costs and the only explanation we have gotten is that it provides an intimate setting and that there is a demographic that prefers a gated community. Staff has concerns with supporting this feature without sufficient justification and what precedent you have set for future requests to build roads that don't meet minimum templates. The applicant has requested alternative compliance to allow 112 lots to be served by two gates and two emergency gates, three common driveways off of a common lot. The planning director -- there is the -- the planning director has Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 10 of 63 denied this request for alternative compliance, believing that none of the conditions for alternative compliance was met. One thing I do want to mention -- in their most recent response letter the applicant noted that the reason why the private streets are built as such is they are intentionally designed without sidewalks to prioritize using streets for walking, biking, and communing with neighbors and the cars are supposed to be a secondary use. However, staff is skeptical, because given the location of this subdivision we have on the periphery of the -- of the city, every resident is going to have to drive through this subdivision to get in and out. So, maybe -- they may be able to walk around within the subdivision, but they are still going to get in their cars and drive anywhere. Parks, amenities, and open space. The applicant states that 14.99 acres or 18.8 percent of open space is provided and these parks and amenities include a three-quarter acre tot lot with play structure, climbing rock -- climbing rock and outdoor seating, which you can see here. A one acre open sports park, which you can see here. Pathways along the Farr Lateral, which you see here. And there is also a pathway coming along this slope here. There is a golf cart pathway here. So, this would provide golf cart access into the Boise Ranch Golf Course. There are several dog parks. There was one shown here. There is one shown there. And there is an entry park, which you can see here. Staff does believe that some of these amenities would be valuable amenities, such as the sports park and the tot lot. However, aside from much of what -- aside from that, much of what they are crediting as open space -- and I will show you here. Much of what they are crediting as qualified open space is buffers along roads, endcaps, open space that could not have been used anyway, like the slopes or the area within the Farr Lateral, and not all of it is landscaped per the UDC requirements. You have to have a one tree -- if there is a pathway you have to have one tree per hundred linear feet. In addition to that for common open space you have to have one tree per 8,000 square feet. We don't see that within the area of the Farr Lateral or around the slope area. It's important to note that although the applicant has submitted a chart showing which open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC -- so it meets our minimum requirements. For example, 50 by 100 feet and/or an open area on both ends -- the applicant is requesting that the city annex this property. There are no present entitlements. So, the Planning Commission and the City Council get to decide if this project is a quality of such that it is in the best interest of the city to annex. Staff thinks a development of this size, 80 acres, should have more quality usable open space and more of it compiled together and oriented in more convenient locations. The applicant has submitted a pedestrian circulation plan with this proposal. All the private streets that are shown without sidewalks are being reflected as pedestrian connections. The Planning Commission should decide if those really are pedestrian connections and whether this is appropriate open space and amenities. Here is the proposed pedestrian plan. Again, you will see that all -- that the roads that do not have sidewalks or pathways here -- many of them there are shown as a pedestrian connection. Here is just a picture of the elevations and overall we believe that the elevations are quality and we support what they are doing with that. You can see the single family residential, as well as a duplex style elevation. Staff recommends denial of this project. Staff does not believe this project substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the city. This is why. There is only one access road for all but 15 lots and the applicant has not demonstrated legal access for 23 of the lots in phase nine. We believe that there is an inadequate transition of lots to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 11 of 63 lots in the Vantage Point Subdivision. We are struggling with the higher density zoning for the lower density area and the lower density zoning for the higher density zoning area. We really think it's just for the purpose of allowing the private roads. We don't support it, because we believe it's located on the fringe. There is only a few places where it's adjacent to the city limits. We don't believe it's an in-fill development. We don't support it because of the narrow private streets with no sidewalks. It does not meet the Comprehensive Plan for a walkable community. Although fire says they can serve it, they have expressed concerns with this development. There is some quality open space, but much of the open space being credited as not usable, even if it meets the minimum dimensional requirements. The applicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue, because it's age targeted. But unless it's deed restricted there is no way we can enforce whether or not it's going to be above 50. So, it may be sold -- it may be marketed as over 50, but, again, we can't enforce that unless there is some sort of deed restriction. With that I will stand for your questions or comments if the Planning Commission has any. Seal: Thank you, Alan. And tonight I think we are going to do things just a little bit differently where we are going to go ahead and let the applicant come up and speak and, then, we will ask our questions of staff and the applicant and, then, we will go forward with the public portion of it. So, at this point would the applicant like to come forward? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I just need some clarification. Deb Nelson, if you are on the line can you, please, raise your hand. I see two accounts that could be you, but I'm just not quite sure which one you are. Thank you. One moment. Sorry, Deb, I lost you. Raise your hand again, please. Thank you. One moment. Seal: Okay. If you would -- if you would like to state your name and address for the record and you will have your 15 minutes. Nelson: Before I get started may I have access to share my screen, please? Weatherly: There you go, Deb. You should be able to share now. Nelson: Thank you. Well, good evening, Commissioners. Can you see my screen? Seal: Not yet. Nelson: Okay. Let me try again. Okay. Seal: There we go. Nelson: It's working now. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Deborah Nelson. My address is 601 West Bannock Street. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and also members of the development team are here with me as well and available to answer any questions. I'm going to start with a brief fly through of the development. Thank you. And with that I'm going to begin a PowerPoint here as well. Skybreak is a premier golf community targeted to empty nesters. We are super excited to bring this project to you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 12 of 63 this evening. We are disappointed that we have not been able to come to terms with staff. As you can tell from staff's presentation that after a year of working with staff we don't see eye to eye on how to best use this unique property that has its own challenges and opportunities for this great development and so we will try to address all of the concerns that have come up. We did provide a detailed written response to the staff to address each and every one of these concerns, because there just isn't enough time during a hearing to try to cover all of them. So, I hope you have had an opportunity to review that and certainly we would be available to answer any questions you have about those, but -- but in some -- we meet the city code requirements that are appropriate for this site. We certainly fulfill the goals of your Comprehensive Plan and we are ready to bring forth this great development and -- and describe it for you this evening. It provides a unique living opportunity for Meridian residents that are looking for an exclusive community with exceptional rim view lots and designed for that active adult living. It's integrated into the adjacent Boise Ranch Golf Course with a cart path for easy access. Over a mile of pathways wind through the neighborhood. Generously landscaped boulevards and endcaps welcome residents home and create a sense of place. Homes with premiere architectural finishes, inside and out, match the quality of this exceptional property. The property is designated as medium density residential in Meridian's recently adopted comp plan, which requires three to eight homes per acre and Skybreak's proposed density is squarely within that 4.1 . Skybreak provides the necessary transition and density between the medium high residential designation to the north, which requires eight to 12 homes per acre, and the low density designation to the south with three homes or less per acre. Additional roof tops in this quickly developing area of Meridian helps support the future commercial and retail uses along Eagle Road, Lake Hazel and Meridian Road, including the recently approved Pinnacle project, which has neighborhood commercial at Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. The 77 acre Discovery Park and the new South Meridian Fire Station site are just a half mile to our west. Pura Vida was just approved to our northeast. So, we are close to shopping, healthcare services, employment opportunities and regional transportation arteries. The Skybreak site plan embraces the property's challenges and opportunities. The southern rim with a 50 to 60 foot drop along our east end provides exceptional view lots, along with an opportunity to protect that natural hillside with open space and a pathway. The lack of road access along our northeast and east and southeast due to these existing developments makes this site ideal for a gated community, because it doesn't block any road's connectivity. The golf course on our east side, of course, provides its own great opportunity to connect with pedestrian pathways and a cart path. A large existing home will remain, so we will surround it with other large custom homes. Attached housing in our northwest transitions to high density development planned to our north. Larger custom home sites, along with open space and landscape buffers, transition to existing low density homes to our southeast. Smaller lots and homes on the west along east Eagle Road transition to larger lots and homes in the east along the rim. All of these will meet the R-8 dimensional standards in your code. A portion of the Skybreak community is gated and utilizes private streets to create a more intimate neighborhood setting within the larger Skybreak community. The development team has done extensive marketing and polling of past and future homeowners and has found that a demographic of senior homebuyers prefers the security that a gated community provides. The gates do not create any pedestrian Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 13 of 63 barrier. The sidewalks and pathways are not needed. The gates slow cars and the narrower private streets are intentionally designed without sidewalks in many locations to provide a pedestrian lifestyle where residents walk and convene in the streets and engage with each other. The development team has done other communities with the same private street design and customers pay a premium to be in these gated communities. Everyone views the street as walking paths that cars are allowed to drive on. We have a video to illustrate this that we will show at the end if we have time. The Skybreak property is ideally suited for a gated community because of several factors. The steep natural hillside of the southern rim. The lack of road connectivity on our eastern end above the rim due to the golf course to our east, the Vantage Point Subdivision on the southeast, and Pura Vida recently approved on our northeast, which does not include any road below the rim and down to connect to Lake Hazel. Where we can connect to surrounding properties we do. Below the rim in the northeast corner. Three additional places on the north. Our western entrance and two places on the south. Skybreak includes premier open space and amenities. The developer has researched and interviewed past homeowners and used the city code to plan the most productive amenities for this new neighborhood. Skybridge's planned open space amenities far exceed city code requirements, providing 15 acres and 18.8 percent qualified open space and providing 14 amenities where only four are required. Skybreak's open spaces and amenities include -- in our three-quarter acre park we have a play structure, seating benches, shade structure and climbing rocks. We have two dog parks, because they are in such high demand by residents, each with open vision fencing, dual boot system, and seating benches. Our one acre open sports area with pathways, seating areas, and landscaping includes a large grassy central space to accommodate sports activities. Our natural hillside area is 2.82 acres, including native grasses and a natural hillside path with open views that everybody will enjoy. Here you can also see the golf cart access to the Boise Ranch Golf Course and one of the two ten foot regional pathway segments this development will provide. Our entry park makes an attractive statement upon arrival and also caps the tree line collector where residents walk, with seating areas and specialty tree plantings and landscaping along the central collector and endcaps adds aesthetic beauty and passive open space areas throughout the development. This slide in particular illustrates the value of that endcap landscaping to create a beautiful neighborhood, add privacy, and enhance walkways. Skybreak has over a mile of constructed sidewalks and pathways, including a half mile of multi-use regional pathways and a unique natural hillside path similar to neighborhoods in the Boise foothills, plus a loop around the entire development and none of those include the walking paths that we consider paths within our private street network. That is over and above that description. In addition, Skybreak is a half mile walk to the city's 77 acre regional Discovery Park. Skybreak provides great transition to surrounding developments. This overview slide I think really shows the efforts that have been made to create that smooth transition to the high density development to our northeast and the low density development to our southeast. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan we transition through buffering, screening, and transitional densities and our northeast Skybreak transitions to the higher density Pura Vida development with smaller lots, continuous open space along the rim, and street connectivity above and below the rim. And our southeast has a great transition to Vantage Point with buffering, screening, and transitional density. Here you can see Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 14 of 63 that southeast area in more detail. On the west end we provide separation with a 50 foot wide landscape buffer around a local street, a one acre park, plus berming, landscape screening and concrete walls to ensure no headlights disturb the neighbors. We originally had planned to continue this open space buffer with a pathway along the southeast border as well, but the neighbor said they preferred backyards to a pathway, we adjusted our plan and moved the pathway to the north of those lots. Instead where we directly abut the county lots in the southeast we have provided larger half acre lots with increased setbacks. This cross-section shows the transition areas of the road, plus the 60 feet of landscaping and also the cross-section of the park that provides over 108 feet of separation to the property line. Those areas have berming and heavy landscaping screening. Along the road where there -- where there are two T intersections in response to neighbor concerns with headlights, the developer has added six foot concrete walls on berms with heavy landscaping to block all light. This slide illustrates the wall placement, along with the heavy landscaping and the significant open space buffering that is provided here. You can really see the difference. In the limited area where we directly abut existing homes in the southeast corner, we provide half acre lots, doubled the rear setback to 30 feet, and tripled the side setback of the corner lot to 15 feet. The orientation of these lots is ideal for creating a bigger open space, larger setback between the house and our neighbors. We also agreed on that corner lot to pull back the building footprint from the rear 45 feet on the north side and angling down to 110 feet on the south side as an accommodation to the adjacent land owner. In addition to all of these accommodations on our property to create transition, when considering compatibility to surrounding uses it's appropriate for the Commission to look at the facts of those uses. Here the adjoining homes are setback 50 to 75 feet from the property line. So, for all of these reasons Skybreak provides more than sufficient transition to surrounding developments. Water, sewer and all other infrastructure is adjacent to and ready to serve this site. The developer has had several meetings with Joe Bongiorno in the fire department over the last year. Joe's March 3rd comment letter, his final letter in the record, clearly states this project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department. Joe requests opticom devices on gates and a wildland safety plan for the natural hillside and the applicant agrees. The site entrance is within the emergency response time goals for the fire department and other first responders and, most importantly, it is within a half mile of the planned fire station near Discovery Park. Skybreak is anticipated to have a low impact to schools based on the empty nester target demographic, but, regardless, the school serving Skybreak has capacity. Hillsdale Elementary and Lake Hazel Middle School are within planned capacities and Meridian -- or, excuse me, Mountain View High School just -- was just expanded and is within the capacity range the city determined was acceptable in considering the Pura Vida development in the same area just two months ago. ACHD has reviewed and approved the proposed development with conditions of approval that are all acceptable to the developer. The already underway improvement and widening of Eagle Road and Lake Hazel road provide ample capacity for -- for the trips that are generated by this development. ACHD has conditioned phase nine in the southwest on having access to a public road. So, staff's concerns will be addressed by that condition already. The Skybreak neighborhood includes 328 attached and detached single family homes in varying sizes and price points, ranging from the low four hundreds to over a million dollars. Most of the homes are single story to appeal to empty nesters. Homes Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 15 of 63 are all near your walking paths and open spaces and have walking and golf cart access to the Boise Ranch Golf Course. Large rim view lots accommodate custom homes and provide the executive housing that we have heard city leaders requesting during the Comprehensive Plan hearing. We are really excited to bring this premier golf community to Meridian and if we have time, as the chairman allows, we would show a short video about a successful gated community that has been developed in Boise by the same developer with the same street design that's proposed here. Seal: Unfortunately, the 15 minutes is up. Nelson: Okay. That's fine. It's in the record if anybody has the opportunity to review it. Thank you for your -- for your attention and be happy to stand for any questions. Seal: Okay. At this time are there any questions from the Commissioners to the applicant or staff? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I thought with the development that had happened to the northeast of this project that there was conversations about having road connectivity when this was to come before us. Was that -- was I misunderstanding that or did that get planned out? Nelson: Chairman. I would be happy to address that question if it was to me. Seal: Go ahead. Nelson: Commissioner, Mr. Grove, the Pura Vida development to the north didn't -- was not approved by the city requiring any access down the rim. I think that they looked at the natural hillside and saw that it wasn't suitable for placing a road there. The top portion of Pura Vida does -- above the rim does connect to Skybreak, but there is no connection between the top portion of Pura Vida down to the lower portion of Pura Vida creating that Lake Hazel connection and the city approved in that way. Seal: I was going to say for clarity I was actually going to ask on the same question for the Pura Vida, because I remember that coming in and one of our main concerns was the fact that it had very limited connectivity to everything that was above the bluff. So, that was a huge concern for -- you know, as far as connectivity and response time from the Fire Department and kind of hinged on what was going to be connected as far as their ability to build that out. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 16 of 63 Yearsley: So, I have been on the homeowners association board of a premier subdivision for the last 13 years and seeing the problems that have come through with developers leaving the association with the design of the development. How do you address the gated community with no sidewalks and no parking and very -- you have got the rim lots, but you have got a lot of high density areas for parking on both sides of the street, getting access through the streets and, then, actually providing walkability. I -- I struggle to see how that's going to work. Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner, it actually is just medium density, it's not high density in there, and the -- the layout and design is very intentional based on prior developments that the developer has done successfully and demand from residents that want to live in exactly that type of development and the streets are purposefully narrow. They are still wider than the city requirements for a private street and they match the size for a public street for ACHD, but they are purposely designed at that size to slow cars down. So, it is designed to be more of a pedestrian area behind the gate than it is designed to be a vehicular speedway and -- and so that that design is intentional desired by our homeowners and successful in other locations. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Holland. Holland: Hi, Deb. We -- we have seen a few of these gated communities that have -- the gates come down more for ornamental reasons than actually functional reasons. Are these going to be ornamental or are they actually going to be functional gates that close where they there is a keypad that they have to enter to come into the subdivision? Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, it-- it will be functional. They will be functional gates and that's why they will have the opticom devices as requested by Fire, so that they can have quick fire access. But it is exactly that functional security that the homeowners are looking for in this type of community. Holland: One more follow-up question. So, I know staff had some concerns about the way open space was configured, because a lot of it's on a lateral and some of its in areas that are not usable for open space. It certainly looks like there is --there is a good amenity package and a number of different types of amenities, but do you have any comments to try and -- were there conversations with staff where there was any go between that would have made them a little bit happier? Would you be willing to still consider doing a larger open space, a more central open space amenity moving forward with the project? Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, there --there was a lot of discussion with staff over a long period of time about -- about the open space. There were some adjustments that were made with the new application with that larger park on the south, but the -- the open space is very intentionally designed and it's -- it's spread throughout -- it's a very large property and so it's spread intentionally throughout the property to serve a large number of residents without having one central large location that everybody has to walk Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 17 of 63 a long distance to. We have got connections from -- to each of these smaller areas through our landscape pathways and so it creates a network. We don't need that central large part here either, because we are right next to the 77 acre Discovery Park of the city and I know that the city always looks to where your regional parks are when you are deciding how large an amenity open space package needs to be. Here we far exceed what the code requires. We are just presenting something that we think our homeowners want and desire that works well for this site and the type of demographic that we are catering to that isn't what staff prefers. Holland: Thank you. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, follow up on this question. Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: The emergency access for the -- that you showed us to the south of your property, that's a private lane. Do you have an agreement with the owner to access that private lane? Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, yes, we do. And it's been recorded. Seal: Okay. Do we have any other questions from our Commissioners? All right. Hearing none, we will go ahead and take public testimony. Weatherly: Mr. Chair -- Seal: Yes. Weatherly: -- we had several people sign in, none of which indicated a wish to testify. Seal: Okay. If anybody else would like to testify, go ahead and raise your hand within Zoom or if you are in chambers please raise your hand. Gentleman in chambers, go ahead and come up and state your name and address for the record. Rankin: Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Stephen Rankin and I live at 3062 North Firelight Place. This is not my neighborhood, but I would just like to say as a resident of a community that does have a lot of empty nesters, as he said, I would say the importance of the sidewalk is absolutely vital. You're going to have elderly people living in a neighborhood with other people who drive in that neighborhood, you are going to need sidewalks. I walk my dogs every day. I'm sure a lot of empty nesters have dogs every day and I think, again, the importance of sidewalks should not be overlooked. That's all I got to say. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have anybody else in the audience who would like to come up and testifying? Anybody else on Zoom? I was going to say, it looks like Chief Bongiorno -- oh, we got one person raising their hand right now. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 18 of 63 Bongiorno: It can wait. Seal: Go ahead, Chief Bongiorno, you can go ahead and talk now and we will bring the other person in if you would like. Bongiorno: Okay. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I just wanted to address the comments that Alan had earlier on the project. So, yes, excuse me, I can -- the Fire Department can service the project. The Fire Department can service any project that is built within the city boundaries. The concern that I have is what -- what's it going to look like and so as it stands with this particular project, Station 4 is down the road. The chief, as he alluded to earlier, our response times are extended and we are -- we are kind of stretched at the moment. So, with that, if Station 4, with the low reliability rating that they have, if they are not available, the next fire station that's closest is going to be Engine 14, which I checked the reliability rating as of last week and their rating actually has come up a little bit. They are sitting at about 81 percent, whereas before they were at 78 percent where Station 4 was. So, with the two stations with lower reliability ratings, my concern was that fire station is ten minutes away, you know, just using Google Maps, that's not using -- you know, going ten over or whatever Boise fire department allows for their fire engines and, then, after that the next closest station would be Boise Station 17, which is 11 minutes away and, then, I believe you come back to Meridian for the next closest, which would be 12 minutes away. So, again, I believe Chief Blume likes to use the term time is tissue. So, if it's not a structure fire and let's say grandma is having a heart attack, that time that it takes for us to get there or for the Ada County Paramedics to get there, that tissue is dying and so that's what we are looking at is if Station 4 is out of their quarters, it's going to be a very long response time out to this project and, then, as Alan alluded to, if you use the GIS map that our GIS people have built for us, the front third falls within that five minutes, but once we get back into the subdivision and we get deeper into these streets, it's going to take more time. So, for us this project would look a lot better once station -- the south station, if it gets approved by Council, it would look a lot better. So, that's kind of what the cause -- the concerns were with the Fire Department. You can build any -- you can approve -- approve any project anywhere, we will be there. It's kind of like the Field of Dreams, build it and we will come. Build it and we will be there. It's just a matter of what's it going to look like and -- and that's where this project falls. So, for us that's kind of our biggest concern or my biggest concern with the project and, again, if the station -- if the south station right around the corner was built, man, it's a no brainer then, because the fire station is right there and it's -- it would look a lot better. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the comments and thanks for -- Bongiorno- Thanks for your time tonight. Seal: Uh-huh. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I see one person raising their hand. Kathy White, I see you. One moment. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 19 of 63 Seal: Okay. Kathy, if you want to unmute yourself. Do you have anything -- anything else going? Please unmute. White: My-- my name is Kathy White. I live at 3804 East Vantage Point Lane. The three concerns I will mention are the following: Sidewalks are lacking. Sidewalks offer -- offer safety for pedestrians. Our subdivision, it was built 20 years ago, it does not have sidewalks. Twenty years ago our subdivision was rural. Also it only has 16 homes, which sub -- substantially decreases the safety issue. Skybreak has 20 times the homes of our subdivision. How safe will it be for all those individuals in that subdivision without sidewalks? And to me it seems the lack of sidewalks only benefits the developer's bottom line. My second concern is Skybreak markets this no sidewalk subdivision as ideal for senior citizens. I do not see a senior citizen center, a swimming pool, or any real amenities. Flashy videos in my opinion and marketing a subdivision as unique and special does not make that a reality. My third concern that I will mention is the lack of a fair transition from our subdivision to the proposed subdivision. Our subdivision consists of larger lots. Our home sits on an acre and a quarter and it is feasible and reasonable that the developer, especially with such a large development, could work with five adjacent homeowners by putting one single story home behind each of us. That is also respectful to these five homeowners who have view lots. As the lady just mentioned for Skybreak in her presentation that view lots are important. So, please, respect our view lots in regards to transitions and the city planning staff has rejected this plan twice and we are also asking you to deny it as well. We would like to work with the developers to improve the transition between our rural -- you know, our acreage subdivision and hope the Commissioners will require a division of -- or subdivision of substance and less verbiage. Thank you for your time. Seal: Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else online that would like to testify? If so, please, hit the raise your hand button within Zoom. We are not seeing anybody pop up there and nobody else in chambers. Okay. Would the applicant like to come back? Nelson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Well, we can keep these points brief, then, and stand for anymore questions you have. Just a few things I want to highlight just in case it's not clear. We do meet the definition of private streets in your code and meet the width requirements in your code. In fact, we exceed them. The streets need to be 24 feet wide in your code and we are 27 feet wide and your code does not require private streets to have sidewalks. So, we are not asking for any change to your code in that regard. We -- we believe that this is a level of preference. Not every homeowner will choose this. In fact, our homes that are outside of our gates do have sidewalks, are not gated, and so there will be a choice that's available to consumers that they can make a selection based on what they desire. Turning to a few comments about fire. We appreciate Joe's comments that really when that new station is built there is no concern and that new fire station is going to be coming on line about the same time we have homes coming online here. But in the meantime with Station No. 4 and the comments about reliability and accessibility to our site, we are in no worse position -- in fact, a much better position than developments that have been approved by the city in recent months in the same area -- with Pura Vida that is immediately to our northeast that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 20 of 63 was approved to use the same Station No. 4, as well as further back the Brighton Pinnacle project and they are over three miles to the -- to Station No. 4. Much further distance. And so the -- the expectation has been as the city has considered all of these developments, that the new station would be coming online to aid and shortening that time frame. As far as accessibility, this slide that's in front of you now I think illustrates very well how if there is a disaster on Eagle Road and somehow a truck has got to go around, well, there is roads that have been developed through The Keep and that is the point of these interim collector road networks that are developed off of the arterial, that there are places fire trucks can go around. If some -- if a truck did have to go a longer distance and we are in no different position than any other development, including Pinnacle to our north were that to happen. So, we appreciate that the Fire Department is always balancing these concerns and safety. We appreciate that they did carefully review our development, meet with us many times about how it could be serviced and we ask for your approval consistent with how the city has approved other developments in our area. And, finally, just, again, to touch on open space, you know, in -- in addition to what is around us, which is so important, not just a regional park that we talked about before, but let's not forget that we are next to a golf course. It is -- it is like having an -- that large amenity within our development, because our development is designed to take advantage of that golf course and so every resident in our neighborhood will have pathway and golf cart access to get down to that golf -- that golf course. We don't need to add a larger central amenity when you have those two off-site larger resources. And -- and, again, this is a matter of preference, like the sidewalk. The developer has carefully considered what their target home buyer desires through extensive interviews and charetting processes they are not interested in providing a community center, because that's not what's in demand for this type of development and that's not what they want to provide here. They have really carefully thought about what that open space is going to look like, how it's going to live, how it's going to provide that aesthetic beauty. The landscaping impacts are critical to how this development feels when you enter it. We don't want to take all those off and put them in a central park. We are -- we are not targeting the type of homeowner that desires that central amenity. And it's certainly in the developer's interest to succeed in this regard and because we meet your city code, we would ask the Commission to follow your city code and give us a recommendation for approval based on that and let the developer have some creativity and discretion in how they meet demand. So, with that I would stand for anymore questions you may have. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any other further questions? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, with regard to the golf course community, is it just because you have a pathway to the golf course? Is that the only amenity? I'm -- I'm trying to figure out how you tie the golf course to this subdivision besides just the pathway to golf course. I just don't see it. Is there anything else that I have missed from the golf course? Is there any like putting greens, any of that that's associated with the subdivision? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 21 of 63 Nelson: Chair and Commissioner, actually, there is quite a bit here and primarily it is access, but to the -- to develop a residential development immediately adjacent to a golf course is the amenity. That's how a lot of residential golfing communities are developed is proximity. It's being able to get into a golf cart in your -- in your driveway and head down to the course. That is what makes that amenity. We also have had to negotiate that pathway to get out onto the golf course. We didn't just happenstance get to add that and so that was worked out with the developer and I think that the -- the putting is something that could happen in that large grassy area where we have got room for sports. I think that's a nice idea. Seal: Okay. Do we have any other questions from our Commissioners? Grove: Mr. Chair? Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Mr. Grove, I heard you first. Go ahead. Grove: All right. I will ask a couple, but I will just ask one right now, just kind of following up on that last question. So, with the northeast portion of this project where the golf path does go through, does that connect directly to the course or does that go through another subdivision for that connectivity to the golf course? Nelson: Commissioner Grove, it goes directly. Seal: Do you have a follow up, Commissioner Grove? Grove: I will wait. I will let Commissioner Holland go ahead. I got to rethink my -- that was just a follow-up question that I didn't actually plan, so I will get back to the one in my head. Seal: Okay. Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: Thanks, Mr. Chair. Deb, so tonight we have a little bit -- always have a tough challenge when staff recommends denial of a project, because it -- it puts us in a specific spot where we can't recommend approval of a project if staff recommended denial, because we don't have conditions of approval to move forward on. So, we get to a point where we either have to work to make some recommendations for -- for the applicant to come back to us with some of those changes and do a continuance where we can look at seeing if there is ways we can find some middle ground on some of the concerns that are raised by staff and see if we can find that middle ground or we have the option of recommending denial, so it just moves forward to Council so they can deliberate. I always hate this recommend denial and have something go forward to Council. Certainly they have the ability to request staff to create conditions of approval, but what is your -- your hope tonight? Are you hoping that the Commission can give you some recommendations and we can continue this to a future date where we can discuss and maybe negotiate Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 22 of 63 some of these challenges or would you prefer to see us move forward with a recommendation of denial? Nelson: Commissioner Holland, that's a great question. It's -- it's not a great position for us to be in where we have worked really hard with staff to try to get here, but that's exactly why we did propose -- in our written response proposed conditions of approval. We tried to address each and every detailed concern that was raised and so I just apologize in advance for the ten page letter, but that's what it took to -- to go through each and every item, so that you knew that we had thoughtfully considered each of the items raised by staff and at the end of our letter we propose conditions of approval that we think would be appropriate for your consideration. If-- if the Commission had an opportunity to review those or would like to discuss them, we would be happy to engage with that. Of course, if you are ready to approve us and need time to craft conditions of approval, we would certainly support that. If -- if the -- if the notion, though, is that you think we are still too far apart from staff and -- and you want us to go back and work again I guess we want to communicate to you that we -- we have exhausted that effort and it -- I think it's obvious from the presentations tonight that we just have a different opinion about these same items, so -- I mean Alan describes his -- his point of view on each of the same items we have addressed and so you have gotten to hear that and now at this point if you are inclined to agree with us, we would welcome and appreciate your support as you look to your code and the comp plan to base that decision. But if you are not there, then, I guess we would prefer a denial to an indefinite deferral. Holland: So, I guess I could follow that question up, Mr. Chair, if I can. Seal: Yeah. Go ahead, Ms. -- Ms. Holland. Holland: To see if staff had comments on the proposed conditions that the applicant put forward. I'm assuming that staff would ask for more time to review those if that's the direction the Commission goes and I'm not saying that -- we certainly have a lot of things to deliberate on this evening and we will -- we will talk through all those items, but I'm just curious where staff is at before we decide to keep this open for deliberation with the -- with the hearing open or -- or go to deliberation closing it. Tiefenbach: Yes, Ma'am, Ms. Commissioner, I -- I'm assuming you want me to speak directly. Holland: Thanks, Alan. Seal: Go ahead, Alan. Tiefenbach: Leaving aside other comments that I had on some of the stuff that's been discussed, purely just talking about the conditions that you speak to, I guess it depends on what your issues are going to be. There is -- there is some pretty significant -- I mean in regards to, for instance, private roads, if they had to widen the roads and they add sidewalks, that could be a significant amount of redesign. There could be some significant Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 23 of 63 redesign in regard to whether or not the infrastructure fit. So, if we are talking simple, like tweaking some open space, I think that's easy. If we are talking about there is some issues with the road, there is issues with the access, you know, you have to -- they-- they only have emergency access from the south. They don't have full access. We are talking much bigger issues and I don't think we could just craft conditions of approval, it almost might be a withdrawal and resubmittal of a new application. Seal: Do you have any follow up, Commissioner Holland? Holland: No follow up for now. I think I will just be interested to hear what the other Commissioners have to say and we can talk through that, whether we do that open or closed on the hearing. Seal: Okay. Do we have any other questions from our Commissioners? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: For -- this is for staff. I know one of the huge concerns was emergency access and only one access point on Eagle Road because of the proximity of the current fire station. But we are also -- if it's not tonight, it's soon that we are looking at a new fire station. If we postponed a decision tonight until the new fire station was approved or not approved, would that change staff's recommendation for this project? Tiefenbach: Thank you, Commissioner. I guess the -- the issue is not just one thing. It's a -- it's a number of things. I think that if the fire station was approved and Mr. Bongiorno said it was funded and capped, then, sure, that would eliminate our concerns with fire access. We would still have issues with the parks. We still have issues with the density, with the narrow roads and those sidewalks. So -- so, yes, it would remove one of the seven issues that we have. Lorcher: Okay. But there is more than one, so -- Tiefenbach: Yeah. Usually if there is -- you know, we will usually do what we can to try to make recommendations with conditions and in this case there was a number of things to the point that we just thought we were either going to be conditioning a whole lot of things or we were just going to have to say we can't support it as it is. Holland: Thank you. Bongiorno: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Was that Commissioner Yearsley? Bongiorno: Chief Bongiorno. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 24 of 63 Seal: Oh, Chief Bongiorno. Go ahead. Bongiorno: Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I just wanted to reiterate that south station has not been approved yet. We are going through design and you are going to have the zoning in front of you tonight, but the -- it has not been budgeted for to construct it and it has not been budgeted for staffing. So I want to make sure that that's clear, that it has not been approved, it's not -- it is not moving forward. We are only doing design at this point. Seal: And, Joe, do you have a ballpark timeline on how long that generally takes before you would be able to service from that location? Bongiorno: I believe if both fire stations move forward, I believe -- trying to remember Chief Butterfield's timeline. I believe the south station would open in July of 2023 and, then, the north station would open like three months after that. And I don't know if Kris is still on the line, if that's correct or not. I don't see him, so -- but it was -- it was roughly July of 2023. Seal: Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that input. Bongiorno: Yes. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: Yeah. I have a question for you in regards to how -- how this is laid out a little bit. You have a fairly blank canvas and there are several shared driveways that have been laid out. Is there a purpose behind so many shared driveways on this project? Nelson: Yes. So, there are -- there are a number of common driveways in the development that creates efficiency and access and -- but everything is designed in accordance with your code for that. Within the gated community we have a request for alternative compliance only because your code requires that for a private street to access a common driveway, but that -- that issue has now been appealed to the -- and that will be decided by the Council. Seal: Okay. Any other questions by the Commissioners? Parsons: Mr. Chair? This is Bill. Seal: Go ahead, Bill. Parsons: I just wanted to just provide some context on this -- this application and just because, you know, the applicant is correct, we have been -- probably spent over two years discussing development of this site and we are definitely -- I appreciate all the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 25 of 63 meetings that we have had with the applicant on this, because I think it's been -- it's worthwhile, it's definitely eye opening to sit down and talk about 40 acres in an area that's rapidly developing and how to get all of these pieces to align. Just from -- from staff's perspective this really comes down to a timing issue. Is this really the right time and that's what the purpose of annexation is. You know, one of the findings is is this in the best interest of the city and you as that body has to make that recommendation. The other piece of it -- it's not as simple as just continuing this and working with staff, coming up with appropriate conditions. In our mind, at least from our perspective, we -- the director or staff has acted on the applicant's alternative compliance request and the private street application and we got denied both and that is the director's decision to do that. Now, the Council -- the Commission doesn't have the ability to overturn the director's decision, but the Council does. So, that's something that the Council will have to take under consideration based on your recommendation tonight. But to me if you were to continue this and have staff work with the applicant, your motion would almost have to say you need to incorporate public streets within the entire development, because that's really where we are at. In order for staff to support an alternative compliance request there is certain findings we have to make and certain criteria that has to be met in order to be eligible for alternative compliance, as Alan alluded in his presentation. He did not -- it was his professional opinion that they did not provide that justification of why this is equal to or better than code, the requirements of complying with code, meaning why should we allow 112 lots when the code says you're allowed up to 50 as an example. So, that's kind of where we are at -- on that portion of this development. So, it does get a little bit dicey in tonight's deliberation, where you guys are trying to find that balance of us all the time collaborating working together, but as the applicant alluded, you know, sometimes we are kind of to the point where we kind of agree to disagree. Staff is of the opinion that there could be consolidated open space. We talked about if we were to support this project that we will put some restrictions in a development agreement that would limit the number of phases that come on throughout --within a certain time frame. There is a lot of moving parts here to try to get this to align with trying to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the code. If--we have denied the project -- the application, essentially, they are not meeting the code. That's how it works. We don't feel private streets are appropriate in this development and -- and that has been discussed with the applicant and, again, they wanted to move forward and get some input. Of course, you guys have an option to weigh in on whether you think private streets are appropriate. But, again, you don't have the ability to overturn that. And Alan and I shared with the applicant a list of concerns, we shared with them some ideas and, again, we are to the point where we kind of agree to disagree and that's -- that's really why we are here tonight. It really is if it's at the point -- it's at the public forum and all sides -- views are looked at and you guys deliberate on it. So, I will turn it back over to you, but I just -- I just wanted to at least give you some context that, you know, it really comes down to, again, kind of my closing remarks, just timing. Is this the right time for this development. I think the one thing that has occurred from the previous applications to this one is that we have annexed additional properties in the north -- northeast of this site or to the north of this boundary of this project. So, we have annexed more property than -- we realize the constraint out there. We are trying to address of those. But, again, we are talking about a fairly large development, 323 lots, and that's why we have kind of been cautious and been trying to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 26 of 63 work with the applicant to get an appropriate fit for that area. Hopefully I'm not too long winded, but I just wanted to share some of that insight with you. It's not as simple as just continuing it and negotiating out conditions. Seal: Okay. Thank -- thank you, Bill. Appreciate the perspective on that. Commissioners, do we have anymore questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Hearing none, need a motion to close the public hearing. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I move to close the public hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood, H-2020-0127. Holland: Second. Seal: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for hearing item number H-2020-0127, Skybreak Neighborhood. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. Who wants to start us off? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: I don't mean to be -- but anytime you hear a -- an honest something -- it's usually not the case. I have to admit the premier community is in the eye of the beholder and at this point I don't view this a premier community. I think I -- I look at it as a -- trying to pack as many homes on 80 acres as they can, in my opinion. In this area we are on a rim lot. If you look at the homes around this, they are either a half acre all the way around or acres or larger. I would refer to see this as an R-4 at minimum with all private -- with all ACHD streets. We have -- we have private streets within our community and -- and we have to devote significant amount of our HOA dues to maintaining those private roads and they have got a lot of private streets, no sidewalks, to me this does not fit this area and I think I -- I just -- I can't -- you know, with the amount of common driveways they have with the number of homes on this, it just feels like they are just trying to stuff as many homes in this subdivision -- or the subdivision as possible. So, I don't see it as a premier community and I don't think it fits this area and I can't recommend it even going forward. Seal: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Anybody else want to jump in? Grove: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 27 of 63 Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I will keep it somewhat short. I have a lot of issues with this as it's presented to us. From the amenities, to the shared drive, to the gated community as -- as it's laid out and I have no doubt that if they were to build this that they could sell those homes. Seal: Okay. Grove: I don't know how fast, maybe 20 years from now, and so I have concerns there. But I don't-- I could probably list ten different things that I have concerns with, but I would be in favor of denial on this one. Seal: Thank you, Commissioner Grove. Commissioner Lorcher or Commissioner Holland? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: Being the new kid on the block here and in my short term with the committee, we haven't denied I think anything that -- during my time, but Chief Bongiorno makes a compelling argument and when the police chief doesn't see that this is the best use at this point in time, I would be hard pressed to say yes. Seal: Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: I would agree with my fellow Commissioners. While I think there is certainly some nice components to what they tried to do here and I -- I always appreciate the aerials, it's nice to see the marketing, but I really want to focus more on the plat than what the marketing shows. A couple of the bigger concerns I have. The transition to the south, transition to the east, while they provide some lots that gives that transition, they could have provided more that -- that gave a better transition and a -- in a lower density area to that kind of RA not the -- and I know that they -- they proposed R-15 just for the reason of trying to get the private streets, but it -- it comes across misleading. It's -- it's almost that they are -- they are trying to just get it in there as tightly as possible. So, I -- I'm not a huge fan of private streets in general. I would much rather see them be public streets. I like sidewalks. I have been in neighborhood that don't have sidewalks and it certainly can work, but typically what ends up happening is you have guest parking along the side of the road and you end up having people not walking along the curb area, they are walking right down the middle of the street and in the nighttime, especially if you have senior citizens and it's a targeted community, I would have concerns about having senior citizens walking down the middle of the road even though I can understand the intent of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 28 of 63 what they are suggesting, I just don't think it's -- I don't think it's going to work as well as suggested. I also don't really love age restricted communities, because while there might be a market for it right now, it actually will lower the value of those homes in the future, because they are restricted to a certain age demographic if they really do have a restricted community and while there might be need for that right now, our community -- those change over time and I hate to see a subdivision that can't have -- won't say what was promised or would need to change or adapt in the future and so I -- I'm not a big fan of age restricted communities. I would rather see a community that has targeted maybe towards seniors, but I don't like the age restricted necessarily either. There is certainly a lot of challenges and I -- it's always hard for me to recommend approval of a project when staff has a lot of concerns as well and it's not just one or two small things. So, I think our hands are a little bit tied tonight. Seal: Yeah. I tend to agree with you on that. I mean there is -- I had concerns outside of just what the staff had in there. I mean the no sidewalks and private streets are a big one for me as well. As I look at it and as I have said before, I mean developers -- and although there is cost associated with it and I don't want to discount that, they have an infinite number of chances to get it right. We get one. So, this just doesn't feel right and until it does and there is more agreement on what's been done or what can be done, then, I definitely would side with staff with it, but I don't get to vote in this one, so that said I'm more than willing to take a motion at this point. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2020-0127 as presented during the hearing -- as presented during the hearing date on April 1st, 2021, for the following reasons: So, a higher density zone for the lower density area. The lower density zoning versus higher density zoning. R-15 to R-8 located on the fringe of the city limits and not an in-fill development. Narrow private streets with no sidewalk does not meet Comprehensive Plan policy for a walkable community. Some of the qualified open space that might be credited, is not usable, even though it meets minimum requirements. And I just don't think it fits the area. It's not -- the surrounding element is -- is more of a lower density community and this to me feels like a very high density community. Seal: Do I have a second on that? Holland: I will second. Seal: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of Item No. H-2020- 0127, Skybreak Neighborhood with the aforementioned reasons. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries as recommended for denial. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 29 of 63 6. Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H- 2021-0008) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel A. Request: Annexation of 4 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district to develop the property with a fire station and police station. Seal: Okay. That one out of the way. We will go ahead and move on to H-2021-0008, Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation. We will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Yes. Hang on. Can you hear me okay? Seal: Yes, we can. Tiefenbach: Let me get to my share screen here. All right. There we go. All right. Commissioners, this is an annexation and rezoning. It is four acres of land with an R-8 zoning district to develop an 11,650 square foot fire station and an 11,000 square foot police substation building. The property is zoned RUT in Ada county, surrounded by R- 4, R-15 and R-14. It's located at 2035 Lake Hazel Road, which is the south side of Lake Hazel Road between South Locust Grove and South Eagle Road. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this for medium density residential. However, in the Comprehensive Plan it does show this general area for being recommended for an emergency services type building. Again this is a request for annexation and zoning of 40 acres of land with the R-8 zoned district, but although much of the land surrounding the site was annexed in 2015 as the South Meridian Annexation, the subject property was not included as part of this annexation. This site is directly adjacent to the new Discovery Park. You can basically see it right here. It's directly west of this property. The plans are to develop the fire station and the police substation separately. It may or may not be at the same time. My understanding is they may start as early as next year. I believe that certainly they do have a duty to clarify. Following annexation a conditional use permit will be required for this, so it would come back to you, Planning Commission, and you would be the approval or denial body on that. That is because it is a public or quasi-public use and that is required to go through conditional use approval. The applicant has proposed to construct two driveways from the site to the new collector. So, here is Lake Hazel Road. Eventually -- so, there is existing access here and over here there is existing access to Discovery Park. ACHD eventually wants to turn off that access. In fact, our regulations say that you should be moving accesses off of arterials. There will eventually be a collector that's going to be built here. The applicant will be required to build this collector down to the south side of the property. They will also be required to build a ten foot wide pathway along the north and ten foot wide pathway along the east that is required for our master pathways plan. Again, the applicant will be required to close this access and they will open up two new accesses. One access will be for the fire department, one larger access will be -- or sorry. One access here will be for the police department. One larger access will be here for the fire department. Eventually this --this area is planned for signalization. The applicant has submitted colored elevations for both buildings as you can see here. Architecture consists of sloped roof buildings with CMU and wood grade metal panel as the primary fill materials. Exposed timber frame and metal soffit accents would be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 30 of 63 included with that. This proposed architecture will be reviewed in detail if the -- the annexation is approved and the conditional use is approved, they would have to do a certificate of zoning compliance, which is administrative, which would be reviewed by staff and we will look at the architecture against the architectural standards manual and with that I will entertain any questions if there are any. Seal: Okay. At this point we will go ahead and have the applicant come forward. I'm not sure who is speaking on behalf of this for the city tonight. Redman: Mr. Chair, Gunnar Gladics from RFM, Rice Fergus Miller, is going to be the lead on this and he is on the meeting. Gladics: Hello. Can everybody hear me? Seal: Yes, we can. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record and go ahead. Gladics: My name is Gunnar Gladics, architect. I'm with Rice Fergus Miller. Address is 1422 56th Avenue Northwest, Gig Harbor, Washington. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I would like to start with thanking Chief Blume for the introduction into why this project is needed. Certainly the response time and the public service that this particular site would provide the city is of utmost importance. Also one of the items that we have found is of significant importance -- importance is the shared use of the -- of the property. The ability of the city to provide both of these services on one site is a significant impact, being able to utilize common utilities and resources, public parking, et cetera, for an economic use of city dollars. In terms of the phasing, I just wanted to cover a couple of things that were brought up. We do have -- currently the fire station is pending start -- pending a budget approval. We are looking at starting construction in early 2022. The police substation component, we don't have a solid fix on -- on what funding they would get and when and so we would -- we are proposing that we in phase one at minimum build the fire station, as well as provide all of the amenities, all of the required landscaping, setback, buffers, et cetera, and creates a pad where the police station or police substation will be able to land when funding is available if it is not funded during the immediate construction. As far as the building, we --working with the Fire Department on the current -- or the recently completed Station 6 we have started with the fire station plan prototype, which is meant to help increase turnout times or as Chief Blume mentioned chute times, so it's all going towards getting firefighters and first responders to the scene faster and what we have done versus Station 6 is to try to respond to the more residential context and provide some slope roofs and more residential materials to the area. And, then, the next point I wanted to make was about access is that our intent is that the first entry to the site to the north is very -- a very easily signed and very visually appealing place for the public to enter and would have access to the front door of both stations. The access drive to the south in front of the fire station would be emergency vehicles and fire department staff only and it would be heavily signed as such. Police access would be from the main drive just in the north of the -- the fire apparatus entrance. The other and final point that I wanted to bring up was that staff had several comments Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 31 of 63 about landscaping within the parking providing the minimum amounts in addition to providing a ten foot pathway to connect East Lake Hazel path, as well as the new collector pathway -- template path and we -- we agree with the comments that staff provided and will plan to provide those elements, as well as the eight foot security fence will be concurrently applied for with CZC applications. So, we agree with every -- with all the comments that staff had. And with that I think that is all that I have to share with -- with everybody today and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Seal: Thank you, Gunnar. Appreciate that. Are there any questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Hearing none, is there any public testimony? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we did have one person sign in online wishing to testify. Dean Kidd, if you are on the line can you, please, raise your hand in Zoom. Mr. Chair, I don't see anybody raising their hand at this time. Seal: I don't either. Okay. Is there anybody in chambers that wants to come up and testify? No? Seeing none, just one more check here. Weatherly: If anybody is joining us via phone on Zoom and you would like to raise your hand, please, press star nine on your phone. Seal: No problem. Okay. Still not seeing anybody raise their hand in there, so, Gunnar, if there is anything else that you would like to add? Gladics: No. I think that was all that we had. Thank you. Seal: Okay. Last call for questions from Commissioners? Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: I'm going to make a motion that we close the public hearing for H-2021-0008 for Meridian South Fire Station and to move to deliberation. Grove: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation, H-2021-0008. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. Who wants to start off? Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm still unmuted, so -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 32 of 63 Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would just say this one seems like a fairly straightforward application. Anytime you can get a police and a fire station in the same spot I actually think it's a great -- great compatible use and I appreciate that their architectural design is complementing the neighborhood style. So, I am in favor. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I only had two comments. When the Fire Commissioner made the comment about how seconds matter when it comes to response time, I'm kind of surprised to see the police station first, and, then, the fire station further south, which takes them, I don't know, two or three more seconds to get to the intersection to be able to turn. So, I would think that the fire station would be closer to the road and the police station behind, but I'm sure they have their reasons for it. The only thing that kind of bothered me about this project is that there is a 1940s farmhouse on the site, which will be they said removed, which I think means taken down and destroyed and I'm very sad to see another Meridian farmhouse being removed from our community. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Commissioner -- or chairman. Having a fire station and police, I am fully supportive of both. I do understand Commissioner Lorcher's comments. I think a lot of it is just for the fire station to the back it's easier for them to turn onto the main street -- to Locust Grove. I think it's more of a pathway. It would be a pretty sharp turn right at the intersection to get onto Locust Grove, so that would be my thought. But I'm in favor of this project. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Grove? Grover: Yeah. I agree with everybody. So, we will just go ahead and move forward with it. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 1 st, 2021. Holland: Second. Seal: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval for Item No. H- 2021-0008, Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 33 of 63 7. Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason & Associates, Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000 square-foot office building in lieu of residential development. Seal: All right. Go ahead and move on to item number H-2020-0122 for 3175 North Ten Mile and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just pulling up the PowerPoint for you all. Can everyone hear me all right? Seal: Yeah, we can, Joe. Dodson: Okay. Good. Can everybody see the screen now as well? Seal: Yes. Dodson: Awesome. Thank you. Sorry, just scarfed down dinner, so -- excuse me. As noted this is for 3175 North Ten Mile. It is for -- the request is to rezone a 1.16 acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district, which is in line with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximately 10,000 square foot single story office building with 42 parking spaces, in lieu of a residential development. That 10,000 square foot office building would require 20 parking spaces, so they are in excess of that with the proposed site plan. The subject site is somewhat of a residentially zoned outparcel, due to the fact that it is located on a hard corner of two arterial streets. It is in the southwest corner of the Ten Mile and Ustick intersection and it also has no local street access points. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan has provision to allow properties like this that are less than two acres and have site constraints, particularly constraints made by arterial streets, they are allowed to request a rezone from residential district to the limited office district. The existing site constraints and this provision of the Comprehensive Plan are why the rezone request is being listed before you tonight. The proposed use is for a dental office, which is a principally permitted use within the requested L-O zoning district. The applicant has submitted a site plan that showed compliance with all dimensional standards for a commercial development. With the proposed site plan and proposed use, staff finds the proposed rezone and use to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The subject site was annexed in the city in 2010 and does has an existing development. As staff analyzed the application and the existing DA, staff realized that a DA modification was also required, since the original DA contemplated a residential development and not a commercial development. Therefore, the proposed rezone and office use are not generally consistent with the DA. These modifications only required Council action, so following this hearing, should they receive a recommendation of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit a DA modification application to run concurrently with this rezone for the purpose of entering Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 34 of 63 into in a new DA subject to the proposed development plan, which is the site plan and the new DA provisions noted within the staff report. The existing DA provisions -- there is a -- I should say there is one existing DA provision that requires a 20 foot landscape buffer adjacent to the three existing residents to the south and west. The submitted site plan shows this buffer with adequate -- adequate landscaping and, therefore, in compliance with that existing provision. In hindsight, the 20 foot buffer is also a minimum buffer requirement for the requested L-O adjacent to any residential use. A number of the parking spaces are facing directly towards one of the residential -- or one of the residences, which would be these here I'm referring to and there is an existing wood fence located along all of the shared property lines to these homes. Because the proposed use would have more vehicular traffic than residential, staff finds that the proposed landscaping and existing wood fencing may not be enough screening to mitigate light and light pollution from the proposed dental office and parking lot. Therefore, staff has recommended the landscape buffer be widened to 30 feet adjacent to this home. So, this buffer here and this buffer here be widened to 30 feet in the southwest corner of the site. This change would not compromise any other required dimensional standards, as the proposed drive aisles are more than 15 feet wider than they are required to be. The wider buffer with additional landscaping would pull the parking spaces even further away from the existing homes. Staff did make a mistake -- or I should say I didn't edit my staff report enough before I sent it out and I noted that the applicant should work with adjacent homeowners to replace the wood fence, but that should have been deleted from the report. I do apologize for that if that's caused any confusion. There is no subsequent condition of approval for that, because I should have deleted that in the report. Staff does not believe that replacing the fence is the best option. Instead, staff believes the conditional approval to require the wider landscape buffer adjacent to the home in the southwest corner of the site is a more appropriate solution. In addition to the landscape buffer, access to the site is an issue and is proposed to be two connections to the adjacent arterial. One right-in only access is proposed -- is proposed to Ustick -- or from Ustick I should say and one right-in, right-out access is proposed along Ten Mile. The proposed access to Ustick does not meet ACHD policy, but was a negotiated access at the time the property was sold from ACHD to the current owner. The proposed access to Ten Mile does meet ACHD policy as a limited access right-in, right-out only and is recommended for approval by ACHD. Staff supports the proposed access on Ten Mile commensurate with the approval by ACHD. In addition to the access to Ustick not meeting ACHD policy, the city could further restrict access points for the development despite ACHD's previously granting the access with the sale of the property. The proposed access to Ustick is proposed as an entrance only access, but there would be no true way to restrict the vehicles from utilizing it as an exit. I would if I was in that situation, which is unfortunate, but there is no real way to restrict that. Therefore -- sorry. In addition, this access point is directly within a right-hand turn lane on Ustick to head south on North Ten Mile Road, which intensifies the safety issues associated with this proposed access point. Therefore, through the UDC staff recommends the proposed Ustick access not be approved and, instead, utilize it as an emergency only access barricaded with knock down bollards to prevent people from utilizing it as an entrance. There was one piece of written testimony submitted by -- I believe it's the homeowner that is on the southwest corner. I couldn't verify that. But it's one of the three homes associated. His concerns with the existing Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 35 of 63 fence remaining and the possibility of future cars jumping the curb and going through the landscape buffer and through their fence. They noted a request for an eight foot tall block wall to replace the existing fence. In the requested zone eight foot fencing is not allowed of any kind. In addition, making an applicant work with the homeowner could be very tricky and there could be no guarantee that staff would be able to verify that that was ever accomplished, which is why staff recommended the wider buffer instead. As Commission sees fit, you can further that requirement of the landscape buffer and require a berm with denser landscaping on top if you would like to make that even safer. Therefore, staff does recommend approval of this application with a requirement that the applicant apply for a concurrent DA modification to be heard at a future City Council meeting. After that I will stand for questions. Seal: Okay. At this point I would like to ask the applicant to come forward. State your name and address for the record. Mason: My name is William Mason with Mason and Associates here on behalf of Dr. Rigby and the Design Group. Tonight we are asking for the rezone for a piece of property that ACHD sold to our client. ACHD entered into that development agreement in 2010. Seal: Sir, did you give your -- state your address for the record? Mason: I'm sorry if I didn't. It's 924 3rd Street South, Nampa. 83651 . Seal: Okay. Thank you. Mason: So, in 2010 ACHD entered into a development agreement with the city and thereafter our client purchased this property. Prior to purchasing the property our client talked to ACHD and city planners to verify that he would have access off of Ustick and Ten Mile. ACHD and city staff at the time agreed that a right-in only off of Ustick would be acceptable and a right-in, right-out on Ten Mile would be acceptable. ACHD is honoring that request in their staff report and we would ask that the Commission honor that request if they can feel comfortable with the -- the same comfort level as ACHD. We had one other item that is of concern to us and that's the widening of the landscaping along the south and west side. That 45 foot road access is actually acting as fire access also and so we want to make sure we have turning movements for the fire trucks to be able to get through there. We are not completely opposed to the extra widening of the landscaping strip as long as we can get traffic movements for the fire trucks through the site. And with that I would stand for any questions. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have questions for the applicant or staff? Don't see anybody coming off mute here, so -- okay. With that we will go ahead and take public testimony. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have no one additional signed up besides the applicant to testify. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 36 of 63 Seal: Okay. If anybody -- I have one gentleman that would like to come up and testify. Go ahead and come on up, please, sir. And please state your name and address for the record and go ahead. Rankin: My name is Stephen Rankin. I'm one of the neighbors of this property. I live at 3062 North Firelight Place. I share a fence with this property line. I'm not opposed to the building. I'm not opposed to, you know, a dentist office. I have met the dentist and he's a great guy. Him and I have had conversations. I didn't know the size of the building, anything like that. What I would say is in terms of the location of the out, he has the one coming in from Ustick and, then, the one going out from Ten Mile. I would like to suggest on behalf of the residents who, again, I have neighbors with and myself and my wife and, you know, other people who eventually I'm sure will one time or another occupy my home to have the exit from that parking lot be closer to the building itself. Personally my bedroom literally is right there. So, whether it's first thing in the morning or it's late in the evening or late at night, if someone is coming into there -- believe me, when you hear trucks coming up and down the street at the stoplight you hear it in your -- in your living room. You hear in your kitchen. You hear it upstairs in the bedroom. I would like to politely request that if you are going to have an exit, the only exit for that matter, that you have it be closer to that yellow building, as opposed to right next to my -- my fence. That would be the one thing I would like to suggest. Again, not sure going into this what it was going to be. I'm not opposed to a -- to a dentist office whatsoever. The only thing I would like to politely request is the exit be closer to the building itself and not right next to my fence and thank you. Seal: Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Would anybody else in chambers like to come up? I don't see anybody out there. Anybody on Zoom, if you raise your hand. Don't see anybody. Or it's star -- star nine if you are on a phone. Seeing none, if the applicant would like to come back up and close. Mason: Again William Mason with Mason and Associates. Again, I would just like to say thank you to the staff and thank you for the Commission for having time for us to present this. I believe it's a good project. I believe it will enhance the area and allow people to get services closer to their homes. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of the applicant? Seal: You bet, Commissioner Yearsley, you go ahead. Yearsley: So, can you address the gentleman's comment why you can't move the approach farther up towards the building on Ten Mile? Mason: Commissioner, yes, I can. ACHD, during their negotiations, wanted that right-in, right-out to be as far to the south as we can get it in order to not impact the intersection. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 37 of 63 Yearsley: Thank you. Seal: Okay. Do we have any other questions from our Commissioners for staff or the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Thank you, sir. Yearsley: Before we do that -- and the applicant had the question about fire access around -- in making those turns, you know, for the fire access in and out of the facility there. How do we want to address or talk about that with regards to making the landscape buffer bigger? Do we want to do that now or -- I would kind of like to have staff chime in on that as well. Seal: Sure. I think that would be a question for Joe and he can respond to that. I think that he did initially respond to that, saying that the drive aisles are 15 feet wider right now than code requires, so -- Yearsley: But the applicant said that they were concerned about the turning radius for the fire trucks to get in and out of that facility if you make those drive aisles small. Seal: Right. Yearsley: So, I'm not quite sure how we want to address that or -- Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thank you. Great question, Commissioner Yearsley and the applicant. I do understand that concern. I have -- would do protect reviews for these and this came up as a potential with -- with Fire and they -- they said that everything should still be fine. Like I said, they -- this could be built with 25 foot drive aisles and they should still be able to make those radiuses work and with a ten foot reduction they are going to be over 30 feet wide, so they should be able to make all those radii work. If not, if by some chance they cannot, there -- there is some malleability in the site plan and we might be able to move the landscape -- one of the planter islands over, for instance, this one here, if that needs to move in for the Fire radius here, if they lose one parking space that's fine, they are well over. They have twice the amount of parking they need. So, they are -- there are easy ways to make this work. Yearsley: Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure before -- so that doesn't become an issue, so thank you. Dodson: Absolutely. And, then, to reiterate what the applicant also said about the access point, regardless of what was negotiated with the applicant, that ACHD is going to want the accesses far from the intersection as they can get it. I don't know if ACHD would be willing to change that. I believe the minimum distance may not even be met with this. It Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 38 of 63 has to be at least -- I believe because Ten Mile Road is at least a 45 there -- or 40 mile an hour. It should be 400 plus feet and I don't know if this is even 400 feet. It just is the furthest away it can get, while also meeting the landscape buffer requirements. Yearsley: Yeah. I figured that as well, but I wanted to make sure the -- or the -- the public knew that, so -- Dodson: Absolutely. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more quick question. Is the dentist's office taking up the entire square footage of the site? I don't know if we asked that question. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Is it my understanding that there is potential that he will not operate the entire building? Ten thousand square feet is rather large for a dentist office from my understanding, but they will be limited to office uses, which, thankfully, with the L-O zone is pretty limited. You are not going to have a restaurant in here, you are not going to get any of those types of things. It will all be less intensive uses and the L-O zone being adjacent to the -- being adjacent to residential zoning and uses, will have unlimited hours of operation period within the -- out of our code, from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and should there be a conditional use permit come forward the Commission would, obviously, have a chance to discuss that further. But like I noted they do have twice the amount of parking that we need as well. So, there are options for additional use to come in, but it would probably be something adjacent or similar to the dental office. Holland: Thanks. That helps. Confirming that we can't have a restaurant use in there I think is what I was concerned about. Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Seal: And, Joe, quick question for me on the -- as far as increasing the berms and all that and just to address the applicant's concerns, which I think has partially been addressed, but I mean would you be in agreement to maybe -- instead of going ten foot in additional with those, maybe five feet and build up a two foot berm on there and have, you know, trees-- mature trees touching --you know. Or trees touching when they mature type of landscaping in there to have, you know, basically the same kind of effect? Looking for a happy medium here. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 39 of 63 Dodson: Understood, Mr. Chair. And I think that's amenable. I do. I don't think that -- that-- I didn't initially think about the berming and maybe more dense landscaping to help. I mean it's, obviously, a lot harder for a car, in the worst case scenario, to go through a bunch of trees. That is very difficult. Maybe one or two, but not a whole bunch. So, I understand that and if that is a happy medium that the Commission wants, I'm amenable to that, yes. Seal: Okay. Anymore questions? All right. I will gladly take a motion to close the public meeting. Holland: So moved. Seal: Okay. It is -- oh, do I have a second for that? Yearsley: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on item number H-2020-0122, 3175 North Ten Mile Road. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. Who wants to go first? Lorcher: Chairman, I will go first. Seal: Okay. Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I live down -- I live down the street from this and if I was to go to the dentist here I would most certainly take a right-hand turn from Ustick into this lot versus a left-hand turn over Ten Mile. So, I don't know what the conversation was, how they wanted the access, but they were trying to make it in and out only type of thing. But I would rather take a right than the left. But this is -- this is just an example of a little bit off setting, because it makes it look really big, but this is really small. I mean it shows like on the Ten Mile where the south entrance is seems like it's really far away, but it's right there at the intersection. So, I understand the homeowner's concern. But with a dentist office they are really going to work Monday through Friday, maybe 7:00 to 5:00, maybe 8:00 to 5:00 type of thing. And so the impact of noise to the adjacent homes should be relatively minimal, especially on weekends and evenings. Seal: Thank you. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Holland: Mr. -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 40 of 63 Seal: Oh. I think that was Joe. Go ahead. Dodson: Sorry. Commissioner Holland. We are fighting for -- I'm sorry. I just wanted to clarify the access for the Commission to -- the right-in, right-out access would be on Ten Mile. So, you would not be able to be heading north on Ten Mile and, then, make a left. You would make a U-turn and, then, come through. Part of the ACHD condition of approval is to work with -- for the applicant to have ACHD do some type of medium block -- like a curbing I think is what they suggested -- or requiring. And, then, staff is recommending to only have the Ustick access be emergency only, just to avoid people trying to exit, because it would be one of them I'm sure to try and exit out and cut across three lanes of traffic and the right-hand turn lane to head east on Ustick. It would just be the easiest thing for someone to do. So, we just want to avoid those issues and the potential increase in accidents by that, even if it would be shown as a one way. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: I was going to echo the same thing that -- that Joe just said, but that's -- the only access in and out of here is a right-in, right-out, so they can't turn left off of Ten Mile into it, they can only turn right. So, if you were coming from Ustick you would have to turn right on Ten Mile and, then, right into the development. I can see staff's concerns, too, because if -- if the Ustick access was open and you see a stack up of people at the intersection trying to turn right and you wanted to cut through traffic, I could see people cutting through the parking lot to get out on Ten Mile quickly, too. So, I -- I think I'm in favor of the recommendation there to make only one access point and where there is a dental office use, you are not going to have lots of traffic needs flowing in and out of there, so it might be a little inconvenient for patrons of the dentist's office or other office users, but I think they will figure out a flow that -- that works for them. Especially since we don't have a restaurant use in there I'm not as concerned. The only real object I think we need to discuss is vision screening, because that's kind of the only obstacle that came up. Rather than seeing an enhanced buffer, I probably would rather just see some sort of no vision screening that we could put up against the fence line, whether that's brick wall or whether that's an extra vinyl fence or something like that that could help with some of the vision screening, if that's the only concern. But, otherwise, I think it's a nice in-fill for a strange lot. I have driven by this frequently and just always wonder what could fit there and I think this is a decent fit for what -- what could be on that awkward lot. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Who would like to jump in next? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: I like this. I think it's a great in-fill project. I think it's a nice fit. A very I guess low density type versus impact, you know, during -- during the day. Not a huge amount Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 41 of 63 of turnover. I'm, actually, I think in favor of increased buffers. They got more asphalt than they need and it's actually less expensive for them to -- to do less to pave. So, it just gives a little bit more landscaping along the edge and makes it look -- look prettier. So, I'm in favor of the increased buffer area. Seal: Okay. Commissioner Grove, do you want to jump in? Grove: I concur with everything that's been said. I'm open to whatever the decision that everybody is for the buffer, but I would be in favor of doing what staff has recommended in terms of closing the drive aisle on Ustick and utilizing it only as emergency access. Seal: Yeah. I -- I struggle with that one a little bit. When you --you get a piece of property and you have things negotiated that you think are going to be available and, then, they are suddenly not, that might change some things. So, I'm -- I'm a little bit on the fence about that one. As far as the -- you know, expanding the berms and everything, I think an expansion should happen. Honestly, I think if the -- if that berming were built up a couple feet that would help with not only noise, but also the light, because I mean after a couple feet most cars are going to -- their lights aren't going to shine through that anyway. Not for all cars, but for quite a bit of them. I don't know that a second fence would -- it seems like that might complicate things. To me if -- you know, fencing would be something that we wouldn't want to do. I think we would just ask the applicant to work with the neighbors to replace the fencing that's there. That said I don't think it's going to do much for sound and even vinyl fences have cracks in them, so hard to -- hard to say what would happen in there. But the rest of it looks good. I'm glad to see that a project is coming to fill this corner in at this point in time. With that I would gladly entertain a motion. All right. Who is going to jump in? Is that Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: I just -- I guess for the consensus, I know we have some differing of opinions. I would be curious to know -- I know Commissioner Holland, you -- you didn't want the increased buffers. Are you okay with the increased buffer? Holland: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, I'm okay with the enhanced buffer. I -- I just thought it -- you know, the applicant seemed like they didn't really care for that idea and I -- I don't know that it's necessarily needed, because I don't think it's going to save them all that much traffic noise. I guess I'm open to either way. Whatever the Commission feels like I will go along with. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Just real quick to clarify with any motion. I do not have any berming or mention of denser landscape within my conditions of approval. So, if you want that you will have to add that into the modification I should say--just to the --the maker of the motion, sorry, is the word I was looking for. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 42 of 63 Seal: Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Anybody want to take a stab at a motion? Yearsley: I will go for it. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0122 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 1 st, 2021, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Seal: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of item number H-2020-0122, 3175 North Ten Mile, with no modifications. All those in favor? Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Oh, go ahead. Commissioner Holland. Holland: One -- one clarification question to the motion maker. Did you not want to have any enhanced screening or buffering or anything? Because I know -- I don't think what -- what Joe just said was that they don't have that in the staff report. Yearsley: I know and I -- I'm okay not having increased buffering or a berm in that. So, if you are wanting to deny this and do a different motion I'm -- I'm okay with that. Seal: Yeah. At this point if -- if we are going -- if that's going to divide the vote, then, I would almost rather than Commissioner Yearsley repeal his and if you want to jump in, Commissioner Holland, we can do that, but -- Yearsley: I guess I would be interested in what other people are wanting to say on that. Holland: Well, I think one more clarification question if I may. Seal: Go ahead. Holland: So, staff, we did require having some landscaping there as the buffer. Your recommendation earlier this evening was to do an enhanced buffer zone and that's what's not in the staff report? Can I just clarify that real quick? Dodson: Mr. Chair, Commission Holland, that is correct. Yes. My staff report only states a wider buffer. There was no mention of a berm or a mention of more dense landscaping. If the Commission sees those options as needed, then, that would be -- you would have to put them in the motion. Yes. If not, then, you -- then no modifications are necessary. Seal: So, we have the -- we have the ten foot increase in -- in buffer size, but nothing else, basically, what the motion is at hand? Yearsley: Yeah. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 43 of 63 Holland: You know, I think with the -- sorry, I'm -- Mr. Chair. I think with the enhancement of what we have talked about and having the shrubs and stuff there, I don't think there is going to be a lot of light coming through and especially because if -- if it is a dentist use or office use you are probably not going to have a lot of people coming in before the 8:00 to 5:00 hours typically either. If you do have some dental patients they are going to park as close to the building as they can if they are coming in before hours would be my guess, because that's what I try to do. Yearsley: And that would be my thought as well. That it would be mostly during the day. Even if the other areas are being some other type of facility, like a -- you know, orthodontist or some other business more than likely will be during the day. Holland: Okay. I'm okay with it then. Seal: Okay. We will go ahead and proceed with a vote then. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: It's 8:25. Does anybody want to request a bio break or anything or do we want to go ahead and get through this last one? Yearsley: I think a five minute break would be good. Seal: Okay. We will break for five minutes and we will be back. (Recess: 8:25 p.m. to 8:31 p.m.) 8. Public Hearing for Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision (H- 2021-0007) by The Land Group, Located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 360 dwelling units on 15.89 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, located at 2700 E. Overland Rd B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. Seal: Okay. I think we are ready to get started again. So, we will start in -- or we will start back with file number H-2021-0007, Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision and we will start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you tonight are a request for a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. There is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 44 of 63 also an accompanying development agreement modification application, but this does not require Commission action, only City Council. This site consists of 34.62 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is located at 2600 and 2700 East Overland Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is the 1-84 off ramp. To the west is commercial, retail, restaurant and animal care uses, zoned C-G. To the south is Overland Road and a school, restaurant, and office uses zoned C-G and to the east are single family rural residential properties, zoned R-1 in the county. This property was annexed back in 1994 and a development agreement was approved in 2016. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. A modification to the existing development agreement is proposed to exclude the east parcel from the development. A new development agreement is proposed for the east parcel, which will accommodate the change in ownership of the east parcel if the conditional use permit is approved for the multi-family development. The existing development agreement includes a conceptual development plan for the west parcel, which depicts an 85,000 square foot single story Winco grocery store with associated parking on the north side of the future extension of East Cinema Drive and vacant land with no development plan on the south side. At the time the original development agreement was approved a use and development plan was not known for the east parcel. Therefore, provision was included in the development agreement that requires the agreement to be amended to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the mixed use regional future land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan prior to any development occurring on the site. The proposed development plan for the east parcel is a 360 unit multi-family residential development as shown. Staff believes the proposed plan contributes to the mix of uses desired in the mixed use regional designation and provides a transition and buffer between commercial uses to the west and low density residential development to the east. Overland Way Subdivision. The addition of more residential uses in this area will provide more patrons for surrounding commercial, retail, and restaurant and office uses and businesses, as well as offer employment options in close proximity to the residents. A conditional use permit is proposed for the 15.89 acre, 360 unit multi-family residential development as required by code in the C-G zoning district. A total of 180 studio and one bedroom units, 152 bedroom units and 33 bedroom units are proposed in ten structures with 36 units per structure. This development is proposed to be constructed in one phase. A total of 3.8 acres of outdoor common open space is proposed, which exceeds the minimum 2.1 acres required. Based on 360 units, a minimum of five amenities are required, but the decision making body is authorized to consider additional similar amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development. Amenities are proposed consisting of a clubhouse with a swimming pool, bike maintenance room, fitness facilities, partial lockers, remote work classroom stations and a coffee bar. An outdoor fireplace with the seating and a barbecue, public art, half mile pedestrian loop with a ten foot wide pathway and internal pathways, 18 grassy areas of at least 50 by 50 feet in size, including a dog park, multiple courtyards, park areas with seating, a plaza and pocket libraries, community garden and a children's play structure. Because residential uses are proposed adjacent to 1-84 along the project's north boundary, noise abatement is required in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to the freeway. The applicant has requested and received director approval of alternative compliance to this standard to provide double pane storm windows Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 45 of 63 on all structures within the development since the buildings are proposed to be set back at least 250 feet from the freeway and will be two and three stories in height. Parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of 646 spaces are required with 270 of those being in a covered carport or garage. A total of 655 spaces are proposed with 360 of those being in a covered carport, which is nine extra spaces over the minimum required for the overall site. The Commission should determine if the proposed parking is adequate or if additional parking should be provided as a condition of approval of the conditional use permit. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the apartments and the clubhouse as shown. The apartments consist of two and three story structures in a contemporary farmhouse theme with hip roofs and the steep gables. Building materials consist of a combination of vertical board and batten siding, stucco and decorative balcony rails, along with varied color schemes. Stairways are concealed from public view. L-shaped buildings are proposed for variety. The final design is required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown, consisting of three buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, proposed to develop in two phases. The first phase consists of the extension of South Wells Avenue from Overland to East Cinema Drive and includes the east parcel. The second phase consists of the extension of East Cinema Drive from Wells to the west boundary of the site and includes the west parcel. Right of way for the extension of South Wells Avenue and East Cinema Drive is proposed to be dedicated with the plat. In order to provide interconnectivity between uses in a timelier manner and dispersed traffic, staff recommends the extension of East Cinema Drive from the west boundary of the site to South Wells Avenue occurs with the first phase of development. The traffic signal at Wells and Overland is also required to be installed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Written testimony has been received from Deb Nelson, Givens Pursley, and Ryan Morgan, Morgan Stonehill Partners Development Company, the applicant's representative. They are in agreement with the staff report, except for staff's recommendation for Cinema Drive to be constructed with the first phase of development, rather than with the second phase as proposed. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and staff will stand for any questions. Seal: Okay. With that we would like to ask the applicant to come forward. Nelson: Good evening, Commissioners. Long time no see. Seal: Yes. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record and go ahead and go. Nelson: I would like to bring up a presentation if I could quickly and, then, I will get going. Okay. My name is Deborah Nelson. My address is 601 West Bannock and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. There is also representatives of the applicant and our local development team here with me that are available to answer any questions that the commissioners may have and thank you to Sonya for her work on this project and her recommendation of approval and presentation this evening. I'm going to touch on a couple of the same things Sonya did. I will try to not repeat too much of what she said about the history, but there is some context there that's relevant to our application request Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 46 of 63 and even though the DA modification is a Council level decision, we think it helps for the Commission to have a feel for all three of the applications that are presented together. As Sonya mentioned, the Winco site is to the west here and our project site is in yellow on the east. Both of these were annexed together in '94 and zoned C-C and, then, in 2016 the city approved the development agreement for that Winco development and I want to focus in just on some of the conditions there. Specifically the -- the Winco site is allowed to develop consistent with the concept plan which was attached to the development agreement and shows that a 5,000 square foot retail space with the -- the parking -- our site, on the other hand, at 2700 East Overland Road required a development agreement modification simply for the purpose of coming back with that conceptual development plan when it was known that's consistent with the MUR designation and so that's what we are -- that's why we have the VA modifications in the city and this is an overlay of the concept plan that we would add to that development agreement. And as Sonya describes in detail in her staff report, the proposed multi-family use and development plan that we have proposed is consistent with the MUR designation in your future land use map, because it contributes to the mix of uses that's desired in that area by adding needed higher density residential in an area that's already heavily developed with commercial and employment uses. You can see from this slide that the MUR area in this location is very large, it's 650 acres, and -- and it calls for a mix of uses, employment retail and residential with residential densities ranging from six to 40 units per acre. This particular large MUR area currently has extensive retail and office uses, but very little residential and is far below the six to 40 target with the current density of only 1 .67 units per acre in this area and it's particularly -- has a similar residential district deficiency in that quadrant where we are in that northwest corner of Overland and Eagle where the current density is only .06 units per acre. So, as the staff report notes, the higher density residential here will support the surrounding commercial and employment and it provides a great transition in between the smaller low density residential to our east and the more intensive commercial to our west. In addition to a DA modification, of course, we have the preliminary plat, which is needed to create the lots. The city and Winco Foods actually originally thought that the apartment site was a separate lot and that's why the DA modification was filed before the preliminary plat application. There is a record of survey showing separate homes and driveways were permitted there off of Overland and it's possible there was a division done at one time when the city allowed one time splits or it could be something was unusual here because of the interchange location. But in any case, the administrative records were not found within the city, so we are filing the preliminary plat to really clean this up and ensure that we have a separate legal lot for the apartments and if that's -- that's relevant to know that history as we look to the improvements that are expected and contemplated with this. You know, we have proposed two phases for development of the preliminary plat. Phase one is on the east, that's our Seasons at Meridian apartment site with the extension of Wells Avenue up from Overland and we will construct the signal at Wells and Overland, which signal was originally required as mitigation for the Winco and now will be built by the applicant for the apartment. Phase two, the western site, those two lots that are there, will include development of those lots and the extension of Cinema Drive at the time that -- that development proceeds. And that's --that's the phasing that we outlined in our preliminary plat and that is the phasing that ACHD has approved as well. In addition to the DA Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 47 of 63 modification and the preliminary plat, consistent with the existing C-C zoning, we are requesting approval of a conditional use permit for the multi-family units and the Seasons at Meridian proposes 360 apartments. The site includes ten L-shaped building arranged around internal open space areas to create these smaller neighborhoods within each of those buildings. Basically pocket parks for active and passive recreation and gathering. The idea is to create one large community and within that large community have micro communities where people can gather with their neighbors. This is an aerial showing that arrangement. This view highlights how well the building arrangement creates that urban life block pattern that's called for in your Comprehensive Plan for MUR areas. Nicely framing those open space areas as interlaced with landscape pathways and the boulevard entrance that all connect and integrate the site to the adjacent commercial uses. Here we have got the elevation perspective. Each building has been designed to create a sense of scale by incorporating a blend of two and three story rooflines, softening that overall massing of the architect and you can see that on that west elevation. More expensive construct than just taking it across -- that it creates that nice mix and those will be the exterior facing elevations property. Pedestrian access is provided by several formalized enhancements entry gates for each building concealing the stairways away from public view. Another view of the building perspective. The apartments will include a mix of studios, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units, ranging from 480 square feet to 1 ,328 square feet. Each unit has been designed with expansive private patios and balconies. A minimum of 80 square feet to create that indoor-outdoor experience for the outdoor lifestyle. The interior of the units are designed to accommodate today's ever changing market with open space floor plans and an abundance of glass. Informal living and dining areas have large island kitchens, ideal for entertaining for that casual lifestyle. Other amenities include large bedrooms with walk- in closets, dual vanities and master suites. Large shower and amble storage space. The architectural theme is contemporary farmhouse. A combination of vertical board and batten siding, stucco, and decorative balcony rails along with various -- with varied color schemes creates a soft, well balanced exterior facade. Seasons at Meridian will include 4.15 acres of qualified open space. That's 26 percent and nearly double the 2.1 acres that's required for this site. Internal pathways and sidewalks are linked throughout the site, including a perimeter half mile walking path. The site includes a dog park up in the northeast quadrant there. A large centrally located clubhouse with pool and barbecue seating and courtyards within each building enclave. They each have the Seasons theme and so hence the Seasons at Meridian name. And, yes, there are five enclaves, and so there will be two summers, which everybody needs more summer in their life. Significant landscape buffers will provide attractive screening, along with all perimeter borders, and the amenities are extensive and Sonya walked through some of these. There will be 26 qualified amenities, representing each of the three categories that are listed in the UDC. The clubhouse includes parcel lockers, a bike maintenance room, remote work classroom space and the coffee bar and outdoor fireplaces, seating, barbecue areas. There is fitness facilities and public art. The project includes 18 grassy areas that meet your criteria for the 50 by 100 feet and these include a variety of amenities within them including the dog parks, the multiple courtyard, park areas with seating, a pocket library, plazas that dot the trail that circumvents the property. Community garden. A pool. Walking trails and a children's play structure. These slides provide some imagery for the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 48 of 63 architecture and the quality of the design for the clubhouse and the amenities that will be available to the residents. There are some interior images, again, to show the fitness room, work spaces, gathering spaces and some more imagery of the outdoor area and the pool. The community also includes property management office, a maintenance storage area, central mailbox and parcel lockers, with the electronic parcel lockers, such as the example shown here, recipients don't need to worry about parcel theft or misplaced parcels. The parcels could accept deliveries. The resident receives a -- an electronic notification and with the code they receive can retrieve their parcel at their convenience. The site plan includes 655 parking spaces, including 360 covered parking spaces throughout the site. This is 24 over the amount that's needed to service the residences. As Sonya pointed out, there is no requirement in the code for 16 spaces to serve the clubhouse as well, leaving nine extra over that. Of course the spaces that are designed to serve the clubhouse are -- since those amenities are for our residents and their guests already, we feel that that has already been calculated in the base calculation for what's needed for each resident. But in any case, that -- those spaces that are available to serve, whether it's the entire 24 or even if it's the breakout of the 16 and the nine, those are all going to be available to serve our extra space. Our guests will have time, both during the day to access the -- the clubhouse when it's open from 9:00 to 6:00 and, then, there will still be plenty of space when that clubhouse facility is closed, providing all 24 extra spaces throughout the property. It's important to note, too, that this development does not include any enclosed garages and so I think the concern that the city has had in the past with needing to over park even beyond the amount that we are overparked is where you have got people storying things in their enclosed garages and that will not be an issue here. So, there should be sufficient parking with the amount that we are overparked. The Seasons at Meridian is designed to integrate with surrounding uses. Our treeline east-west driveway aligns with Cinema Drive, which will ultimately extend to the Winco site when it's developed to the west, creating this visual and physical integration to the commercial uses to our west. On our east side there is a single family residential county subdivision that doesn't have vehicular connectivity, but we still provide pedestrian connectivity and welcome these residents to enjoy our walking paths. We have also created a significant buffer between the proposed project and the existing homes to our east to ensure compatibility. Our buildings are set back over a hundred feet from the property line and the average setback of our neighboring residences from the property line is at least 250 feet and it looks like -- more like 270 feet from Google Earth. This project will maximize and use existing city services by connecting to an adjacent utilities and by locating housing clusters, with the fire employed infrastructure. ACHD has reviewed and approved the traffic study for the development and proposed access points. To mitigate impact to the apartments and the future Winco development, the applicant will extend Wells Avenue, install the new signal at Wells and Overland, along with a right turn lane on Overland onto Wells. Cinema Drive will be extended through the Winco site with phase two. No other mitigation was required by ACHD and all of those conditions of approval are acceptable. The project will have minimal impact on school enrollment. Based on West Ada School District's calculations the project will only generate 36 students. As Sonya noted, we just have one change that we request to the conditions of approval. Otherwise, we are in full agreement with the project report before you and that does relate to the timing of the extension of Cinema Drive. As noted in this condition, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 49 of 63 Sonya wants that to be done with phase one, but it's not needed to serve phase one. The apartments have primary access from the extension of Wells Avenue and secondary emergency access from Overland Road. The traffic impact study that was prepared for the Seasons at Meridian project did not assign any of our trips to Cinema Drive, to that extension. Made no assumption that it would be there. Instead assumes that all of the trips would be the Wells Avenue extension and with those assumptions the Wells- Overland intersection with the signal and the Overland Road segment between Wells and Eagle Road still met all adopted levels of service. Cinema Drive has always been planned to be built when the Winco site is developed. The exact placement of Cinema Drive may vary just slightly as Winco's development plans are finalized for phase two and so they don't support construction of it until they finalize those plans. They did submit a letter into the record supporting the apartment use and application, but objecting to this particular recommended condition of approval. We just ask that it be built as required with the phasing. And with that we ask for your approval of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat, with that one change to the condition. So, thanks for your time. Stand for questions. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant or for staff? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: So, there is 316 units that are being proposed and you have 641 parking spaces to accommodate those 350 units. On average there are probably 2.5 people living in all the units. Some have one, some have three, so you are looking at a residential community of 900 people. In my experience working with apartment complexes with our tow company, there is never enough parking spaces, especially of guests. And it's also suggested that this 24 overflow, if even ten percent have a guest over at any particular weekend, that 24 is going to be exasperated quite quickly. Do you have a parking agreement with Winco for overflow parking that would accommodate your Seasons project? Nelson: Chairman, Commissioner Lorcher, no, we -- we don't. We don't -- there is sufficient parking on site. We planned it that way to have that parking on site. Just one correction. There is actually 655 parking spaces on site. We just had a different number there. And it does meet all of the city code requirements and, then, is in excess of that and so the -- but the city code requires -- as you know they have got a mix of what parking is required based on what bedroom type it is and meeting those requirements for each of the residential units and there is an assumption built in there about the number of residents and guests that would utilize the building at that time. We meet all of that. And, then, in addition to that, 24 spaces are available over the residential use, 16 attributed to the clubhouse and nine extra beyond that that are available for guests and our residents to use this clubhouse. So, we do believe that will be sufficient. It's far over what the city code requires. In thinking about that we are also -- and this is an in-fill location and we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 50 of 63 are near a transit line, so we hope that in this location with all of the nearby commercial and employment that a lot of people are actually going to choose to live in this location, so that they can walk. I think that is the idea of your mixed use regional and why high density residential could be so beneficial here. We may actually be able to support a less vehicular driven residential community here. Lorcher: Thank you. Seal: Any other questions for -- from our Commissioners? All right. Hearing none, we will go ahead and move on to the public hearing portion of it. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have a few people signed in that I think I see online indicating a wish to testify. Josh, one moment, please. Seal: Okay. Josh, if you want to take yourself off mute and state your name and address for the record. It looks like you are still on mute. Oh, no. Cirelli: No. Am I there? Seal: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead and state your -- Cirelli: Yes. Josh Cirelli. C-i-r-e-1-1-i. 1435 Loader Place, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 believe, actually, it's me and my wife. My wife has got questions as well. So, I can even leave myself unmuted if you wanted to speak directly to her afterwards. One thing I would like to discuss real quick is I see on the application it discusses -- and something that was brought up in the neighborhood meeting is a fence between actually the apartment complex and the R-1 zone, which is my backyard. As a matter of fact, just to bring it up while we are talking about it, is I have a large shop that is well within 250 feet or 270 feet, I believe what you mentioned, from that -- that property line is -- well, within about five to ten feet of my property line. So, I believe in the neighborhood meeting they said that they were going to put up a fence and in the application it actually discusses that fence and you have details about what kind of fence that would be built between the apartment complex and the R-1 zone. So, I would like to hear what those are, because we haven't been able to actually have those details listed out to us. In the neighborhood meeting there was very limited details of what they were actually going to be giving and providing in that area. Looking over the plat in the application as well it's like they conveniently placed all the trash enclosures up against the R-1 zone that's conveniently there. We do have one acre lots. I agree with -- there is a -- there is a buffer there, yes, but we buy one acre lots, because we like our room and our accessibility on our own lot. I don't want to hear trash enclosures and dump truck banging those trash enclosures at 7:00 o'clock in the morning like they do over here at the hotel to the east of us. Something else I would like to bring up is this is valuable commercial space, not residential space. If you look on the north side of Overland everything is commercial space, including the new commercial development over there at the Norco, the Zamzow's and just released Top Golf. I think we are losing out on having commercial space. Where there is apartment complexes already on the south side of Overland next to Mountain View High School -- I guess to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 51 of 63 the northwest of Mountain View High School there is another apartment complex that, I apologize, I missed out on the lady's name, but she excluded that from her density study. I noticed you kind of cut that off on the -- on her mapping right there. So, there is another apartment complex right there already with available rooms already. So, I think we are missing out on commercial real estate here not residential. I don't think we need anymore apartment complexes, we need more commercial buildings. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Cirelli: I also disagree, it's not -- it's not downtown Boise, there will be plenty of vehicles moving here. That and another traffic light -- let's see. We have Eagle Road and, then, we have one traffic light already at the Dutch Brothers and the entrance to Mountain View High School. To add one in there, we already get heavy congestion through this area. I think adding another -- another traffic light right there Clang near makes it impossible for us to leave our own subdivision. I know we are -- we are not the most congested, you know, neighborhood by any means, but just leaving here poses its own challenges. Also want to bring up that noticing she did not speak about a right turn lane that was also in the adjusted road improvement. I didn't hear anything about a right turn lane being added as well getting into Wells Avenue. That's something we previously asked about as well and we have not been able to come to an agreement with Ryan, who we have previously spoken to. I don't -- I don't see that he's present as well. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, Vanessa Cirelli would be next. Seal: Okay. V.Cirelli: The few questions I have -- there seems like there is a lot of concern about the public view. Seal: Ma'am. V.Cirelli: I don't think the public necessarily -- Seal: Ma'am, if you could -- V.Cirelli: -- cares about the -- Seal: Ma'am, if you could state your name and address for the record. V.Cirelli: Oh. Sorry. Vanessa Cirelli. I'm also at 1435 Loader Place, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 52 of 63 V.Cirelli: Anyway, the public view -- I don't know that the public necessarily is concerned about the view of the apartments. I feel like the residents are not being taken into account for this. You know, they want to back up their clubhouse and their pool to our -- basically our backyard. Their parking basically to our backyard. I just -- I guess I'm wondering why everything's being backed up against our backyards. There is actually four homes on this side of the street and the other side of the property, the Winco property, is more commercialized. So, it's just -- I don't know. We -- we definitely feel like we are not being taken into consideration. The stoplight, he already brought that up, I think that's a valid concern. You know, we are on Eagle Road basically. It's already hard enough getting out of our neighborhood. This is just going to make it even more difficult. You know, adding another stoplight is just going to congest the traffic a lot more and that's -- that's basically -- I think we covered everything else. Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. V.Cirelli: Thank you. Seal: Got anybody else? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all that we had indicating a wish to testify. Seal: Okay. Do we have any -- a gentleman in chambers. You want to come up and -- No? Okay. Anybody else online if you want to -- Cirelli: Mr. Chair? Seal: Sorry, Josh. You already had your three minutes to speak, so we are going to move on to other attendees. If anybody else would like to speak, please, raise your hand in Zoom. All right. Oh. Sorry, Josh. You and your wife both had your time to speak and that is over, so -- seeing nobody else, I would take a motion to close the public hearing, if we have no other questions. Oh. Sorry. My bad. The applicant would like to come back and address the concerns. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, we can be brief. Just a few points. Mr. Cirelli noted that he has a -- a shop that's within that 250 buffer that we have created. Yes, we did measure it to the residences, not to the accessory buildings there for that setback. The setback to the residences, though, is extensive and he did raise a question about -- it's curious about the fence design. Ryan Morgan is present, so he is available to answer any specific questions you may have and he has committed to work with the neighbors on that design for the privacy fence and there -- there was comments from both Josh and his wife about the trash enclosures, concern with that on the east side -- just in general things on the east side. Certainly things are not just piled up on the east side, they are distributed throughout. I think you can see on the site plan all the trash enclosures in particular are distributed with each of the buildings. Of nine total there is only three along the east side and they will all be screened appropriately. We thought that, actually, the open space on that side may work really well, being the clubhouse area, being the residential amenity, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 53 of 63 doesn't create as much height. A lot of more open space creates even more distance into the courtyard that's around there and, then, the pool will be screened. The -- the signal that's not desired there, that is required by ACHD and was required already as part of the Winco development. We are just bearing the cost of getting that infrastructure in and it will improve traffic conditions in this area. So, I think that's it, unless the Commission has questions for -- for me or for Ryan. Seal: Commissioners, do we have any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much and now I will take a motion to close the public hearing, please. Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we closed the public hearing for Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision, H-2021-0007. Grove: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0007. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. Who wants to jump in first? Everybody jumping in all at once here. Lorcher: Mr. Chairman, I -- I will. Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I'm kind of surprised the placement of Winco kind of in the middle of the eastern portion of the parcel, I don't know if it will be better served closer to the main road, so that the -- the living area would be behind it or possibly closer to the freeway to act more as a buffer for noise. I have lived on the freeway -- near the freeway before and you can put as many double pane storm windows as you want, the lights and the noise, the ambient noise from the freeway, especially when we have construction trucks with jake brakes is always present. But I guess that's a personal choice if you choose an apartment that is along that area. But it looks like they have got some wiggle room on where to place the buildings and I'm just kind of surprised that it is where it is. Seal: Thank you. Anybody else jump in here? I see Commissioner Holland, you are off mute. Holland: Oh. I forgot to mute myself again. Mr. Chair, I can go. Commissioner Lorcher just to confirm, I -- the -- I think the Winco is proposed to be on the north side adjacent to the freeway at -- at some point when it does develop in the future. Not on the east side. But looking at the -- the project, I think we always struggle with the number of parking stalls. It's always a conversation when we look at multi-family development. I actually don't have a concern with this project and the number of spaces. I think that they -- they met the requirements. They had the additional ones within the clubhouse and the nine Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 54 of 63 extra spots, but because it's located in an area that's got significant amount of commercial, if there was overflow needs, I don't know if they even really need to have an arrangement with Winco. I think -- the way that they have arranged the parking I think works and flows better than most multi-family developments I have seen, because it's integrated around the sites and I appreciate that they have got the internal courtyard. I think that's a nice style and something that we don't see very frequently. So, I appreciate the -- the flow and the design and the intention of trying to create these pocket communities. It's nice -- it's a lot nicer to look at than a typical four-plex or six-plex or eight-plex or whatever it would look like. We see a lot of those that come through. This one does give a little bit different variety than we have seen. So, I -- I certainly appreciate your creativity there. I like the farmhouse style. I think it's -- it's a nice addition. I always struggle whenever we lose commercial ground, but in this case I don't disagree that it would be a good spot for some multi-family to be tied in with the neighboring commercial. It's nice when we can have good mixed use projects and I'm not opposed to seeing this development be located there. I appreciate that they have -- they have tried to do some additional buffering and would encourage them to work closely with the neighbors on the eastern boundary on whatever that fencing, screening material looks like. The only other concern I would have is -- double pane windows are great, but I would agree that traffic noise from freeways typically still is fairly significant. So, I don't know if we want to go back to considering some sort of a berm or fencing to screen the freeway noise, but always something in the back of my mind. I'm not opposed to letting them be creative and -- and do some alternative compliance, but overall I think I'm okay with the way that this development has been presented. That's my starting thoughts. Seal: Okay. And with that I -- I agree with everything that you just said. The one thing that I will ask staff is the -- I believe that the double pane windows were already director approved? Allen: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, that was an alternative compliance application that was approved by the director and that was based on the letter from the sound engineer. Seal: Okay. Is that something we would still be able to add a condition of approval to improve upon that or is that -- Allen: I would defer to the city attorney, but I believe you could ask for a berm and the landscape buffer. That's not abnormal. Baird: Mr. Chair, that's correct. You are considering a conditional use permit. So, if you deem an additional initial condition necessary, go right ahead. Seal: Thank you. Appreciate the clarification. Baird: As long as I have got the mic, as the -- as the members deliberate, I haven't heard them talk about the requirement for the Cinema Drive extension and for the record it would probably be good to have that included with the deliberations. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 55 of 63 Seal: Understood. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: Just -- just for clarification, that's already a condition of the staff report; is that not correct? Seal: I believe that is -- yes, that is a condition of the staff report as it stands right now. Yearsley: Okay. Seal: It is contested by the applicant however. Yearsley: Okay. Mr. Chair, I will go forward if you don't mind. Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I like this -- this layout. I think it's actually a nice looking development. I do have my -- you know, it is unfortunate that, you know, the ruralness of the area is getting gobbled up into commercial and residential and apartments to the adjacent neighbors. It's just kind of the nature of the beast. I do, I think they need to construct the drive. I think it provides a critical access to businesses, you know, eating establishments and stuff like that, so I do believe it's part of the condition and part of the development and that way they don't have to access Overland Road to get to that -- you know, carved off, so -- but I do believe that that could be done. I do -- I do echo the concern. You know, where we are -- we are eating up a lot of commercial space or industrial space that we could have there for -- for residential, but I don't know -- I don't know how to combat that. I know that there is quite a bit of businesses and development all around it, so -- so, with that I'm in favor of this project. Seal: Okay. Yearsley: I also would be in favor of the berm if others wanted it as well. Seal: Okay Thank you. Commissioner Grove? Grove: Mr. Chair. Seal: Go ahead. Grove: I would pretty much echo a lot -- a lot of what has been said, but I guess in terms of how this is zoned for mixed use, I think that getting some residential component into this area is actually a really good thing. Typically I wouldn't want to lose commercial space, but I think having that -- that residential component, especially a higher density Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 56 of 63 residential component, so actually going to help a lot of those businesses that are in that general area. So, with that I'm in favor. With the other pieces, I think this is one of the more unique layout pieces that we have seen in a little while and I like what they have done with that in providing the amenities and creating that sense of space within each unit's little bubble if you will. With Commercial Drive, I would normally be in favor of having it built out in phase one with this project, but if it impacts how the Winco could develop, then, I -- I would be in favor of having that postponed. Especially-- in fact, you know, with them building out Wells and putting in a traffic signal there, I think that can alleviate some of the traffic flow concerns with the initial phase. With the sound piece, if their sound engineers, you know, are saying it's good, I'm okay with not doing anything additional. Be a great time for Joe to jump on this if he were still here, considering he lives in a similar place I believe and so I -- I'm in favor of what they have proposed here tonight. Seal: Yeah. I'm -- looking at it I like the -- I like the layout of it. I think it -- it is kind of an original piece that's going in, especially with the farm -- farmhouse style. I mean you are not going to replace a farmhouse with this, but, you know, some of that -- the relic of the past look is something that people might look on favorably. It is hard to give up a piece of commercial property, but I think this one fits. There is enough business around there that I think that, you know, I can definitely see somebody living, working, and playing here for sure. So, as far as extending Cinema Drive there, I mean if I was one of the five or six hundred people that lived here and I wanted to go watch a movie, get a burger, buy a Harley, I'm going to want to do it on Cinema Drive, I don't want to have to go all the way around. I think that's going to -- essentially I think that's going to add people jumping in their car where instead of, you know, I can walk 200 yards or I can walk 500 yards -- well, I'm going to go jump in my car if I have to go all the way around. So, I just -- I understand that it could have an impact on there, but maybe we could condition something in there to -- you know, something that conditions completion of the road with -- before the first occupancy, that way building can at least commence and that gives them a little bit of time to work on putting a road in, but it doesn't have to be completed necessarily, it just has to be started and completed before occupancy. So, I don't know if that would be a good compromise or not. As far as the property line with the neighbors, that is a pretty good amount of space in there. I mean, unfortunately, in Meridian -- I mean I live three miles away from the -- from the freeway and when I sit in my backyard I can hear it basically any time of the day or night. So, the noise part is -- is tough. As far as the close proximity of the neighbors -- it is a pretty good amount of distance. I do like the fact that the clubhouse is where it's at, because I do agree that having that single story and -- and -- over there is going to help with -- you know, instead of them having to look at a whole bunch of the side of the three story buildings, that's going to limit their -- their sight line in there. Hopefully they can work with any concentration of things, like the -- the trash receptacles and things like that. If any of those can be moved I think they, you know, could probably work to move those around. Definitely don't want to make it inconvenient or put one away from the pool house, because I think that's where there is going to be a lot of use on that. Especially on weekends, so -- but I like the -- I like the layout. I like what it is for what it is. So, I think they have done a pretty good job on this one. But I do think that the East Cinema Drive should be part of phase one. With that I would entertain more -- more deliberation or a motion. I see wheels spinning. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 57 of 63 Grove: Mr. Chair, I have a question for you. Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: So, essentially, what we are trying to get at for access for Cinema Drive is more like pedestrian in nature. Is that the initial or is it more vehicular? Like for -- for the necessity to have it in phase one. Seal: I think that could go either way personally. I mean if I was coming home -- you know, unfortunately, the vehicular part of it would -- amounts to cut-through traffic. I mean if I'm coming home and I can see that traffic's backed up all the way to Wells and I'm at -- you know, I can pull into Cinema, I'm going to pull into Cinema and take that way home. Not that that's a bad use of that road, I think it's acceptable for the people that live there, but I think that that would -- would provide that to some measure, but that's going to happen whether it's part of phase one or, you know, part of the complete phase. But to me it's more the -- it's the pedestrian traffic. If I know I can walk half the distance by going across that road, I'm going to walk, I'm not going to drive. Grove: So, I think, you know, with -- maybe would another like way of looking at it be like a temporary pedestrian pathway? Seal: Yeah. Instead of a road? I don't know if that's something that is feasible. Grove: Okay. Seal: I don't know if that opens a can of worms as to what's a public pathway and a roadway and how that fits in. I don't know if that's -- Sonya, do you want to take a crack at how that might work if it was a public pathway in the beginning that became a roadway or -- I don't even know if there is even a provision for that. Allen: Yeah. I'm not sure. I'm sorry, I didn't catch all of what you were saying. The extension of Cinema Drive as a pathway connection? Seal: Yeah. As a -- as a -- initially a pathway connection somewhat temporary in nature, but I mean, obviously, that would have to meet some kind of code. Allen: Well, the whole point of the recommendation from staff was vehicular interconnectivity and -- and to distribute traffic. So, it just depends on what the Commission wants. Seal: Okay. Appreciate that. Allen: Pedestrian is better than nothing, though, I will say. Seal: Right. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 58 of 63 Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead. Lorcher: I understand from the applicant they don't want to build the road right away. It's probably a -- could be a funding issue. You know, why spend the money when they really don't need it right away. I will defer to whatever the Commission decides -- what the majority decides as far as the road is concerned. If it's built at the beginning it would be helpful and useful, but I also understand from the applicant's point of view that if they don't have to spend the money on a road, which is probably expensive for them, they would probably want to defer. Seal: Okay. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I -- if I had a guarantee that the Winco was going to develop within a year, I would say okay, but we don't have any guarantee when -- when that's going to develop and that that interconnectivity is very important for that for both pedestrians and vehicles. If someone is coming home, wants to grab a bite to eat, it's a great shot to get -- get back to -- you know, back to the apartment instead of having to go back out to Overland, back to the light. I just think it makes sense to have it part of the phase one the way it's conditioned. It just makes it cleaner, makes it more open and just connectivity is -- I think is important. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: As an alternative compromise would it be possible to condition that that Cinema Drive be extended within one year of the start of construction for this project? Seal: I tend to think that might be where we are headed. I mean at least, you know, put -- put some kind of condition in there, whether it's based on occupancy or, you know, start of construction or something along those lines. I think that would be -- yeah. Exactly. I think that would be smart of us to put that in there. Yearsley: The problem that I see with that condition is how do you enforce it and who is going to enforce that. Is that put on the Planning and Zoning or code enforcement or someone to have that done? And so it's easier to have it as part of certificate of occupancy, because it's an easy one to check. With having it one year who is going to police that? Allen: Mr. Chair, when -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 59 of 63 Seal: Go ahead, Sonya. Allen: May I? If -- if you go that route it needs to be platted as part of the first phase. If you are going to do a timing on it like that. Thank you. Seal: So, in -- Allen: It needs to be dedicated and -- and platted. Dedicated right of way with the first phase. And it is -- it is a difficult thing to enforce. Seal: Once it's -- Allen: Unless it's before occupancy. But anything after that it is fairly problematic to enforce for staff. Seal: Right. Yeah. So, I think we are probably hinging on before occupancy. Once it's platted what are the ramifications of it needing to change? I'm trying to be sensitive to the fact that we have got commercial going in there and we want to keep commercial going in there for Winco, so if they need to change that road and all of a sudden that's not going to work and -- it delays them. So, you know, just trying to weigh those two things out. I don't know what the -- not having ever built a subdivision or a commercial property myself, I don't know what happens once a road gets plotted in there and it needs to change. I mean what are the -- what are the costs associated with that before it starts -- before they start building it, obviously. Allen: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if the road location needed to change after the final plat was approved, then, they would have to come in and amend the plat. But between the preliminary plat and the final plat there would be time to nail that down hopefully. Seal: Okay. So, who wants to jump in and add more to this? Or try and throw a motion out there on it? Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Yes, Commissioner Holland. And I believe this is a CUP, so we are approval on this, am I correct? Holland: There is three different components of it, Mr. Chair. There is the conditional use permit for the multi-family development, but there is also the preliminary plat, which will go to Council. So, it's a partial recommendation, partial approval. Seal: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 60 of 63 Allen: Actually, Mr. Chair, no. The -- when a conditional use permit has a concurrent preliminary plat with it, then, the decision making body for that application actually acts on the conditional use permit. It is a little different in this case. Seal: Okay. We still recommend approval on this? Allen: Yeah. Thank you. Seal: Okay. Thank you. So, we have both been corrected. Holland: Yeah. Learn something new. Seal: Absolutely. Holland: Mr. Chair, I think -- I like your suggestion of-- of saying that Cinema Road needs to be extended prior to occupancy being issued. That gives them a little bit more time to maybe work with Winco on -- if they need to make any adjustments to it before they go to final plat on it. I think that that's a fair recommendation. The only other thing we have talked about -- I don't know -- we kind of got mixed reviews on whether or not we needed enhanced buffering. If there is a sound engineer that has said that it will provide minimal noise, these probably aren't going to be long-term stay residents. That's typical with most apartment complexes anyway, so if they live there for a couple years they may not care that they are next to the freeway noise and, hopefully, if it's mitigated that well with the design features of their -- their complex. But I don't know if we want to talk about that anymore. I'm open to adding a condition that asks for enhanced buffering from the freeway. I'm also not sure if we need to make a specific condition about the neighbors to the east of the project with the lower density homes, if we need to have a specific type of screening they are requesting added in there or if we just say that they need to work with the neighbors on what that fencing and screening looks like. Those are the two items I think still out there. Seal: Yeah. I agree that -- I mean a sound engineer has signed off on it. The director has approved that. So, I mean there is some validity to it for sure. I mean as someone that used to live next to railroad tracks I can tell you that after you are there for a couple of weeks it's just background noise for the most part, which is hard to believe that trains would become background noise, but it truly does, so I -- you know, as far as who wants to recommend what on that, I think that the rest of the Commission would probably go along with whatever the recommendation is. Yearsley: Well, I guess that that -- on the -- we don't need to make a change to the Cinema Way deal; correct? We just talked about it. It's part of occupancy. That's kind of where staff has put it in; correct? Seal: I think we would need to change the wording of it to -- if we wanted it to be based on occupancy. Right now -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 61 of 63 Yearsley: Okay. Seal: -- it's just part of the recommendation no matter what. Yearsley: Okay. I will make a stab at this if everyone's ready. Allen: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, if I could jump in again. I'm sorry. I -- question for the city attorney. I'm not sure if -- if they make the extension of Cinema with the first phase final plat, if they can tie that to any other timing, like C of O. 1 believe that would have to be done with completion of the plat for ACHD to sign off on it. Mr. Baird? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, having been in a position before where we have got apartments that are completed and you have got sales agents renting out rooms and there are conditions that need to be fulfilled, I have seen it work that tying it to a C of O gets their attention and it gets it done and any of the platting and the working with ACHD will just fall into line ahead of that through the planning process. That's the way I'm seeing it. Am I answering your questions, Sonya? Seal: Yeah. I tend to agree with that where if you tie it in there, whatever modifications that road needs to be made are going to be made when they need to be made before anybody commits to occupancy. Allen: If the C of O -- I believe that the road improvements, if they are part of the plat would all have to be done before building permits are even issued. Seal: And, personally, that's what I was trying to -- you know, come to some kind of agreement on that to where they can still start to build, they just can't occupy beforehand. But if there is precedence before that that don't allow it, then, you can be stuck. Parsons: Well, Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Bill. Parsons: ACHD has a process, just like the city. If the improvements aren't done the applicant can bond for those improvements and get their plat recorded, so that they are eligible for a building permit. So, more than likely this -- looking at the application submittals, it is their intent to do the apartment complex under one phase. So, that's a lot of buildings going up at one time. So, I kind of like your suggestion of where, you know, even if the road has been constructed they have the opportunity to bond for it and, then, prior to them getting occupancy, like you said at the first building, then, that road should be done. So, that may be the mechanism to go. I -- I'm kind of leaning towards the city attorney's interpretation that there is a mechanism there for them to move forward, get under construction and still have that road constructed prior to occupancy. I think we can change that condition to read that way. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 62 of 63 Seal: And -- I mean with us doing a recommendation to City Council can we work towards putting that -- you know, solidifying that so that when it goes to City Council they have all the information as far as what it can and cannot be? I mean we can't -- we can't -- we can't provision something in here that's -- Parsons: You can make a recommendation on the DA to modify that provision. Right now the way that staff has the conditions -- or the DA provision crafted is with the first phase, which we are --when we are talking phases we were talking about the subdivision phase. So, if it's your intent to modify that, you can have -- make a recommendation to modify that that road be constructed prior to the first occupancy of the first structure. So, you just have to make that clear in your motion and Sonya will make that happen. I would imagine that the -- again, the applicant has another bite at the apple, because they are going to be in front of City Council and if they can convince the Council to overturn your decision or staff's recommendation then -- then maybe they have that ability to do that. Because Sonya -- as Sonya mentioned to you they are the decision maker on it -- on all of it, so it really comes down to what you guys feel comfortable with moving forward on your recommendation and, again, the applicant will have their chance in front of Council. Seal: Okay. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 1st, 2021, with the following modification: That the construction of Cinema Way be conditioned upon approval of certificate of occupancy. That it be construction as part of the certificate of occupancy and that the developer work with the property owners to the east on developing an agreeable fence configuration. Allen: Mr. Chair, excuse me. Clarification of the motion. Is -- is the motion to include Cinema Drive with the first phase subdivision plat, but have it constructed prior to the first occupancy permit? Yearsley: That is correct. Allen: Thank you. Seal: Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Seal: All right. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of file number H-2021-0007, Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 1,2021 Page 63 of 63 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. I will take one more motion. Holland: I move we adjourn for the hearing date of April 1st, 2021. Seal: Do I have a second? Yearsley: I will second that. Seal: It has been moved and -- motioned and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: Thanks, everyone. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:37 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 4 15 12021 ANDREW SEAL - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the March 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. March 18,2021 F93 Page 90 of 90 -- I mean the next week's going to get even worse. So, I think we have kind of established a routine here that if it gets starting a new one past 11 :00 we kind of take a look at it. Cassinelli: All right. Then we have a motion on the floor. Holland: It still stands. McCarvel: It has been move -- moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:29 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 4 1 1 12021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 94 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Sadie Creek Drive-Through (H-2021- 0006) by The Land Group, Generally Located South of E. Ustick Rd. on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd. Item 2. F95-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN w IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment within 300-Feet of another Drive-Through Establishment on 1.18 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District for Sadie Creek Drive-Through,Located South of E.Ustick Rd. on the West Side of N. Eagle Rd.,by The Land Group. Case No(s).H-2021-0006 For the Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. March 18,2021 (Findings on April 1, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 18,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 18, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 18,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 18,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).SADIE CREEK DRIVE-THROUGH CUP H-2021-0006 Page 1 Item 2. 96 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of March 18,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of March 18, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of March 18,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).SADIE CREEK DRIVE-THROUGH CUP H-2021-0006 Page 2 Item 2. 97 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 1 st day of April ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 4-1-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).SADIE CREEK DRIVE-THROUGH CUP H-2021-0006 Page 3 Item 2. ■ EXHIBIT A C� E IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT f D A H 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/18/2021 Legend DATE: Iff PrdJ' o_ Lacfl�ian TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner EM 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0006 , Sadie Creek Drive-Through—CUP 41 x i LOCATION: South of E. Ustick Rd. on the west side of N. Eagle Rd.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 5,Township 3N.,Range 1E. pp�� FW &1 � I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 1.18-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.18-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant(coffee shop)with a drive-through in a multi- tenant building Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards, flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 1/11/21;3 attendees other than the Applicant attendees: History(previous approvals) A-2018-0361 (ROS#11747,Parcel F);AZ-05-052(DA #108008770,Sadie Creek Commons);H-2018-0121 (Villasport MDA,Inst.#2019-060877—excludes property from previous DA) Page 1 1 1 1 +n uuul = uuu 4•'... -au,_ ruu■uu- '- � � is nuo ��i ' --'---- IN IN INN oninsinin. lip �111116 ;� III : 11, 'I lli�ill .�=_` ■1 "IIIIII��I I :NI I -I .• ' } - III =1� -�2~_I� • a•, •rye •4 IN mill 11 iF ". IN lollIN :1 IN IN No • au,. .uu- '- is�uur • N■u1 0 , uu: ue N aaa� � -��� ur Miq ■� =1� miul=_ ..0 i.. ��. =11 uliul= c, � ..0 �. ■i �' �iiiiilll ■i �'� : �iiiiilll 111 I■n•'l11 I11N111 ■1 I" .NI I =_'_-_ �L —• •111 I I'lllll�I�:��I i •11 � _' �— 1IF aR,son ■u.m::: ■1u1::: **y :�i= - No : ■,N,a,.■i : ■,N.a,.■Y �" 1111 11 :1:: :: No .... ........Y : x111■ * -■ , : x1111■ll Y��111Y 1111 . �=1111111 ■��1111�i.' r11•- 1 1 11 u, -IIIYI No■■ 1111 ,., �1 II`YI:■u �i 1 1111 INuuia No 6.6 1 1 , , , IN .• • • 1 11 Item 2. EXHIBIT A 1 00 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to 2/23/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 3/4/2021 Next Door posting 2/25/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is for a 2,250 square foot coffee shop(classified as a restaurant)within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment,which requires Conditional Use Permit approval (CUP)per UDC Table 11-2B-2. The other drive-through establishment(Jimmy John's)that constitutes the CUP requirement is located directly to the south of this site. Specific Use Standards: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. A site plan is required to be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Staff's analysis is in italics. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; At over 400'from the drive-through window to the nearest drive-aisle that provides access to the parking area, the stacking lane should have sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive aisles by patrons. The stacking lane will hold approximately 21 vehicles. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designed employee parking. The stacking lane is a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is proposed. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is visible from N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a public street along the east boundary of Page 3 Item 2. 1 EXHIBIT A 101 the site,for surveillance purposes. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required. The proposed restaurant is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 Restaurant, which requires at a minimum, one (1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space,a detailed parking plan is required to be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with UDC standards. Access: Access is provided to this site from the west via N. Cajun Ln. and E. Picard Ln.,both private streets,across the Villasport property to the west and via E. Ustick Rd., an arterial street, from the north. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is needed across the adjacent properties to the west and north(Parcels#S1105110111 and S1105110030)for access to this site.A copy of the recorded easements should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this project.Both access driveways should be constructed with development of this site along with all of the frontage improvements along E.Ustick Rd. and N.Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the Development Agreement.All off-site driveways and site improvements should be depicted on the plans. Parking: A minimum of one(1)parking space is required to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area for restaurant uses; a minimum of one(1)parking space is required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area for other non-residential commercial uses in the multi-tenant building. The restaurant space is proposed to consist of 2,250 square feet while the remainder of the multi- tenant building is proposed to consist of 5,304 square feet. Based on the requirement, a minimum of nine(9) spaces are required for the restaurant(i.e. coffee shop) and 10 spaces are required for the remainder of the multi-tenant building. A total of 32 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards on the west and south sides of the building. To ensure adequate parking is provided in the event other tenant spaces are occupied by restaurants, Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring parking to comply with the more restrictive standards for restaurants listed in UDC 11-4-3-49. A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A minimum of one(1)bicycle space is required to be provided;two(2) spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Pedestrian Walkways: A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway with a public use easement and pedestrian lighting is required within the street buffer along S.Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.This pathway is required to be constructed with the first phase of development per the Development Agreement,which will be this phase unless the Villasport property to the west develops first. A pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site plan from the perimeter sidewalk along N. Eagle Rd. to the main building entrance as required by UDC 11-3A-19B.4a.Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,the walkways are required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4.The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.B in planter islands within the parking area as required. A minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer is required to be provided adjacent to parking,loading or other paved vehicular use areas as set Page 4 Item 2. F102] EXHIBIT A forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.1; landscaping should be provided adjacent to the drive-through lane along the north boundary of the site in accord with this requirement. The easement for the relocated Milk Lateral should be depicted on the plan to ensure no trees are placed within the easement. The landscape plan depicts the pathway and improvements east of the pathway along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 as"not a part"to be constructed with the Villasport project. The Development Agreement requires all of the frontage improvements(i.e. street buffers, sidewalks,pedestrian lighting, etc.)on this site and the Villasport site to the west along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 and E.Ustick Rd. to be installed with the first phase of development. It was anticipated that Villasport would be the first phase of development; however,if this project ends up being the first phase,it's responsible for these improvements,including those off-site—the plans should be revised to include these improvements. Because the drive-through lane and back of the building(with mechanical equipment)will be highly visible from N.Eagle Rd./SH-55,Staff recommends additional landscaping(i.e. coniferous trees/bushes)is provided within the street buffer to screen this area and these functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. Landscaping is required along each side of pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C; landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the multi-use pathway within the street buffer along N.Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accord with these standards. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of PAC clad formed metal wall panels in slate gray with metal flashing and trim in light gray, a mix of white and onyx colored brick and with a glass store- front and a flat roof. These elevations are not approved; final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The trash enclosure should be constructed with similar materials and colors to match the building. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VII, UDC standards and design standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on March 18,2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Tamara Thompson.The Land Group b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: None Page 5 Item 2. ■ EXHIBIT A d. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson,The Land Group e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Concern that this could be a user that generates a huge amount of traffic—the Applicant has assured Staff that it's not. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 6 Item 2. F104] EXHIBIT A VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 1/27/2021) rroie�t imom.eo�: THE LAHD GROUP . ..... :.::...... =� J �o PROPOSED '.``y;:U ••�••�,• J BUILDINGCA Doming Rejula[ioris: ci ci \\ MI uuana cm 3 E.. 1 .:L. .. .. •• = o.nm�ea�eceQM•.uoon..e��r... . .•• , .. ••\• r.nxemeacnevum.rv. . ..: .- _ xmerwvvnc¢xuraww. toes comnisim Prenveimn i Conditional Use Permit-Site Plan ���V� C1.DD ` Conditional. Page 7 1 9-0 -4 1 MGM 79-MURTITro EEMM Item 2. F106] EXHIBIT A C. Conceptual Building Elevations&Perspectives (dated: 1/19/21 &2/11/21)&Floor Plan(dated: 1/19/21)NOTAPPROVED KE 7E 11-1[EE ERE NCE H01TS' 1 Ir -I14 Ta • r rvbN WEST ELEVATION HfYA1kSN Gf1Y R,11NOfE5 _ ••'"a`�••'�".'�•w GOCUMENIS PHASE RMl)o Sa.Jvwy N,9d71 A B C d E a�..m.•,..�..�e Y 14-0' as��•w•s•e•.we ZZ nx�o•m SOUTH ELEVATION � ` _ L C rh T Y f5 Y p LU ot _ Z EAST ELEVATION R W~ w� .0 4� iorsf N rn=« #Piro BUILDING +Yar-0' EL EVAYI DNS MaN ROO.� NORTH ELEVATION A3.11 Page 9 Item 2. F107] EXHIBIT A r ■ ■MEFAL FLA SHINGANO TRIM COLOR:NGF3TGREY PACCEADMRMEDHELTAL _ WALLPANELS COLOR:SLATE GRAY _S THIN BAIO H TE RNICKS-ARCTC WHETE ....'... CK . � I ■ DPo�MSNTS PEASE m.y i WEST PERSPECTIVE RRICN'.-ONY%IRONSPDT TMN TWN RRk N CLEARANODIZ ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT AND ENTRAHCES PPG ATLANTICA E GLUT J LOW O GLUING 5 m � V S -------NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE O�W SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE °jve tlPln SOUTH EAST PERTIVE A3.12 SPEC Page 10 Item 2. F108] EXHIBIT A ICE 7E CllREEEYEHCE Es �.o S � Y FLOOR PLAN GENBLAL HOLES DOCUMENTS PHASE & I TE KA NC SPICE I FI+,F FLAN IEC=FN6 I I I Z d TENA NC&PACE 110 ci LLI I I Z Z II t _-..aaK.a_.. I I RER R ILU- + #Pln GROUND FLOOR PLAN '°g "`, - Factt•LAN A2.11 Page 11 Item 2. F—log]EXHIBIT A VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the terms of the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-060877,Villasport MDA H-2018-0121)and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. The stacking lane, menu and speaker location(s),and window location shall be depicted in accord with UDC 11-4-3-IIB. b. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces, the walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. c. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. d. Include additional landscaping(i.e. coniferous trees/bushes)within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 to screen the back side of the building and mechanical equipment while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. e. Depict off-site improvements required by the Development Agreement, including a 35- foot wide street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, an entryway corridor, and a 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Ustick Rd., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C per UDC Table 11-213-3.A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required within a public use easement and pedestrian lighting and landscaping is required to be provided within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4C.3 and 11-3B-12C. f. A minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer is required to be provided adjacent to parking, loading or other paved vehicular use areas as set forth in UDC 11-313-8C.1; landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the drive-through lane along the north boundary of the site in accord with this requirement. g. Graphically depict the easement for the Milk Lateral along the north and east boundaries of the site;no trees should be placed within the easement. h. Depict both access driveways to this site via E.Ustick Rd. and E. Picard Ln./N. Cajun Ln. 3. Direct access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 is prohibited. 4. A recorded cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be obtained across the adjacent properties to the west and north(Parcel#51105110111 and#Sl105110030) for access to this site; a copy of the easements shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 5. The driveway accesses from the north via E.Ustick Rd. and from the west via E.Picard Ln./N. Cajun Ln. shall be constructed with development of this site or with the development of the Villasport site to the west,whichever occurs first. 6. All of the frontage improvements (i.e. street buffers, sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, etc.) on Page 12 Item 2. EXHIBIT A 110 this site along E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 shall be installed with the first phase of development as set forth in the Development Agreement(Villasport—Inst. #2019-060877).If the Villasport site to the west develops prior to this site, these improvements will be required with that development. 7. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 — Drive-Through Establishment is required. 8. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant is required. 9. Parking for the overall site shall be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-49 for restaurants. 10. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 11. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLinkIDoeView.aspx?id=222991&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC ia C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) Staff Report: https:llweblink.meridiancity.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223257&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC Lty TIS: https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222928&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC hty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223265&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. Page 13 Item 2. F-1111EXHIBIT A 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed restaurant(coffee shop) with a drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 14 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Hearings Changes to Agenda: None Item#5: Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) Application(s): ➢ Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district; ➢ Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one(1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the existing home). ➢ Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two(2)gates; and, ➢ Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6,which prohibits common driveways off private streets,to allow such in three (3) locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units. Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 80 acres of land,zoned RUT, located at 7020 S. Eagle Rd. & 3487 E.Adler Hof Ln. (east of S. Eagle Rd and south of E. Lake Hazel Rd). Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: Mostly within unincorporated Ada County, except The Keep is being developed to the west and Pura Vida Subdivision is being developed to the northeast. Boise Ranch Golf Course is to the east. History: The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020(H-2020-0079).This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all of it single family detached.This proposal was scheduled for the October 15, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Following staff's report to the Commission recommending denial, the applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family attached units in the northwest corner of the project. Staff has noted on two pre-apps and multiple discussions that staff did not support this project as proposed, as will be discussed. At the time the staff report had gone out for review, staff had not received updated comments from ACHD or West Ada Schools. Staff relied on the analysis from the previous proposal,which was virtually the same except for 24 more lots and a small part of this project being attached homes. West Ada's most recent correspondence has given slightly less students that would be generated and a change in schools. In regard to ACHD, some improvements have since occurred along S. Eagle Rd as part of The Keep since ACHD's October analysis. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: 6 acres+/-are recommended for Low Density Residential at the SW, the remaining 74 acres is recommended as Medium Density Residential. Written Testimony: At the time of the staff report, only one comment had been received, 11 additional letters have been received since this time. —issues expressed are transition in density, R-15 zoning being inappropriate, lack of sidewalks to fit in more houses, inadequate green space, "fringe development", school capacity, road design, and proposed usage of Vantage Point Rd. Notes: • Zoning and Transition in Lots o The applicant proposes R-8 on the western portion of the site, and R-15 zoning on the eastern portion of the site. o R-8 requires 4,000 sq.ft. lots and a 40' lot frontage, R-15 allows 2,000 sq.ft. lots and requires no lot frontage. o The applicant has requested R-15 zoning in order to be allowed private streets that would not be allowed by R-8 zoning. o All of the development as proposed would meet the minimum requirements of R-8 zoning. o As proposed, the zoning would zone the denser portions of the site to the less dense zoning, and the lower density portions of the site,to the higher density zoning. o Staff also has concerns with the transition of lots. ■ To the southwest,the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6,000—6,500 sq.ft.The applicant has noted in a response letter that future development in the unincorporated land directly adjacent would likely develop at a density of 8,000-9,000 SF lots at a density of approximately three units/acre although the FLUM recommends<3 du/acre in this area (> 14,520 sq.ft. lots). ■ At the middle south, the development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in Vantage Point, but still proposes lots of 5,000—6,000 sq.ft.The road and park would help with a buffer, but there would still would be 2-3 houses adjacent to the houses in Vantage Point that are on one acre lots.At the southeast, larger lots are proposed at approximately half acres, but the lots are rotated such that the adjacent properties in Vantage Point would still see 2-3 houses along each of their lot lines(except for the most southeastern lot). Staff appreciates that applicant proposes to limit houses to one story in this area. ■ Staff notes the applicant correctly mentioned staff had called this area Phase 9,whereas the southern boundary consists of Phase 9, Phase 4 and Phase 7. o Since the time of the staff report, the applicant has submitted drawings proposing additional screening and buffering in this area.The Planning Commission should determine whether the applicant has provided an appropriate transition. • Fire Access o The Fire Department has noted this development can be serviced by the Fire Department, but has noted the following concerns: ■ A large subdivision with only access out to Eagle Rd. ■ Fire would prefer a connection to Lake Hazel to the North, but found that the preservation of the Southern Rim prevents such an access. ■ The west end does fall within the 5 minute response time, but the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5- minute response area and the nearest station has a low reliability rating. This would improve if and when the new southern station is built in 2021. ■ Fire has also noted the gated areas will cause delays. ■ Staff would prefer the applicant work with one of the property owners to the north to achieve access to E. Lake Hazel Rd. o The applicant has noted in their March 17 response letter that Pura Vida, Pinnacle and Lavender Heights Subdivisions are all at the same distance or further and have the same reliability as Skybreak, and they were approved. However, staff notes, Lavender Heights and Pinnacle (Apex) both have access from multiple streets(not just Eagle Rd), and although Pura Vida only has access from E. Lake Hazel, it has a development agreement that limits the number of lots that can be built out by phase until there is a bridge built to the east. Pura Vida is also less than half the size of this development. o Applicant submitted a fire phasing plan,which includes 59 lots with Phase One. Only Phase 9 takes proposes access from anywhere other than S. Eagle Rd. Phase 9 only has emergency access,the applicant has not demonstrated legal access. • Access, Private Roads and Gates o As already mentioned, all lots except for 15 in Phase 8 utilize E. Eagle Rd as the only point of access. o Phase 8 cannot be built until Pura Vida builds out. o Phase 9 currently has no proven access. Staff has suggested a bridge across the Farr Lateral. o The applicant proposes 112 lots to be served by private roads and two gates(there are two additional gates for emergency access). o The private roads proposed are as narrow as 27' and have no sidewalks or landscaping. o These roads would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners in perpetuity, as since they do not meet minimum ACHD templates,ACHD would not accept these roads if there were future financial constraints with the HOA. o Staff does not understand how narrow streets with sidewalks is innovative or preferable to streets with sidewalks. o Staff has asked the applicant to explain why this is preferable other than the ability to increase lots or reduce building costs, and the only explanation is that it provides an intimate setting and there is a demographic that prefers a gated community. o Staff has concerns with supporting this feature without sufficient justification and what precedent it would set for future requests to build inadequate roads. o The applicant requested alternative compliance to allow 112 lots served by 2 gates and 2 emergency gates, and 3 common driveways off a common street. o The director denied the request for Alt Compliance as none of the conditions or finding were met. o Applicant has stated Skybreak's gated private streets are intentionally designed without sidewalks to prioritize the use of streets for walking, biking and convening with neighbors and that cars are a secondary use. However,given the location out on the periphery of the City, every resident must drive to get in and out of this subdivision. • Parks and Open Space o Applicant states 14.99 AC. (18.8%) is provided. o Parks and amenities include: ■ 3/4 acre tot lot with play structure, climbing rocks, outdoor seating (shown as A) ■ 1 acre open sports park(shown as E) ■ Pathways along the Farr Lateral and sloped eastern portion (shown as B) ■ Golf cart pathway ■ Dog parks(shown as C) ■ Entry park(shown as D) o Aside from that, much of what they are crediting as qualified open space is buffers along roads, end caps, open space that could not have been used anyway and is not all is landscaped per the UDC requirements. o It is important to note that although the applicant has submitted a chart showing which open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC (i.e. (50'x 100') in area)the applicant is requesting the City annex this property, there are no present City entitlements. o Staff thinks a development of this size (80 acres)should have more quality useable open space, and more of it compiled together and oriented in more convenient locations. o Applicant has submitted a pedestrian circulation plan with this proposal.All the private streets without sidewalks are being reflected as pedestrian connections. o The Planning Commission should decide if this project provides appropriate open space and amenities. • Staff recommends DENIAL of this proposal. o Staff does not believe this proposal substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the City. ■ Only one access road for all but 15 lots, and applicant has not demonstrated legal access for the 23 lots at Phase 9. ■ Inadequate transition of lots to the south ■ Higher density zoning for lower density area, lower density zoning for higher density, rezoning to R-15 when R-8 would suffice. ■ Located on the fringe, only adjacent to City limits in portions, not an infill development. ■ Narrow private streets with no sidewalks—does not Comprehensive Plan policies for a walkable community. ■ Although Fire says they can serve, the have expressed concerns. ■ Some quality open space, but much of the open space being credited not useable even if it meets minimum requirements. ■ Applicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue because it will be age targeted, but unless deed restricted this is not enforceable. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0127, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 1, 2021,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0127, as presented during the hearing on April 1, 2021 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0127 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#6: Meridian South Fire Station&Police Substation (AZ H-2021-0008) Application(s): ➢ Annexation and Zoning Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4 acres of land,zoned RUT, located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd (South side of E. Lake Hazel Rd, between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd.). Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: Property is zoned RUT in Ada County, surrounded by R-4, R-15, and R-40 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential. Summary of Request: Annexation &zoning of 4 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district to develop a 11,650 sq.ft.fire station and 11,060 sq.ft. police substation building Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: • Although much of the landing surrounding the site was annexed in 2015 as the South Meridian Annexation, the subject property was not included as part of the annexation. • The site is directly adjacent to the new Discovery Park. • Plans are to develop the fire station and the police substation separately,with the fire station construction planned for 2022. • Following annexation, a conditional use permit is required for a public or quasi-public use in the R-8 zone district per UDC 11- 2A-2. • The applicant will be required to construct a new north/south collector roadway along the site's east property line from the south property line to Lake Hazel Road. • The applicant has proposed to construct 2 driveways from the site to the new collector roadway; one for the police station and a wider driveway for the fire station. The applicant will be required to close the 2 existing driveways from the site onto Lake Hazel Road. • Although ACHD is requesting the applicant construct 5'wide sidewalk along this collector, per the Parks Department,the applicant will be required to construct a 10'detached pathway along this section. • This E. Lake Hazel Rd/Collector Road intersection is planned for signalization. • The Applicant has submitted colored elevations for both buildings.Architecture consists of sloped roof buildings with CMU and wood grain metal panel as the primary field materials, and exposed timber frame and metal soffit accents.The proposed architecture will be reviewed in detail with Administrative Design Review and must meet the requirements of the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0008, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 1, 2021 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0008, as presented during the hearing on April 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0008 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#7: 3175 N.Ten Mile Rezone(H-2020-0122) Application(s): ➢ Rezone Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.16 acres of land,zoned R-4, located at 3175 N.Ten Mile (SWC Ustick and Ten Mile). Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: - C-G and Commercial zoning to the north; R-4 and single family residential in all other directions. History:AZ-10-005(ACHD Ten Mile); DA Inst.#111024535 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR—3-8 du/acre) Summary of Request: Request to rezone this 1.16 acre property from R-4 to the L-0 zoning district commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000 square foot, single-story office building with 42 parking spaces(20 minimum required) in lieu of residential development. The subject site is somewhat of a residentially zoned outparcel due to the fact it is located on a hard corner of two arterial streets and has no local street access.The Meridian Comprehensive Plan has a provision to allow properties like this(less than two acres in size that have access constraints)to request a Rezone from a residential district to the Limited Office (L-0) district.The existing site constraints and this provision of the comprehensive plan are the reasons for the Rezone request. The proposed use is for a dental office which is a principally permitted use within the requested L-0 zoning district. The Applicant has submitted a site plan that shows compliance with all dimensional standards for a commercial development.With the proposed site plan and proposed use, Staff finds the proposed Rezone and use to be generally consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The subject site was annexed into the City in 2010 and thus has an existing Development Agreement.As Staff analyzed the application and existing DA, Staff realized that a DA Mod is also required because the original DA contemplated a residential development and not a commercial development.Therefore,the proposed Rezone and office use are not generally consistent with the existing DA. DA Modifications only require Council action so,following the Commission hearing, Staff recommends the Applicant submit a DA Mod application to run concurrently with this Rezone application for the purpose of entering into a new DA, subject to the proposed development plan and new DA provisions noted within the staff report. The existing DA provision requires a 20' landscape buffer adjacent to the three existing residences to the south and west. The submitted site plan shows this buffer with adequate landscaping and therefore compliance with this provision (20' buffer is also the minimum buffer requirement for the L-0 zone adjacent to homes).A number of the parking spaces are facing directly towards one of the homes and there is an existing wood fence located along the shared property lines. Because the proposed use would have more vehicular traffic than residential, Staff finds that the proposed landscaping and existing wood fencing may not be enough screening to mitigate light and noise pollution from the proposed dental office and parking lot. Therefore, Staff has recommended the landscape buffer be widened to 30'wide adjacent to the home in the southwest corner of the site.This change would not compromise any other required dimensional standards as the proposed drive aisles are more than 15 feet wider than required.The wider buffer with additional landscaping would pull the parking spaces even further away from the existing home. Staff made a mistake within the staff report and noted the Applicant should work with adjacent homeowners to replace the wood fencing but that should have been deleted from the report altogether. Staff does not believe replacing the fence is the best option. Instead, Staff believes the condition of approval to require a 30'wide landscape buffer adjacent to the home in the southwest corner of the site is a more appropriate solution. Access to the site is proposed via two connections to the adjacent arterials—one right-in only access is proposed to Ustick and one right-in/right-out access is proposed to Ten Mile.The proposed access to Ustick does not meet ACHD policies but was a negotiated access at the time the property sold.The proposed access to Ten Mile does meet ACHD policy and is recommended for approval by ACHD within their staff report. Staff supports the proposed and limited access to Ten Mile Road commensurate with the approval from ACHD. In addition to the access to Ustick not meeting AND policy,the City can further restrict access for the development despite ACHD previously granting the access with the sale of the property.The proposed access to Ustick is proposed as an entrance only access into site but there would be no true way to restrict vehicles from utilizing it as an exit as well. In addition,this access point is directly within a right-hand turn lane on Ustick which intensifies the safety issues associated with this access point. Therefore,through UDC 11-3A-3, Staff recommends the proposed Ustick access not be approved and instead utilize it as an emergency only access barricaded with knockdown bollards,to be approved by Meridian Fire. Written Testimony: 1 piece from Paul and Amelia Hartsock—Concerns with the existing fence remaining and the possibility of future cars going over the landscape buffer and through their fence. They request an 8-foot tall block wall replace their existing fence. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject application with a requirement that the Applicant apply for a concurrent DA Modification to be heard at the future Council meeting. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0122, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 1, 2021,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0122, as presented during the hearing on April 1, 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0122 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#8: Seasons at Meridian/WinCo Wells Subdivision (H-2021-0007) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Conditional Use Permit ➢ Development Agreement Modification—Doesn't require Commission action Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 34.62 acres of land,zoned C-G, located at 2600 &2700 E. Overland Rd. Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: North: 1-84 off-ramp West: Commercial retail/restaurant/animal care uses, zoned C-G South: Overland Rd., school/restaurant/offices, zoned C-G East: SFR properties, zoned R1 in the County History: This property was annexed in 1994&a DA was approved in 2016. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: A modification to the existing DA is proposed to exclude the east parcel from the agreement.A new DA is proposed for the east parcel,which will accommodate the change in ownership of the east parcel if the CUP is approved for the MFR development.The existing DA includes a conceptual development plan for the west parcel,which depicts an 85,000 s.f. single-story WinCo grocery store with associated parking on the north side of the future extension of E. Cinema Dr. &vacant land with no development plan on the south side.At the time the original DA was approved, a use&development plan was not known for the east parcel.Therefore, a provision was included in the DA that requires the agreement to be amended to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the MU-R FLUM designation in the Comp Plan prior to any development occurring on the site. The proposed development plan for the east parcel is a 360-unit MFR development. Staff believes the proposed plan contributes to the mix of uses desired in the MU-R designation and provides a transition and buffer between commercial uses to the west and the LDR development to the east(i.e. Overland Way Subdivision). The addition of more residential uses in this area will provide more patrons for surrounding commercial/retail/restaurant and office(medical/dental) businesses as well as offer employment options in close proximity of the residents. A CUP is proposed for the 15.89-acre 360-unit MFR development as required by code in the C-G zoning district.A total of(180)studio & 1-bedroom units, (150)2-bedroom units and (30) 3-bedroom units are proposed in ten structures with 36 units/structure.This development is proposed to be constructed in one phase.A total of 3.8-acres of outdoor common open space is proposed which exceeds the minimum 2.10 acres required. Based on 360 units, a minimum of 5 amenities are required but the decision-making body is authorized to consider additional similar amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development.Amenities are proposed consisting of a clubhouse with a swimming pool, bike maintenance room,fitness facilities, parcel lockers, remote work/classroom stations, and a coffee bar; an outdoor fireplace with a seating and a BBQ; public art; half-mile pedestrian loop with a 10-foot wide pathway and internal pathways; (18) grassy areas of at least 50'x 50' in size, including a dog park, multiple courtyards, park areas with seating, a plaza and pocket libraries; community garden; and a children's play structure. Because residential uses are proposed adjacent to 1-84 along the project's north boundary, noise abatement is required in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to the freeway. The Applicant has requested and received Director approval of ALT compliance to this standard to provide double-pane storm windows on all structures within the development since the buildings are proposed to be set back at least 250'from the freeway and will be 2-and 3-stories in height. Parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards—a minimum of 646 spaces are required with 270 of those being in a covered carport or garage.A total of 655 spaces are proposed with 360 of those being in a covered carport,which is 9 extra spaces over the minimum required for the overall site. The Commission should determine if the proposed parking is adequate or if additional parking should be provided as a condition of approval of the CUP. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the apartments and clubhouse. The apartments consist of 2-and 3-story structures in a contemporary farmhouse theme with hip roofs and steep gables. Building materials consist of a combination of vertical board & batten siding, stucco&decorative balcony rails along with varied color schemes. Stairways are concealed from public view. 1"shaped buildings are proposed for variety. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 3 buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, proposed to develop in 2 phases.The 1st phase consists of the extension of S.Wells Ave.to E. Cinema Dr. &includes the east parcel; the second phase consists of the extension of E. Cinema Dr.from Wells to the west boundary of the site and includes the west parcel. Right-of-way for the extension of S.Wells Ave. & E. Cinema Dr. is proposed to be dedicated with the plat. In order to provide interconnectivity between uses in a timelier manner and disperse traffic, Staff recommends the extension of E. Cinema Dr.from the west boundary of the site to S.Wells Ave.occurs with the first phase of development. Written Testimony: • Deb Nelson, Givens Pursley& Ryan Morgan, Morgan Stonehill Partners Development Co.,Applicant's Representatives—In agreement w/staff report except for Staff's recommendation for Cinema Dr. to be constructed with the 1 st phase of development rather than with the 2nd phase as proposed. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 1, 2021,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0007, as presented during the hearing on April 1, 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0007 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 1, 2021 limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units.4A.b which -3F-allow such in three (3) locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 114A.6, which prohibits common driveways off private streets, to -3F-Alternative Compliance to UDC 11and,Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two (2) gates; driveway lots, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the existing home). Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common 15 zoning district;-8 and R-Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R AERIALZONINGFLUM AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 enforceable. notApplicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue because it will be age targeted, but unless deed restricted this is Some quality open space, but much of the open space being credited not useable even if it meets minimum requirements. Although Fire says they can serve, they have expressed concerns. community and providing necessary infrastructure. e ablsafe routes and access, encouraging safe, physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikepurpose pathways, ensuring -to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multidoes not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods –Narrow private streets with no sidewalks Located on the fringe, only adjacent to City limits in portions, not an infill development. 8 would suffice.-15 when R-Higher density zoning for lower density area, lower density zoning for higher density, rezoning to RInadequate transition of lots to the southOnly one access road for all but 15 lots, and applicant has not demonstrated legal access for the 23 lots at Phase 9.City. Criteria include whether the complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the The applicant is requesting the City annex and serve this property, presently in the County. Staff recommends DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION station and 11,060 sq. ft. police substation building 8 zoning district to develop a 11,650 sq. ft. fire -Annexation & zoning of 4 acres of land with the R AERIALZONINGFLUM AT1 AT1 Item #7: 3175 N. Ten Mile RZ AERIALZONING Maps– Site Plan/Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations AERIALZONINGFLUM Item 4. Ll 12 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Jaker's Drive-Through Addition (H-2021-0012) by BRS Architects, Located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. Application Requires Continuance A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through in the C-G zoning district at an existing restaurant. Item 4. 113 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for faker's Drive-Through Addition (H-2021-0012) by BRS Architects, Located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through in the C-G zoning district at an existing restaurant. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Item 5. Ll 14 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Item 5. 115 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: April 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for Skybreak Neighborhood (H- 2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing i 1 9 3 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET 1 DATE: April 1, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) c PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 i 2 i i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORT C� fERjD1AN,,-, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 3/18/2021 Legend DATE: 0 Project Um-of km TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0127 Skybreak Subdivision IJ --a LOCATION: 7020 S. Eagle Rd. &3487 E. Adler Hof Ln., in the south 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4, T.2N.,R.IE. (Parcels# S1404244250 & S1404233650) s r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots,40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one(1)private street lot and one(1)lot for the existing home). • Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two(2)gates; and, • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6,which prohibits common driveways off private streets,to allow such in three(3)locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units. The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020(H-2020-0079). This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all of it single family detached. This proposal was scheduled for the October 15,2020 Planning Commission meeting. Following staffs report to the Commission recommending denial, the applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family attached units in the northwest corner of the project. Page 1 Item 5. rl 17 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 80.46 Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County(existing),R-8 and R-15 proposed Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)&Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type; 328 SFR buildable lots/40 common lots/14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway bldg./common) lots, 1 private street lot& 1 lot for the existing home) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases Number of Residential Units 30 attached SFR homes (type of units) 298 detached SFR homes(one is existing) Density 4.1 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total 14.99 acres(or 18.8%)qualified open space [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities (2)dog parks;3/a acre park with play structure,climbing rocks,a shade structure and benches;entry park, 1-acre sports park,passive open spaces and pathways Physical Features The Farr Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site;hillside/topography (waterways,hazards,flood within southern rim area. plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; 5/27/20; 14 attendees,December 16,2020;9 attendees #of attendees: History(previous approvals) Property boundary adjustment(Record of Survey#12358,Eisenman 2020), previous proposal similar to this one was withdrawn just prior to Planning Commission due to staff recommendation of denial. (H-2020-0079) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study(yes/no) Yes Access One(1)public street access(Street A)is proposed via S.Eagle Rd.,an arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street.Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,gutter or Hwy/Local)(Existing and sidewalk. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Eagle Rd.—Better than"E"(acceptable level of service) Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and Street/Interconnectivity/Cross interconnectivity as depicted on the plat. Southern stub streets only have Access emergency access.The area in the NEC of the proposed development(Phase 8) Page 2 Item 5. M Description Details Page cannot develop until Pura Vida extends a public street;Phase 9 of the development currently does not have the right to access the private lane and cannot develop until a public street is extended to the proposed development Existing Road Network There is an existing private street(E.Adler Hof Ln.)that provides access from S. Eagle Rd.to the existing homes on this site.This roadway should terminate with development of the site as proposed. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road in 2024. • Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road in 2023. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the west leg,and reconstructed/signalized in 2023. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the 2016 C I P to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the 2016 CIP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south,2-lanes east,and 3-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 2030, Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.9 miles(Fire Station#4) Fire has expressed concerns with only one point of access from S.Eagle Rd.Fire would prefer a second access to the north to E.Lake Hazel Rd. Fire has also expressed concerns with the private gates causing additional delays. • Fire Response Time Most(3/4+l-)of this development falls outside of the 5 minute response time goal from Fire Station#4. • Resource Reliability Current reliability is 77%from Station#4 does not meet targeted goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service. A wildfire safety plan is required. • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required(fire station is 5.9 miles away). • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the development.In the event of a structure fire,an additional truck company will be required—this will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the City. Police Service • Distance to Police 5.5 miles Station • Police Response Time There is no call data in this area because the proposed development is at the edge of City limits. • Calls for Service 7(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • %of calls for service See Section IX.D split by priority • Accessibility No concerns Page 3 Item 5. 119 1 Description Details Page • Specialty/resource needs None at this time • Crimes 1 (within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Crashes 9(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits,service can be provided if this development is approved. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) Enrollment Ca par Miles Dew.m school • Capacity of Schools **Silver Sage Elementary" 230 425 5.1 miles Lake Hazel Middle School 928 1000 2.4 miles • #of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2302 2175 4.8 miles **Enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped. Students in this development will be attending Silver Sag mmill Elementary until a new school is built to eliminate overcrowding at Hillsdale Elementary. • Predicted#of students 247+/- generated from proposed development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Sewer will be available with the development of Keep Subdivision on the West side of Services Eagle Road. • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.08 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Water and sewer mains should not be in common driveways. Concerns have been expressed regarding the width of the private streets and that the required 30' easements may overlap onto private properties,rendering these areas unbuildable. The City is applying the following requirements for Common Driveways. • Three or less lots—services from main in adjacent road • Four or more lots—Sewer in common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain.Manhole needed in the common drive at the property boundary with"Private"on the lid. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's Page 4 Item 5. 120 • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Common drives that have both water and sewer mains will require a 30'easement •As currently designed,most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure.There are multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12"and a secondary connections. •Coordinate with PW Engineering on main sizes,connection at the SW corner and connection at the NE corner. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend r Legend Pro" t Lflcfliior ® t Locaioi: •H!gALE 14 .. ® I PE - Y Residential IV iC Medium ��n sity Residential LOW Den .ihy Rid�nti�l LLMBIA r Page 5 Item 5. 121 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend r Pro" i Lacai�or i Location Jea �-$ Prima 11'-11 City urnitr RUT' R-15 — Planned Parcels 5 i R-4 R-2 �y �y i t i i i t 1 R RR Iwt1 �, r r III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Peter and Dana Eisenman—3487 E.Adler Hof Ln.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise,ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 2/26/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property 2/23/2021 owners within 300 feet Applicant posted public hearing 3/5/2021 notice on site Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 Page 6 Item 5. F122] V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the 6+/-acres at the southwest corner of the site, south of the Farr Lateral, as Low Density Residential(LDR)and the remaining 74+/-acres as Medium Density Residential(MDR).A City Park is designated in the general area at the southwest corner of the site. Per the Comprehensive Plan,the LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre.Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The Applicant proposes to develop this site with 328 single-family residential homes at an overall gross density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre(An additional lot will contain the existing house).A total of 23 units are proposed within the 6+/- acre LDR designated area for a gross density of 3.8 units per acre in that area,which exceeds the density desired of 3 or fewer units per acre. Smaller lots, instead of the large or estate lots as desired in LDR designated areas, are proposed along with open space areas along the southern boundary and along the northern boundary adjacent to the Farr Lateral. There are several larger one-half acre lots proposed at the southeast directly abutting the adjacent residences in Vantage Point Subdivision. However,the rectangular lots are oriented as such that the abutting lot lines are half or less than the width of the neighboring residential lots, so there are several lots abutting one neighboring lot. The applicant proposes to limit the height of the houses in this area to one story to help protect view sheds. The units proposed in the MDR designated area meet a gross density of 4.1 units per acre in that area,which is consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas of 3 to 8 units per acre.A City park is not proposed,but the Park's Department has determined a City park is not needed in this area. B. Comprehensive Plan Analysis(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The applicant isproposing 328 lots, with 30 of the lots containing single family attached at the northwest portion of the site. The remainder of the 299 lots are intended for single family detached units. The applicant's narrative references housing types such as large rim lot houses, two story golf course houses, large lot homes, 255 single story homes and the attached single-family product. The single family attached product does contribute to the variety of housing types in the overall area. However, the remaining single family detached houses contribute to a diversity of housings les but notparticularly the variety of housing Upes intended by the Comprehensive Plan for all needs,preferences and financial capabilities. Page 7 Item 5. F123] • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Currently, this development can be served by the Fire Department. However, most of the development is outside of response time goals, does not meet resource reliability goals, and has risk factors including a steep hill with a potential for wildfire if the hillside isn't maintained(see the Fire Department's comment in Section VII below). Additionally, with the main access and secondary access both from Eagle Rd., if access is blocked from the north via Eagle Rd. it may delay emergency services by having to travel 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site,potentially creating a life safety issue. If the applicant is able to secure legal secondary access to the north this would alleviate concerns but this would be contingent upon whether those properties develop, and staff might recommend only some number of lots being developed until that occurs. The Southern Meridian Fire Station adjacent to Discovery Park is anticipated for construction in 2023; if this occurs, there will be significantly improved fire service to the subject property. The annexation is currently in process and scheduled for a public hearing. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The subject property abuts Pura Vida Ridge Ranch to the northeast, the Boise Ranch Golf Course to the east, and Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south. This development proposes R-8 zoning and lot sizes of approximately 5,000 sq.ft. to 6,000 sq.ft. adjacent to Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, whereas Pura Vida Ranch includes lot sizes of comparable sizes and the same R-8 zoning. To the southwest(Phase 9), the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6,000—6,500 sq.ft. whereas the adjacent Vantage Pointe Subdivision is comprised of lots one-acre in size and greater(although there are four lots proposed with this development directly abutting the south area and are % acre to 3/ acre in size). The development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in Vantage Point. The development also proposes one story homes in this area. An abutting neighbor has submitted written testimony stating the buffer as proposed and the lot sizes are not appropriate transitions in this area. It is staff's opinion the lots should be at least one-acre in this area and have property line lengths that better orient to adjacent off-site properties. The Planning Commission and City Council should assess whether there is an appropriate transition in this area. "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family attached homes at the northwest are generally compatible as they directly abut S. Eagle Road and there are no adjacent homes directly to the north. The single family detached homes are generally compatible with existing rural residential homes as they are all residential in nature. However, with the exception of the larger lots and open space on the south boundary, the proposed plat depicts smaller lots (i.e. 4,448-4,950 sf.) than those of the lots in the abutting Vantage Pointe Subdivision. The Commission and Council should determine if the applicant has provided an adequate transition. Page 8 Item 5. N • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The Pathways Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the eastern boundary of the site; a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed in accord with the Plan on the northern portion of the development but transitions to a 5-foot wide pathway to the south and does not stub to the south for future extension as shown on the Plan. However, the Park's Dept. has indicated they are supportive of the proposed design. This pathway will eventually provide a connection to Discovery Park to the west and Hillside Elementary and the YMCA to the north. There is also a 10' multi-use pathway proposed adjacent to the Farr Lateral, as is shown on the pathways plan. These pathways will be valuable amenities to the project. A golf cart pathway is shown as Lot 41 on Block 5, which terminates at the Boise Ranch Golf Course. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter,pathways, two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements, which are located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site and are not centrally located. Although much of the open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC(i.e. at least 20'in width and 50'in length with an access on each end) a significant portion of what is proposed as qualified open space consists of street buffers and end caps with parkways.Also, it is important to note that the applicant's narrative contains a pedestrian connectivity exhibit which shows narrow private roads with no sidewalks and common drives as `pedestrian connections"which staff believes is somewhat misleading. However, the private street standards do not require them. Additionally, staff believes the entire development should contain public streets which would require the 5-foot sidewalks per City code. The Commission and Council should determine if the pedestrian circulation plan is adequate for the proposed development with the inclusion of the private system. • "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and values." (2.02.01B) Because the average lot size proposed in the development is only 6,280 square feet, Staff is of the opinion the end caps could be re-oriented/consolidated with other larger common lots to increase the usable open space within the development. This was discussed during the pre-application meetings with the applicant and they are of the opinion the open space as proposed exceeds UDC standards and is designed to meet the needs of the development. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and through with this development. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The subject property abuts portions of the city limits at the northwest and northeast corner, but the majority of the property perimeter is surrounded by unincorporated Ada County. The proposed project is located near the fringe of the City and does not meet the definition of an infill development. • "Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design."(4.05.02C) The Ten Mile Creek crosses the northeast corner of the site; a common area is proposed for the creek area and a multi-use pathway is proposed along the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Page 9 Item 5. 125 • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) City sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with the public road portion of this development. The cross sections provided for the private road portion do not depict sidewalks. The applicant contends that the private streets provide an intimate setting for the residents and narrower streets decrease traffic speeds which do not warrant the additional improvements. It is important to note that the director has not approved the private street application, thus the plat should be redesigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B) The proposed project is in the City's `fringe"area; therefore, development in this area is not encouraged as are vacant/underutilized parcels currently within City limits. However, the City has recently approved several developments (Pura Vida and Poiema) north of the proposed development making this property more desirable to develop. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.01A) Eagle Rd. is currently a 2-lane roadway with no curb, gutter or sidewalks; no improvements are planned in the CIP/IFYWP to the segment of Eagle Rd. abutting this site. The Lake Hazel/Eagle Road intersection north of the site is planned to be reconstructed and signalized in 2023. The ACHD report states that the TIS estimates this development to generate an additional 3,343 trips per day resulting in an acceptable level ofservice (i.e. better than "E'). WASD estimates this development will house approximately 247 school aged children—enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped so students in this development would attend Silver Sage, which is currently under capacity; enrollment at Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School would be over capacity at build-out of this development according to the Community Development's school impact review included in Section VII. Water and sewer are being extended consistent with the City's master plan as noted above. Discovery Park, a 77+/-acre City Park, is located approximately a mile away from this site to the west on Lake Hazel Rd., which should be adequate to serve this development. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) Two types of housing are proposed—single family detached and 30 single family attached units-which will provide diversity in housing, and the density in the MDR designated area falls within the desired range. The density proposed in the LDR designated area at the southwest corner of the site is above the 3 units or fewer per acre desired in that area. However, the Comprehensive Plan states future land use designations are not parcel specific. An adjacent, abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used.A designation may not must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50%of the land being developed. The predominate land use designation is MDR and the applicant has the ability to design the project to meet density perimeters of the MDR designations provided other goals of the Comprehensive Plan are being met. Page 10 Item 5. F126] As discussed below, R-I5 zoning is proposed at the less dense eastern portion of the site to allow the option ofprivate streets without sidewalks., Staff has concerns with the private streets, specifically the long-term maintenance and interconnectivity with surrounding developments. If these roadways are not constructed to ACHD standards, the likelihood ofACHD accepting these streets in the future is slim. Also, stafffinds that although most of the open space meets the minimum dimensions, not all of it is quality open space(please see the qualified open space section below). The Fire Department has noted concerns with the access and serviceability of this project ahead of the fire station being constructed next to Discovery Park. Finally,public services are proposed to be extended near the fringe of the City rather than to vacant/underdeveloped infill parcels as desired. For these reasons, Staff is of the opinion the proposed annexation may not be the best interest of the City at this time. C. Annexation&Zoning: Portions of the annexation area are contiguous to a portion of the current City limits boundary and within the City's Area of City Impact at the east boundary. Most of the surrounding properties are still within unincorporated Ada County.A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VI.A. The proposed annexation area consists of two(2)tax parcels containing a total of 80.46 acres of land designated as LDR and MDR on the FLUM and contains land to the section line of S. Eagle Rd. The Applicant proposes to annex the two(2)parcels, zone the western 43.85 acres with an R-8 zoning district, and the eastern 36.60-acre portion with a R-15 zoning district. The R-8 zoning district allows lots as small as 4,000 sq. ft. with a minimum street frontage of 40'. The western 43.85 acres of the plat proposed for R-8 zoning reflects lots that meet this minimum lot and frontages requirements. The R-15 zoning district allows lots as small as 2,000 sq. ft. and has no requirement for a minimum street frontage. This zoning is typically reserved for higher densities,including single family attached, townhomes and multifamily.It is important to note that with the previous application, staff informed the applicant that the private streets that are proposed with a significant portion of this development were not allowed under the R-8 zoning that was originally proposed for the entire development. The provisions for private streets apply only to properties that do not have frontage on a public street or where frontage is not required per UDC 11-3F-2.The applicant has subsequently revised their application to propose R-15 zoning merely for the purpose of being eligible for private streets whereas all other dimensional standards would comply with the requirements of the R-8 zone. Staff believes the development should incorporate public streets within the entire development and zone the property in accord with the more appropriate R-8 zone(Please see the access section below for more discussion regarding the private streets).In previous discussions with the applicant,staff has suggested the applicant either rezone to PUD, or initiate a code change in regard to requirements for private streets. The applicant has chosen to move forward with a request to rezone to R-15. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two (2) existing homes and outbuildings on this site—the 5,892 square foot home constructed in 2002 at the east end of the site is planned to remain on a lot(Lot 64,Block 5)in the proposed subdivision; the home and accessory structures on the west end of the site are planned to be removed with development. These homes are accessed via a private lane(E. Adler Hof Ln.) from S. Eagle Rd. If annexed,the home proposed to remain is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service and change their address. Page 11 Item 5. ■ E. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed use,with two housing types,is mostly consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district in that a range of housing opportunities and a variety of dwelling types would be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC 11-2A-1 and 11-6A-1. However, proposing to rezone a portion of the property to the R-15 zone when R-8 zone would suffice merely for the reason of being eligible for private streets is not consistent with the purpose statement of UDC 11-3F-1. While this isn't an uncommon practice,this section states that"it is not the intent to approve private streets for single- family,duplex and/or townhouse developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development"as no single family attached are in this area and no common mews are proposed. Further, a limited gated community as specified in the UDC is 50 or fewer homes. As noted below,the applicant is proposing that 112 homes utilize the proposed private street in an area that doesn't have an established street network and limited access. Therefore,the director has denied the private street application(see below for analysis). F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 328 building lots,40 common lots, and 14 other lots(i.e. common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 80.46 acres of land. Development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Lots in the western portion proposed for R-8 meet the minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. with a 40' lot frontage. Although the lots in the 36.6-acre eastern portion proposed for R-15 meet the dimensional standards of that zone district(minimum lot size of 2,000 sq. ft. and no minimum frontage requirement)as presently proposed,they would also meet the minimum requirements of the R-8 zoning district. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets,common driveways and block face. Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Block faces should not exceed 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided,then the block face may be extended up to 1,000' in length. The City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions as specified in UDC 11-6C-3F.3b. The face of Block 9 on the north side of the Farr Lateral is 1,000'+/- and does not contain a pathway or intersecting street or alley.This is also true of the section of Block 5 that is south of private street A of more than 850 feet. Council approval would be needed, or the plat would need to be revised to comply with the standard. At the northeast corner of the site, a street ending in a cul-de-sac is proposed which will likely exceed the maximum 500' length allowed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 depending on how the property to the north develops. Staff had recommended an internal street access to this portion of the development rather than the sole access being provided via a stub street from the north. The applicant has responded due to the topography in this area,they cannot provide the recommended internal access. However,just to the north of this cul-de-sac,the plat shows a golf cart path in this general area. Twelve(12) common driveways are proposed; such driveways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment.An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common Page 12 Item 5. 14 driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway. Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Where two(2)common driveways are proposed that adjoin,bollards(or other barrier approved by the Fire Dept.) should be placed at the common lot line to prevent a through connection between streets. The applicant has submitted a phasing plan. The phasing plan shows nine phases,with the first phase occurring directly adjacent to S. Eagle Rd at the proposed public street.Number of lots being built out vary between 59 at the first phase,to 23 at the last phase. Phase 8 and Phase 9 are both disconnected from the rest of the subdivision, although staff does believe an access could be constructed across the Farr Lateral between Phase 1 or 2 and Phase 9. UDC 11-3F-4 prohibits common driveways off of private streets whereas this proposal includes three common driveways served by private streets. The applicant has requested alternative compliance from this standard. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3 The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,gutter or sidewalk. Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd. intersection in 2023. Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5-lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024; and to 5-lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030;no improvements are planned to Eagle Rd. south of Lake Hazel abutting the site. The applicant will be required to construct 5-foot-wide sidewalk on S. Eagle Rd abutting the site. One(1)public street, Street A, is proposed for access via S. Eagle Rd. as a collector street to the intersection of Street C, also a public street. Three(3) stub streets are proposed at the north, and two(2) stub street are proposed at the south boundaries of the site for future extension in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. One of these southern stubs is a secondary emergency access to E. Vantage Pointe Ln. to be constructed with the first phase of development. There is also a cul-de-sac at the extreme northeast serving 15 additional lots,which is intended to connect to a public road through the recently approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch. This area is shown as Phase 8 and does not connect to the rest of the Skybreak Subdivision, except for the connected pathway system. There are two southern roads shown to connect from the subject property to E.Vantage Pointe Lane to the south. E.Vantage Point Lane is a private road, and the applicant has only demonstrated the legal right to use this road for emergency access (Inst. #2020-063349);public access is not allowed. This is adequate for emergency access to occur from the cul-de-sac shown at the end of the public street shown as Street J. However,this application also shows an additional 23 lots being served from a double cul-de-sac shown as Phase 9. The applicant has not demonstrated they have primary legal access to these lots via E.Vantage Pointe Lane.The applicant has responded that they intend to eventually obtain this access and will build out this later phase when it is obtained,but staff is concerned with an application which proposes annexing and zoning 23 lots into the City without proof of access. The applicant should construct a roadway across the Farr Lateral to provide access to the portion of the development for better integration. The Fire Department has noted in a letter dated February 16,2021 that they are concerned with a large subdivision with only one access out to S.Eagle Rd. Two of the three northern stubs go to properties within unincorporated Ada County which are not proposed for development at this time.The third northern stub only serves Phase 8 which does not connect to the rest of the subdivision.If access from the north via Eagle Rd.is blocked,in the event of an emergency,emergency vehicles would have to travel an additional 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site creating a potential life safety Page 13 Item 5. F129] issue due to a delayed response time. Staff has recommended the applicant pursue a northern access to allow access from this subdivision via the public road in the Pura Vida Subdivision and to E.Lake Hazel Rd,but the applicant has responded that due to topography this is not feasible, although the applicant has managed to configure a golf cart path to the golf course at the north.In addition,the Fire Department has mentioned the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5-minute response area, and the nearest station(Station 4)has a low reliability rating.This would improve if and when the southwestern fire station adjacent to Discovery Park is constructed in 2023.The applicant has submitted a phasing plan which shows each phase has at least two accesses for emergency service,but as mentioned,except for Phase 8 at the northeast corner,all the other phases rely on only S.Eagle Rd for access. Staff is aware that access will improve in this area over time however,it is contingent on other properties developing in the area to provide the necessary road network. A combination of public and private streets are proposed for access within the development—public streets are proposed on the west and private streets serving 112 lots are proposed on the east end of the subdivision. Three (3) common driveways are proposed for access off private streets (see analysis below). The applicant has provided sections of the private streets with this plat application(see Section VI). Although the plat does not indicate exactly which private street cross sections are proposed in which area,the street sections show private streets as narrow as 27',none of which include sidewalks. Since the time of the pre-application meetings,staff has responded that staff does not support this many lots being served by private streets. This is because this results in streets that would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners through the HOA, as ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Staff has requested the developer state the reason for requesting private streets other than the additional costs to build them to the standard template,and the only responses staff has received thus far is that there is a demographic of senior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates and private streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there are probably buyers that would prefer gated communities and private streets,but still does not understand why narrow private streets are preferable to streets built to standard templates and containing landscaping and sidewalk.As noted above,staff finds the proposal is not a limited gated community,exceeds more than 50 homes.Therefore,the plat should be resigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development.As noted below the applicant has requested alternative compliance (ALT)to allow 112 homes as proposed. The director has denied the applicant's ALT request. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The applicant proposes 112 gated lots, and 3 common driveways off a private street.UDC 11-3F-4 states a proposed(gated) development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units, and no common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street. However, 11-3F-4 also allows the director to approve, or recommend approval of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this article and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when one(1)or more of the following conditions exist: a. Topography, soil,vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical; b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot; c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable; d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the requirements of this article; Page 14 Item 5. F130] e. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism", "neotraditional design",or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed use neighborhoods; f. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance. In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The applicant's alternative compliance letter mentions there is a demographic ofsenior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates andprivate streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there is probably a demographic that would prefer gated communities, but this is not a condition required for alternative compliance. The Director finds the applicant has not demonstrated the need for a private versus public streets as noted above. The plat indicates private street sections with no sidewalks and minimal landscaping, whereas ACHD templates require S'sidewalks and landscaping.Also, the applicant proposes alternative compliance to allow three common driveways from the private streets, whereas this is not allowed by UDC 11-3F-4-6. Staff does not understand how what is being proposed is an equal or superior means to meeting requirements. Providing narrow private streets with no sidewalks, minimal landscaping, and common driveways from these private streets is not an innovative design features that promotes walkable neighborhoods. Finally, as was already mentioned, gating the community will also slow response times when there are already fire access concerns, which would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C : Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. A parking plan is included in Section VIII.J that depicts a total of 334 on-street parking spaces along public and private streets;parking along private streets must be approved by the Fire Marshall. 1. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts a north/south segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the east side of the subject property and along the south side of the Farr Lateral at the southwest corner of the site. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept.pathway coordinator on the design proposed along the east boundary; the pathway along the south side of the Farr Lateral is consistent with the PMP. The pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement or a note should be added to the plat which allows public access in the common lots intended for pathways. Ten-foot(10')wide segments of the City's multi-use pathway are proposed within the street buffer along Eagle Rd., along the south side of the Farr Lateral, along the Ten Mile Creek and the northern portion of the east boundary of the site and a golf cart path. Other pathway connections are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access to common areas within the development.A pathway connection is proposed between the pathway on the eastern portion of the site to the sidewalks along internal public streets on the west end of the site. A total of 5,167 linear feet of pathways are proposed in this development(see exhibit in Section VI). All pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. Page 15 Item 5. 131 Where pathways are proposed in common driveways(i.e. Lot 25,Block 9)they should be located in separate common lots with landscaping on either side in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C. I Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): A 10' pathway is proposed along S. Eagle Rd. with a combination of detached and attached sidewalks along the internal public streets.No sidewalks are required or proposed along private streets except for along private Streets K& S where a detached sidewalk is proposed for a pedestrian connection between the pathway on the east end of the site to the sidewalk along public Street I on the west end of the site. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17 : Eight-foot wide parkways with detached sidewalks are proposed along the entry street(Street A)and in a few other areas; sidewalks are mostly attached with no parkways in this development.All parkways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Street A where it is designated as a collector street(i.e. from Eagle Rd. to the intersection of Street C), landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 50' foot+/- wide buffer is proposed along Eagle Rd. and a 30-foot wide buffer is proposed along the collector street(Street A)landscaped with grass and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in excess of the minimum standards. Parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed within parkways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Landscaping is proposed along pathways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Landscaping is depicted in common areas in excess of UDC standards except along the Farr Lateral and Lot 46,Block 5 (the ridge lot with the trail). There are existing trees on the site within proposed building lots that are proposed to be removed that may require mitigation. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. M. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/- acres), a minimum of 8 acres of qualified open space should be provided. The Applicant landscape plan notes the development provides 14.99 acres(or 18.4%) of qualified open space. This open space consists of parks, street buffers,linear open space,parkways and common areas greater than 50' x 100' in area, including the slope area on the east end of the site(see qualified open space exhibit in Section VI).Although the open space complies with the minimum UDC standards in regard to dimensions, Page 16 Item 5. F132] some of the open space area being credited consists of unusable arterial/collector street buffers and end caps with parkways,the easement for the Farr Lateral, and areas that aren't centrally located for easy access. It is staff s opinion that the applicant has the opportunity to reconfigure the plat to consolidate additional open space to make it more accessible and useable. UDC 11-3G-3-E requires that at a minimum, common open space areas shall include one(1)deciduous shade tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet and lawn, either seed or sod. There are areas being credited on the applicant's open space exhibit as qualified open space, such as land within the Farr Lateral easement, and all the challenging and steeply sloping land in Lot 45,Block 5 at the east that do not meet the minimum landscape requirements. In addition,the pathway shown along Lot 45,Block 5 would need to be landscaped with one tree per 100 linear feet of pathway as required per UDC 11-3B-3-12 in order to be credited for qualified open space. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/-acres), a minimum of four(4) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter/shade structure, pathways,two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements. Dog owner facilities are required to be improved with a dog washing station with a drain to sanitary sewer system and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal; or fencing to enclose a minimum 0.75 acre of open space for an off-leash dog park and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal per UDC 11-3G-3C.h.Although the proposed amenities meet the minimum standards,they are primarily located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site or in the gated portion of the development and are not centrally located(see details in Section VII.D),which Staff is of the opinion is not ideal. Staff would prefer the open space be reconfigured to allow more useable open space and amenities toward the center of the development. Further,UDC 11-3G-3D.3 requires common open space and site amenities to be located in areas of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas,unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime. Staff does believe the sports park,playground and pathways are adequate amenities,but as mentioned above,believes more useable open space and centrally located amenities should be incorporated into this project. O. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. P. Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15) An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided with development to each lot within the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. Irrigation water is provided from the New York Irrigation District. Q. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Farr Lateral runs across the southwest corner of this site within a common lot(Lot 51,Block 9)and Ten Mile Creek runs along the northeast corner of the site. The Applicant proposes to leave these waterways open and improve them as linear open space with a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway. However, if these waterways are intended to be improved and credited as linear open spaces,they should be accessible and usable, and Page 17 Item 5. M landscaped in accordance with UDC 11-313-12 and UDC 11-3G-3-E, including one tree per 100 pathway feet and one tree per 8,000 square feet of open area,as well as vegetated with seed or sod. R. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-6C and I I-3A-7. Six-foot tall open vision vinyl slat top fencing is proposed along connection pathways and the Farr Lateral,4- foot tall open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed adjacent to the dog parks and 6-foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along street buffers and the perimeter of the subdivision as shown on the landscape plan. UDC 1I- 3A-6C.3 requires open laterals to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6-foot in height and having an 11-gauge,2-inch mesh or other construction equivalent in ability to deter access to the lateral. Staff recommends open fencing is installed between the lateral and the pathway to preserve public safety. S. Building Elevations (UDC I I-3A-19 1 Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VI. Homes depicted are predominantly single-story, some with a bonus room,with a few that are 2-stories in height proposed on the east end of the development on or near the rim. All but 44 of the homes are proposed to be restricted to single-story with the option of a bonus room;the larger lots on the east end of the development are not restricted to single-story homes (see exhibit in Section VII.J). Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials(i.e.horizontal and vertical siding and stucco) with stone/brick veneer accents. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested annexation and preliminary plat based on the Findings in section IX. and the Director has denied the private street and alternative compliance based on the Findings in section IX. Page 18 Item 5. F134] VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map (date 1/20/21) AAk ;wtzoth Lar1d 5urvin lr1q, PLC +� � YYl�']rFrl r7�F SriJG I_RITrC.t IS:Ir[!I �' Skybreak Annexation Legal Description BASIS OF BEAFUNGS 15 S. 01,12'S2"VV. betwRr~n a fount#alurn4wirm tap maekimg the W114 corner and 6 found alurninum cav marking ttM NW comer of 5ect.4n ap,T. 2 J., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, A parcel of(land locates In the 51{2 nF Me 144Ij4 oP Section 4 Township 2 Northr Range 1 East Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly dlesur�tw as Foll : COMMENCING at an akiminum cap marking the NVV ctrrher of said Section 4; Th€fxa S, 00=`W., coindderk with the west line of Said NWJIJ and the ceniviina of S. Eagle Road, 1342.07 feet to an aiurnlnum cap PrS 13550, markiW the N1�1<6 com-Rror said Seetkon 4 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence S. BcrS2'22rr f;, to incident with tha mrth Irnr*of Said 5112 cf the NYr+114r d dl-qance od 1321.03 feet tD a SfB"remrlcap PI-5 645. matking thr5 NVV 11 t6 dormer of wick Section 4j, ThQnse N, 89°56'41"'E.,c01110derit with said narttr kirm, 13Z1.1a feet to aI 510"reber/cap PIS 4347, rnarkir% the CN11tE carver of said Seclran 4; Thence 5-CG'37'07"W-, cainudLIA whir t1-re Iasi Me of Sid NVVV4, a fturice of 1313.72 feet to a 3�4' rebar{cap PtS 645, marl ing the C1/4 corder'of Salo Sermon 4; The"M N.8"W 12"W,r oncldent with the South tlrre of Sald Sectron 4,a d9�kance of 2632.7[ reef to an ilQg iwa altrminurn ram, marking the YVIJ4 of said Section 4; Thenrre N. 00012'52-f_,, cvirlcldent With said viest loner 1326.27 Feet to the EGINT OF BEGINIMING. The above dewrbQd parmJ cofltains 00.4GI -scan More:ok N-m. a 1 ,574 f I'D BEA " Page 19 Item 5. Fl R Of AQJ RDWr 35 piq h,i7iffre _ rq r I rIi � i i I I4 I 4 I I I w I � I I � I � � I 1 '�I I [.fd1A�177�1 ~ I 1k Page 20 Item 5. F136] B. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map (date: 1/20/21) ti awwct1 Ladd urveyinL3T LLC x , L - r F WLibI 398•b 113.4 F: 1-2081 398.31 0511574 � k060 IgW Ave 6n+n�rk Q 8561 r' Skybreak R-8 Zoning Description ► '� GASM OF BEARINGS Is 10912Z SZ"W. benveEn a found ailuminum cap marking the W 114 corme and a FUL Md alominPm-cap marklog the NW mrr1er-of Seabn 40 T. .4 N., R- 1 E„ B,M„ Ada County. L-laho. A pam6 of rand iocaLed in the S1{2 of the NV11�4'nF SeUbOn i TOWP15hrp I Narthr Range 1 EQSt, 1301se Meridians Ada (:aunty, Tdahr), snora particular+y tk.6hvi;hed as Follows: COMMENCING at nn aluminuro cap marking thp-NW corner of said 5action 4; Thincv 5. 401V52"W.{cuiriciderit Mth the west line al said NW114, a distance or 1352.07 feet to an alumrrurn -�ap PL5 13559, mark{ng the 141116 turner cF saad SeOjon 4 and the POINT OF BEGINNING1 Tlw-nw 5. WP52'17" F,, coincident with the north iine of sand SW2 of the NWI14, a distance or 132103 feet tQ a 5}8"rebarftap KS 645, matking the NW1/16 corner of S-aid Sechgrr it; Thence%. 139P5W41"F., a�dncldent wO said north Ilne, 2Li1.71J Feet; 1lnevice 5, 1312"52"W,, paraMlel wrdr said West line, 1137;56 Foes; VhelCe K. WV{p8"W-r 5.43 FM; Fhence S. 001,12'5Z"W., parallO wb sold wit Mine, 4S4,7'd fw�; Them N. 89134173"W.r 73.73 feet; ftrence N. 711155"29"W, 3.5.46 fleet; 1174ena.� N. 9V44250 W., tP.79 feet, fhanee S. 00012'!iV W-r paralbel With sold west line, 146,02 ftvtr Thence S. 89047,0$rt E,, ax fit; Thence S. 001112'52" W., pamile v d said west line, 601.9S reat ko the south IFno of said NW1�4; Thence N. :1390WI2n V1,, m4nddent wO said-moth line, M4.42 feet hn air iilegfbbe aiuminuMn cap, markeig bt}c W1J4 of Sold Section 4; TheKe N. 00'112'52" E., eoinddent with salt#wesr liner 1326.27 Feet to the P01W OF REGy3l,M"ING_ The above desctibizd Varcel contains 411158 acres rricre ior less. Page 21 Gm& Fl9 _ _ � • --—--_-- & �� -- - ,_���- . - a 71 � � - � � p � �■§ � | � | . r . , I{ �§i , §�q 9 � 2� A � i 2 | � � . . . . _ | g�■ �.£ @ m � - - in a � -. � ■� / ` � m§ 5��w � � � - -- -- �-- � 2 , / j §j I q �§ \ 3t E .�( %2w2 k� I _ .x ,& �w � , §� i kt I � Page 2 { Item 5. 5a t� L.Srid ory 1r1 , L LF 138 AA L =030 3, Wmh5rigtqm Awl. r--i, , i- .�8G1 7 dtf I va YA'A OF VD Skybreak -15 Zoning Description BAS 5 OF BEAMAIG$ Ls S. V12'52" W. between a f-oUrrd aluminum cap marking the W114 tamer arkd a faund sl umi rrurn rap marking the NV4 corner-of Sectron 4, f. � N,t R. t 1E,, 13,M„ Ada Qounty, Idaho A pEWCal of land IdtatW in the 5112 of tttie NVw1/4 of 920jun 4 T-nwnth"rp 2 Northr Ranee 1 E&sL Boise Meridian, Ada Gold sty, xdaW, n}ore panlcula0y descried as rollDws: COMMEf+lCING at an o1wnirium cap marking the NW comer-Df said Seaicil 4; -r'Mena 5. noi2'52"W., ❑ incident vyIth the west llrie of said NVw1/q, a d1€Wry or 1352.07 Tenet m arh aiuminLr ri cap PLS USSO, marking [he N 111E cornier of sawl Secoon -T; thence S. SW52'72"E, uDWdent with the north Ilne of said 5112 of the NVV111, a disirmwe or 1321,03 feet Lu 6 5JH"re-bar/cap PL-5 645, FTwrkirg the NW1115 cormr Df sold Section 4; 'rri N. W5041"�-:, eaineident W#1 said -iorth Irma, 263.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Theoct wntlnuiny 74, 641355'41" F., coincident wihh swd north lirn�, 1.059.31 Feet W a 5j8" rabarftao PLC A34j, rri,rking the CN3/16 Cwher of said Saran 4; Ttarrice S. W13707"W.. tn+ncjdencv+ kh the east ilrke of saW Secbon I, i� di€Lance of IS33-72 feat t-a o 3?4" rebar/cap Pt_5 645, marking the C114 currier a pica Section 4; Tf emoe W 891148'12" W,, roincrOent with the sotO lhne of sa-d NWL14t a di5tance of 7 ZH9.29 (elt; Thalou N. 001112'52" E.. parallel with Said WeA ihie, 6D1.95 reetr Thence N. 99°47'08"W.. 22,31 fit; Thence N. -W117 "E., parallel with said west qn- 1-46_02 Wtr Thwxe S. 89"44"25" E., !57.79 feet, Tt ance S. 7105529" L, 3&.z;6 feet; Thence S. S41141 23" E-, 13.11 fear, Thonm N. OUL'12'52"E., paralaei Wit-, said west km2, 454.70 feel; lance S. 139047'OS" L. 5.43 few; Theme N. COP 12'S2'E-r prailel with said wezr lint 137.56 feel l.)Ve POINT OF BEG3NNIqG. he above de5crft2d oarcei Contains 36.604 arre-s MOFR or iess. Page 23 Item 5. at"UR X*kwl It H 07 h 1l213I' ui�u y I I R �uI I I w I� I� I I � I I � I I I im rri ILI I � �II N h i 1 � I R's PAMLrm Page 24 Item 5. F140] C. Preliminary Plat(date: 12/11/2020) 5M'52'M'E 12919Q' NN-,' E !?'AV . L 3 + 3 Y � • i � � n •i �Y p 5i i „ M l5 if R } ^� �- __• __ 17• R � ,X I y YY 'ly a I =--,d l• NMl4 �� -- — k k 1! �• - I MG• IIP 1A Nalbilld P. ! rY 4 R R I % I llF IN •X 1N _ iSl _—SiBf 4F�x,4'- r Y i t — I H x µ r p —•n�swagq — — 1 / 371w ` • lY %001 E -R amY�� � • ® i• '� N747E'267Y'12Y7.76 NW'4$'18•W 131$.36' D. Landscape Plan (date: 12/11/2020) I� Page 25 Item 5. 141 E. Gated versus Non Gated(date: 2/11/2020) All streets shown in gated portion are private streets -— _ ----� w'■ ! I W 1 art IIk 1L �■+ 1 y I I� ir - ..00 i {.. I i'M�} 1 Traditional «�i�hborhoGd Gated Community F. Open Space Exhibit(date: 12/30/2020) Item 5. F142] G. Zoning Exhibit(date: 12/10/2020) I - - -- - R-8 SingleM � - -- — Story. ;1 �- ------� -•. . R-15 two Story, j Attached ` � � I [ l Single Family j R-15 Large Rim Lot I I_ 1�_ �•� ���" CCEG Housing„) r' R-15 Gated Single -Story. Single - - - R-8 Single Story, I~�I _ ��(-Family - j Single Family _ - - f -R-15 Gated, Single Family _,CustomIMMIX l H. Phasing Plan (date 2/10/21) - - ---- - - Ih ---- - - _ , — _T iiil ` �ryry� i e _ - T n n� i i .._ _ '•,zip*-51 ` - I I Item 5. F143] I. Proposed Private Street Sections L L L LL TrG li I TE T.- V w PRWATE-YMEFT mcmk AT GAIT EHOLK- LE L L `TMI I f 7L.M PIP- PRUATE MaTSKMN WfflH MEDM MLMD 7-LE ,frT-. .JLE PI,3..D L L -r in o I IL L TV M 29 PSI VATESTREMYT�7FET Al —LE Jr W, kE �FF ID 2,TPRIVATE ST;[E-T(S MEETS L,M. N 0, P.G.P) io ....0 -.-Tr .1C L ----j L M,.LL JL VWAL 2-T FR I VATE STREET Wj 0 ETAC H ED WALK 0 N2 93 DE(9-M EEC 14 AND S) :1 F-37- Page 28 Item 5. F144] J. Phasing Description (date: 12/10/21) PROJECTED PROJECT TIMELINE Milestone Date Z021 - ■ City Council Approval est. Aril 2021 ■ Eagle Road-Amigr to Victor Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2021 2022 - ■ 20 Homes Occupied 151 home available April 2022 Au ust 2022 2023 - ■ Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road Intersection Construction 2023 ■ Eagle Road-Victory to Amity Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2023 ■ Fire Station #8 - Completed and Staffed December 2023 ■ 50 Homes Occupied September 2023 Z0z - ■ Lake Hazel Road - Ea le to Cloverdale Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2024 ■ 100 Homes Occupied June 2024 Z025 - ■ 150 Hoines Occupied June 2025 Z026 - ■ 200 Homes Occupied June 2026 Z027 - ■ 250 Homes Occupied June 2027 Z028 - ■ 300 Homes Occupied June 2028 2a29 - ■ Com letion December 2029 Page 29 Item 5. 145 K. Proposed Amenities (date: 2/10/21 —please refer to Narrative for more details) .a :F R _ A. Large 3 f4-Acre,Tot Park(Block 9, Lot 52)—The 35,142 5gft 5kybreak Neighborhood park vJiil contain the following recreation facilities: • Play Structure • Seating Benches • Shade Structure • Climbing Rocks • Large Grass play area • Attractive Landscaping • Playground fencing for safety B. pathways—The Skyhreak Neighborhood will include the following pedestrian pathways: • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along Eagle Road—1,326 LF • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along the Farr Lateral—1,120 LF • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along Ten Mile Creek-526 LF • 10'Wide Golf Cart Path- 760 LF • Natural Path—1,435 LF Pedestrian pathways within the Skybreak Neighborhood will total nearly one mile in length. Page 30 Item 5. C. Dog Parks (Black 2, Lot I and Black 5, Lot 121) - The 5kylareak Neigh barhood pa rk wil I oanta i n t 4 146 (2-) .114 Ac small dog,, dog parks th at wil l in cl ud e ;h e fol lowing: • 0I)e n Vision Fencing _ • Dual Gate System • Seating Areas ARIL ATg • Attractive Landsc•al)ing ' � L vanor.r y i D. Entry Park(BI-ock 5,lot 114)—TI rnain Collector Roadway will - - terminate in an attractively landscaped open space that will provideforanaestheticaIly appeasing entry statement that will convey a sense of arrival, - • Specimen Tree - Plantings • Seating Areas • Attractive landscaping • Pathway E.Open Sports Park (Blo(k 5, Lot - 97)—This park will include: * Large 1-a cre ope n s ports a rea * Pathway Connection • Seating Areas - * Attractive Landscaping Page 31 Item 5. Landscaped Passive Open Spaces —Located throughout the Lleigh borhood: 147 + Attractive Landscaping * Buffering of side yards Premier 5ignage and Entry Monuments t �, f � ` •`�ti 'off _ J � _a•V �•� I! H. Pedestrian Connection Exhibit ---- -P1 21C&. Pt: _---man Coineclion Internal Pathway System Rno6r.al Pathway i Pedestrian GoV Cart Path Page 32 Item 5. F148] L. Parking Plan I _ r - - On-Street Parking 334 Spaces Page 33 Item 5. F149] M. Common Driveway Exhibits wAta Ea,seuEwr I I.: 1s 14 j I I _ AO.ca'row�wr I 12 I~ L J � 13 J 5.0'31DE LOT 13 T1 n IHRECT SIRFFf UN EA5T 510E OF �.. --- - — FRONT —' sErEaxlc scw�c 17 — — '' f — / -------------- TB / Eor 1e rw Es aaEcr smEl / f 1 pX E+STM RNEN'+ TEO '. .p' I 1 LOT YD 7FIIS5 DIRECT 5TREFL - I I ACCESS. DRIYEWAv LOCaTIDON M29M SIpE OF LPT, r— s - I s ia1 i`FM-j3S TtP 17 34dp' W,4Tt?Ef F Sk�IR r�YEMr I if 15 i� I } SMACKI I yl ,-� ^l.FE"5 T-IVID p BEET OW EAST 916E OF Wr ur --- - s� rage S4 Fl—5o I 7 MEE QN'VGE Wl A.1—E. h Wo EMNMW LGCAlEP —Flcm-w Tf Gi5 EkTr SILT GF LOT. it 23 I Lf 25 34 35 I I tig 3T REFM=M EWEeGD4L+ AMESS DkL, L 33 12.M' RrAN SMW-J� TI& 21 32 -TRE]ET LOT M TAKES URECr STREETLET 2- TAKES DIRE)Tr Arcas. lN4E64Av L%,AlEt AVEM Ord Ulftmr Tk�ON WMH IADE OF Lgr. ON 50LIRi 3rDE OF LOT. LOT 24 TAXES DRECT-rRErr A= EIRNEftv MUM) GIM5KTH 9ME UF LM RE&W UTWX TYP I S.a ti 26 5m, SIDE sEraxcK L'T 7 TAKE-9 PREU YREEF i ACCESS.DMVFWI LOCATED 27 ON W-%PC U LjYT. ?Vp BLOCK 9 rage j:) El z� J L BLACK 9 1 S LOT 67 TmE5 upa r ;iETHA" SiT�EET — —— — ADME E.➢RhEWhl LGGNFfl [:h a-vr 90E OF LpT �. �1�OL) IiEN1 ———————— SETWIX TIP 74 I fi' d n[+• w _ I WFFM 1 �s 7D wf, nRWE/TaEc rumxkw -- - -- � -a II Lfli S iH45 W LOCATED aTiEEf L sun uE or nv LOUVTEO 9M + fAl1fV1$ItlE OF LCT. II y " I - - - --- - . 'I I T4 I li '< ------------- --- 72 II rL^r 73 r+uEs aAEcr srTiEEr I ESS.OphENd�LOATEo ,3 l ill ;I BUCK 9 �� w I I I I 74 _` I � I I BLFFEF wmwR I 7S upME 77 I sEl�rac,� r Mow LOT r------------ ; I I I I+ I za�o•��r; I � I Page 36 Item 5. Fl 52 I r L{,T Si TWEs 3k-=S'1pIEET t • 'Q� I xlf E55. [IRTYS. Y LCCATEn On 110MH SrE OF L01 I' I I ti I i T]RNE 7 I � I I II.VD� R£Nt I PED HIIPWAY ———— 7,EF9+,ew Tw— —�o�a5€TfiFWWT L6T 77 TMES DIRECT 3-RGEr ArCE!,5. nMWMdY UrAMM '• - f'H EAST ME OF LM 77 I I I 3.0, Aul= SFTUb R LQi IRS TAKES 71REQ ZHFFf I -� +-. kmE I I BLOCK 5 I — nN WL'T D5IU OF LY.nNEKAr hTE6 I I I a LAi +fia iNSES ]RECT STT+EEi l l ice" l I 'o �T Sp " i, Tea I I 76, ,s7 ,se ass j 1 f"EGI 70 NEl:.1;1 X�CMS 0& { - T80 1 758 — ` — — ———— f I ti �'s I ! - I 1 79 159 v ' LpT ,FY i111[E3 pI1LECi S-MVMT L.OT 5+59 TakEl tlI-n Tr— -ir ACCESS C—!EWgr LCu4TED I AOM!2i. UHLrE✓rA" L;�raTE-, I ON SOUTH 91DF CF LOT. -- — 19H-%LrH 51OE DF LOT -- I: 126 gr Page 37 Item 5. Fl 53 I Lfl-r 19 TWES UREGT STREET hMESS. DRf4EW-%v L)GkTED .4W WWH NPE :]F LQT I � I I+.• I I � I - i I 17 La 16 { EILrFF'EH —-- — I ——— — — —— — — — I ' 13 rrp LM 13 T-WES DIREi:f %MEET I Fir 5 L. EAKEWAV LDC4TM I S6T8Mtk ']W WESTI ti41E MW LM. I ,.nm' sraE TRACK T— a g Y �wr S] r} r'1 Page 3 8 Sul VIP. _ ArkANEW I` aerr A'h �� ii it � � II� ■■ ■■ �n� ��� I�I�I I� III, -- �j IS�M �r � r r ra■i !ill 'w ■ !�■ No y Page 0 i�� I�■ �. 1 ���i- _� w..,• ���� i��, � Iw �� lei �� 1 m� �W I�� �� sl .ti � i �.—. --■ ��� l��A+ lams. ��� ai� , � ;,� I ■ ��, 1�i� ■ � �� �� ■ I ;; i a ds��G. �.�_ �i■� �s�s� Item 5. ■ VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial. B. PUBLIC WORDS No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=214368&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&c1=1 F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193035&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222788&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX L NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193631&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancitE.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX K. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.or zlWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=203469&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX L. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT REVIEW: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203 755&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX M. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https.Ilweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222984&dbid=0&repo MeridianCity Page 42 Item 5. ■ N. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orz/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222907&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan density recommendations of 3-8 dwelling units per acre for the majority of the site except for the southern portion adjacent to the Vantage Pointe Subdivision where there is an inadequate transition in lot sizes. Staff finds zoning the property to the R-1 S district for purpose of allowing private streets is not suitable for providing the necessary infrastructure. As mentioned in Section V above, the 30 attached dwelling units would contribute to more diversity of houses, but the remaining 299 would not. The development does exceed what is required in regard to amenities, however stafffinds some of the open space is not the useable open space as anticipated by the Plan and believes better orientation and consolidation of open space could occur. The property is near the fringe of the City only adjacent to the City limits in a select few places; this development would not be considered infill. The proposed private streets serving a significant portion of the site would not meet the intent of the Plan in regard to requiring urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including sidewalks. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the lack of variety in housing types (i.e. all single-family detached homes except for 30 attached) and lack of diversity in lot sizes is not consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts, which states a range of housing opportunities should be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The significant portion of the development proposed for private streets may pass the maintenance costs on to homeowners through the HOA, and because private streets are proposed with inadequate templates,ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Also, the Fire District has voiced concerns with service to this development until the southern fire station is constructed, has concerns with all but Phase 8 having S. Eagle Rd as the sole point of access, and does not prefer the proposed number of lots being served by gates. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Both West Ada County School District and the Community Development School Impact Review indicate this proposal would increase the number of students on schools that are already over capacity. Page 43 Item 5. M 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time as it is located near the fringe of the City and may not maximize existing public services. Further, Stafffinds the design of the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as discussed above in Section V. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is not in substantial conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to maximizing public services by prioritizing infill development over parcels on the fringe,provision of a variety of housing types, density in the LDR designated area, transitional densities, adequate provision of services (Fire Dept), usable open space, and construction of infrastructure without sidewalks, etc. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available and can be extended to accommodate the proposed development although services would be maximized by development of infill or underdeveloped parcels already in the City instead of on the fringe as is the subject property (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability ofsupporting services for theproposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property.Public testimony has been submitted from adjacent residents to the south on 1-acre lots stating there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes or zoning to theirproperties/subdivision. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Page 44 Item 5. 60 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds the proposed development preserves the natural topography/hillside along the eastern boundary of the site. Staff is unaware of any other significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Streets(UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The private streets meet the design requirements of not connecting to an arterial street, allowing sufficient maneuvering for emergency vehicles, and meeting the minimum width of 27 feet.However, the proposal exceeds the limitation of no more than 50 units being served by a gated development, and three common driveways are proposed whereas UDE 1103F-4-5 states common driveways cannot be allowed on private streets. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity The Director has safety concerns in regard to whether there could be pedestrian safety issues with residents usingprivate streets with no sidewalks and believes, at the minimum, there should be sidewalks on at least one side, or pathways that connect to all residential lots in the gated area. The Fire Department has commented they do not prefer 112 gated lots. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Proposing private streets with no sidewalks does not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multi-purpose pathways, ensuring safe routes and access, encouraging safe, physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikeable community and providing necessary infrastructure. D. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. The proposed development is a gated development,but exceeds the provisions of UDC 11-3F-4.b which limits gated developments to no more than 50 dwelling units. Page 45 A PRI EM ER GOLF COMMUNITY PREMIERVIEWSQ SKYBREAK y COMPREHENSIVE PLANQ SKYBREAK �Is I YMCA Lake Hazel _i I Sky r s CZ /Discovery Park 0 Boise Ranch tGolf Course �M Ui ■ i i SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT i&�4_ I ■■ 1-1■1 u HINK1214111111 rIJ11 1111~ rwi11 pill 1111 11SIGN114,11 SKYBREAK 111 rll R nnuuur ; ' r � � �In11r1 rrluun = 1111111 . IIL1111 ■■ �. filflH ►i�fflfll � •;- t� � i �nnirll � r - � — • ' i .* � 11111�*� r��ifrr��;'� �� 1 � I= ,�,�,������ �544�d rr� rl�f 11111111111 � � ■■ `�+.*#+'r*+a �_ �� � �. '- uriii .r • � 111111111111 � • - R ■■ - '}' -;�#'r■#��� J ■ji ■� N � {, � ��isiuii�lllilllll 11111111i1�1'� ��■ __- -- _ r— nlnl■sll� Fill a► �. 1 * • Pura 1111 =_ city :3 Vida Annexed .1111 0.11:i Property • . �r 1111!� `� ='Irrl 1111111111Laughing - � f a = =i Boarding f and F 11i1111111 �1lnulrf '•�' C • Y � • SITE PLANp SKYBREAK lip sk I'. v.�I a yy „•r � 'kl 1 � � �E jp � 4iY�14 iv -71 GATED COMMUNITY & Q SKYBREAK WON lip + • • i ii • , • • • 1111 H �� GATED STREETS CREATE WALKING PATHS &�- SKYBREAK 1 N l F— t11 ff �r -iMP _ N a s - SOUTHERN RIM SLOPE SKYBREAK ❑ Ridge Slope ■ 2.5 : 1to3:lSlope ■ Foothills type trail _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ■ Hillside Landscape maintained �6 ` . by HOA per CC&R's. 50' — 60' ❑ As tall as a 5 or 6 story building icy-.y ,.r WWI STREET - Lake Hazel Road �¢Q CONNECTIVITY - - -�Eia =-`.�k2,Har�uHd�E L�ke Ha�el�Rd E r SKYBREAK R +.c 71 M, - r i E4aMiyt Parcae�n y ����f � r r ■ a Pointe 1 PREMIER PARKS AND PATHWAYS4- �¢Q SKYBREAK + LARGE PLAY PARKA SKYBREAK r = all d TWO DOG PARKSQ -� SKYBREAK PAJF r LARGE PARKS AND PATHWAY &�- SKYBREAK . _ - -- lid. _` `• 1 athwa rk Connection Inte6or Pathway 4 Connection �� 1��1 reYi'�fsc'�".. 9ns'_: g •%::JY=i .�k- i �� �� �R� �!� �� �r+_ lR�i rrr��a•nor_ + �;l..� VNI LargeOpen F F PathwayiPark HILLSIDEQ SKYBREAK i 7 GOLF CART PATHWAY 4- �Q SKYBREAK 10, .. Regional —ate. �� �� � • ,� -f "Poise • y ' 4* 4 . • PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENTSQ SKYBREAK SKYBREAK 16 �-ti� r, .,:tiC# � • _ _ •~ - f :'+„ice �-*Y�� .-:ti�T, GATED ENTRY MONUMENT & Q SKYBREAK mv�. J; ENTRY MONUMENTS AND PARKS i&�4- I SKYBREAK Gated Emn N.Om MonLrnent ❑[•Sty r - - r r 4s I ire - _-- WYng END CAPS vs. NO END CAPS4- �Q SKYBREAK Ilk - I k T y__ � 1 SKYBREAK PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY w -- --- _ --------- Sidewalk Internal Pathway System •o Private Streets Pedestrian/Golf Cart Path W i Regional Pathway 20 -� Q�d E L , ,_:Pm E Lake��laiEklRt eiHaze TRANSITIONS IIIIIIII����►``kti VaN\-- SKYBREAK NN �� � 11111 1��11 �■� ;�7-W. I r % iilll Imo-� �• Illr F mmi • 11� �1111� �,_�� �� mama �_ • • . III rrll �1i1i11 �_�_== mass • • / • / � �� Ili ors�� ._.- ■,� E-Vartage P41nle Ln �40 rn ro TRAN S ITI 0 N TO VANTAG E PO I NTE SKYBREAK New Pathway Location •+ iii '.e rsi - — l PATHYV1r(-tp! g, �r ❑ Landscape �j .T •ti P ` SrNf�f Sil•I!ILA�:i r� 1{ � �� buffer and 'Lit 1%U �° Lots ;. Original Pathway ,rtr; 'A�eryp)� i Location p ark area. ow ❑ Transition Acre to 1 Acre • Existing Lots. 22 1 O v OPEN SPACE TRANSITION SKYBREAK 7 7 _ V ]T.1 4 � A�Q v� ❑ v b ��� � v � � e vQ a� ❑ � �Q �� 4 da0 ❑ 9 a a p ❑ 2B.OV PRfJATE STREET LOT �Q 57 CA'E Ire 13.M' F ^ 5 uVERiIf�L 71- a O a y , o C 1o8 ■ r, s v SINEW" V p 0 A�'iAJI Rf Rm tn TYPICAL SECTION - LOT 97 BLOCK 5 2 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 23 TRANSITION BERM AND LANDSCAPINGQ SKYBREAK IV ■i � �f�iL .� . �iw�� �lbt i+o�m 'wa.. -- rw�i'ihl!!� 24 �tlISEA��!�'�i�0�11■iAlO�ri!!� �i�!!i ■i 0�lll�ililiti•!!!�� ��gpie7i t U4M�.'6C7i fP � Al �Ig��i� •�. i Nt - .►,t pis ,� i��•�` LANDSCAPE BUFFERQ SKYBREAK Aso _ 7- _ �tit .L � • _ c`+'� � �, _ � r TRANSITION DETAIL SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION BREAK� SOUTH EAST ESTATE LOTS -SETBACK EXHIBIT- COMMON LOT (FOR PATHWAY) STRE TS04MATO b L L 2 L I® I ® - o � —I 5 I ti — b — 1— 0 — ® HOUSE=345C HOUSE=3450 � SQUARE FOOT SQUARE FOOT NON-BUILD is-o ioa-o" AREA LDT 89 LOT 77 � LOT 78 LDT 79 --- — — — -— — — — —— 120'-0• i. b I--- LOT vwo� REAR SETBACK kPT5 7�, 79, 77 5�TBACKS: 69T 74 59TPAgK51 FRONT YARD SETBACK=20' -NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK=T SIDE YARD SETBACK= 10' -SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK= 15' REAR YARD SETBACK = 30' -NORTH REAR YARD SETBACK=45' -SOUTH REAR YARD SETBACK= 110' 26 -WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK= 1C' EXISTING SETBACKS TO LIVING AREAQ SKYBREAK }r — in _ � E VaM•a a Poir 1'e 4 L E'VantageyPai the Lnn :�.+• yw�. �.�+_+* SERVICES � 1 SKYBREAK ❑ Public Utilities ❑ Schools ■ Sewer and Water Capacity ■ New High School and Available to the Site Elementary School ■ Power and Gas Capacity ■ Redistricting Completed Available to the Site ❑ Emergency Services ❑ Transportation ■ Within the 5 min Response Skybreak Approved by ACHD, ■ Time October2, 2020 Fire Department Approval ■ Within 1/2 Mile of the New South Fire Station 28 HOUSING DIVERSITY SKYBREAK ❑ Housing Diversity - - - - - - - - - - - 7TWo - La Rim Lots - /2acre o 15 rge +/ 1 4.5°/R 8 Single - Fstory, —_- R 1ory, ■ 15 - Two Story Golf Course Homes = 4.5% Attached / - Seigle Family 14 Large lot homes 8o x 120 = 4.3/o 1 — /'j 30 Attached Single Family Homes - g.1/o R 1_ .. r 11 �•J�•f -� __ 5 Large Rim Lot ("CEO Housing„) ■ _ 84 45 - 55 x 110 Gated Single-Story Homes R-15 Gated Single -- — o _ I _. _ - Story, Single 26/0— l R-B Single Story, 1 Family - - Single Family ' ,; - -- - ■ 171 - 40'- 55'x 105' Single-Story Homes = —R-15 Gated, 1 Srngle Family — I 2% Custom , 5 29 SKYBREAK SKYBREAK A PRIEMER GOLF COMMUNITY THANKYOU 30 SKYBREAK SKYBREAK A PRIEMER GOLF COMMUNITY supplemental information as needed 31 FIREACCESSQ I !01/101 ■g- it i -11uu11 - S KY B R E A K ��` �■_ �i IIIIIII11111111111 illlllllllll�� F5 �r- I , �► � a = Sun IIIi Ililfl 11111,E ■ � ■I/ IJ �IIIII Illllll■ • L_� 1 1111 111111 C 1•`~� - =r Ilur►rr 4�,►►►Illllli�- ■- 111111 111111 � � � � � � ►►Jllllll ���� ��IIIII ilFull 11111 �II�J111j111l1111 F �;: 1:;: ■ ; 1►1t�1� ��. Illllll =_ __ ■ ■1 �� i ww�. a , ■r,r r�lllllllllllll - -- - =Em M ���4111111 ---- - 11 Illlllli i1111111 � - - =_ = ---IEEE aw>•au ixi,z5t •�� 41r I4 �4 SKYBREAK FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER SKYBREAK h. S_ MERIP I AN Ft RE DIF_1RT 1E1T STAFF REPORT DATE:313/2021 TO:A14n Tiefertbsch REVIEWER:Joseph Bottgiamo,Deputy Chicfof Pr"cntion 2W-RW 1 D4 SUBIECT,H-202M79 PROJECT NAME:$kybreal:Sub FireDeparlmetki Sumtnan of Reptrrt: . rr' This project can be scr+itcd 6y the Meridian Fire flcp�rtmcnt• A_ A large subdivision with only access"to Eaglc Rd. B. We have been requesiing a connection to Lakc Hazel to ilte North bui found that the preser,adou of the Southm Rim prevents such an access- C. Thfi west end of the pr<piect dorS fa11 within thr 5 minute5 Tespunye area. Q. Station A has a low reliability rate.Station 14[next duel in Bois€also has the same rchability Tarr. E. There arc gated arras that will cause delays.Opiicom devices on the gates shall be required, F. The project will require a wildland safety plan. Ct_ There will be extended response iinres to the east side of the subdivision. 1. Fire Rcspanse Time Travel time frum nearest fire stmian(letiwl rtf senyice expeetatirm goal=g minus) }inst of this develop ment falls outside the S minute response time area as shown an the pri growth map(Green areal.11 is nearest to Fire Station A,This fire station is approslmar irom like project. 33 PINNACLE (APEX) FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER SKYBREAK MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT DATE:6/5/2020 DATE:6/4/2020 TO:Sonya Allen TO:Sonya Allen R REVIEWER:Joseph Bongiorno,Deputy Chief of Prer•cntion 208-888-I234 EVIEWE R;Joseph Bongiorno,Deputy Chiefof Prevention 208-888-1234 SUBJECT:H-2020.0057 SUBJECT:H-2020-0056 PR[I.1ECT NAME;Apex Southeast-PP PROJECT NAME:Apex Northwest-PP Fire Department Summary of Report: Fire Department Summary of Report: Overview,•This project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department.The phasing plan shall be Overview:This project can he serviced by the Meridian Fire Department.The phasing plan shall be adheared to for fire department access.It has been included in this document.Any variation shall be adheared to for fire department access.It has been included in this document.Any variation shall be approved by the fire department prior to change. approved by the Fire department prior to change. 1. Fire Response Time Travel time from nearest fire station(level of service expectation goal=5 minutes) 1. Fire Response Time Travel time from nearest fire station(level of service expectation goal—5 minutes) Only a small part of this development falls within the 5 minute response time ar own Part of this development falls within the 5 minuee response time are riority growth priority growth map.It is nearest to Fire Station 4.This Eire station is approxi rely 3.1 miles Ira map.It is nearest to Fire Station 4.This fire station is approximar v 3..3 miles Fron,tl,e ruject. the project. J _ Pinnacle Pinnacle North South 34 WWW ❑ ACHD Programed Road Improvements e •It F - 0 2021. - Eagle Road —Amity to Victory, 5lanes ' 2023 - Eagle Road —Amity to Lake Hazel, 5 lanes 2023 - Eagle Road and Hazel Intersection 202 - Lake Hazel — Cloverdale to Eagle, lanes _ •, � -�r r � 4 g � 5 - ❑ Approved by AC D October 2, 2020:-.,section - INTERSECTION Lake Hazel Road Consent Agenda 3 - _ Lanes 2024 d w AM a •o - lii S�cyBreak — �-- = . 35 4 TRANSITION �¢Q SKYBREAK a 0 •# # I6 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACEQ SKYBREAK 4 � � C �. ug o� o� o � 111010 o , 0 ADDITIONAL ON - STREET PARKINGQ SKYBREAK n A `it A' d Mn l • PATHWAY MASTERPLAN SKYBREAK ELAMITY•R E MI. - RD� sdale ■ ��• , � ■ •.. New Pathway —EZLAKE'HAZEL-RD -rstruction �. • r Fi #R7■■■. a 1•� #■a#�. or f� �.a ram# }!f ■ w -+E,CGEUM61A-RD ..; *. ■ r !a• a 5r.w i,.,y �•a.+� s 39 NEIGHBORHOOD HOMESQ SKYBREAK EXISTING HOMETO REMAINQ SKYBREAK HOUSING STORIES SKYBREAK ii SIn !+(9 Story w/ _ Not I- 'i Bonus Room I _ Rtrtd i I ir I lip I 42 WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER M7 SKYBREAK vA West Ada SCHOOL DISTRICT Enrollment Capacity Miles Idev.to School) Hillsdale Elementary 645 700 1.5 idmn-D VII 33 E.laad..ay A„B.,5-U2 Lake Hazel Middle School 920 1000 2.4 rIE k.yhrP.M rile Ha.H-202PO127 Mountain View High School 2210 2175 4.8 Grar Plana: Fwnt 5&4d Dime t al. 2 Idba Wen Ada Schrnl PnN[4 has"Penenred siErvFrant and sustained arw+in FmLd�ent .rnnUrwud.rlCe lACId11 i-rCi[[M.n*.i W!(M.W[lMr.11OMae1 rhl•Gt1 r�R AfC CPCrinnaw Of a.0t'P[�Pi[[{y.flW ran us.anus IYra.we ran r-[ak[1 nu th—h—.whr.co.++WW-t—M N—4;f=M hemn IL¢3_3� Wrcl.tlns!raw sdhfN abed[lNNdr.n-Appfwai M tr a SkAttak SubdlrlslM wIII all[xt a 01IRr u li the folk fq rhn*m W,g Ada plgnc[ ❑ Schools wllwelenemr,!!rr ws 7�Y Is Lane ki...4 M�dte WN& 827 low 2.. ■ New High School and M.iot..VI•w s1lp A' School Innr•d.S hRd pitrnr!wppen..x "` otnn the nFedfm.ddMb W cabal upxny In 0[der le mee[[he need far adauonar uAml[dpa[i[..wnt And Scma!`- Elementary w.l a[[ep[Ne ddla[gn d sane appmala[r fo.a uh.ol fll. ►—M,,oe a bond m w11 be re.ulrrd.rmr v.the rnmrn.nr—of n.w xhod [V.nSrV[dA[. ■ Aeslden6[aw.ot teas—d of attm&ng me nelFVtWdmod uhod as n may be—ssany to hu[stud is r.a-table Redistricting Completed [sas,uodrm.[ro[[lhe dl-C[ tr.cate[voP—tr.derlrt Row tl[[t.nd1-0 p[+drlw Wn thn..m�nll Mau rllR W.v err.[mn C,,rhrdnroNpe.l.pro.ide sak walkw—.br5.eh.rha.rd paid—isn.omss1...r u.d—:5sh.oI[.—r ■ The District h a s a Plan .nd—iftp n[ddr.Pd 1.[J.h.C.&-67-MOR I—4—hp—w11 rnn—.h.eP n 1.P I an[h. dnlrsrP[oparrtv StnLerely, -A—N.I>tir ek.nmg and ur eloa—".mi--r Wnt Ad.School Phtrlrt 43 WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER SKYBREAK From: Miranda Carson Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:44 PM To: Liz 5trader Cc: Chris Johnson;Adrienne Weatherly Subject: RE:Application tonight - Pura Vida Yes the enrollment and the way it is currently operating were based on a conversation with WASD staff. This particular development will add about 34 high schoolers(25 middle schoolers and 51 elementary schoolers). From seeing how Rocky Mountain operated(pre-COVID and over capacity)and hearing how Mountain View is operating now, I feel safe saying just about 450 over capacity is a good enrollment for a high school to sit at.This is due to the fact that students travel,change rooms,co-op, etc; high schools have more opportunities to get creative with placement than the other 2 levels. Rocky Mountain for example with 1800 capacity was above 2200 before they started having real issues(aside from student parking). Miranda Carson Comprehensive Associate Coordination Planner City of Meridian Community Development 33 E. Broadway Ave.,Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0319 CUE TI] SCHOOLBOUNDARIES $� :.... N IL I SKYBREAK .............. i r f I i Victory Rd Wes Ada School District ml d ■ = ! ,. a} � ■ f S-kybreak Caks Hazel Rd LZ r N District Boundary Line Columbia Rd una School District ti 45 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTQ - 11111� 1111i=I = SKYBREAK Ifrlll! - �-- Highlands � I ral �-•- Century Farm Heights _ —V . - - - EHnxakFtd 'Lako:Hexel a iistel. F. rch f.v. r nu`. Poima e � unuu a, rPura •. � � — rr eii►11� MIS - - a - .� -- _ -- + �Iflll " " 1111� Im Pinnacle ( _ �!Ilillld��� b I �Iltli lllllllf��- ::-1 I .fir s 111`► I__ ILU ullll 1111 Laughing i orse = .. ! r i Bearding and -- w 1! IIIINI IRItrllNi t _ t �� Itl111- ==- r 1 - G Vantage ,1} ' Pointe Y *. 46 CUL- DA- SAC LENGTH l 4 \ SKYBREAK 0 1 577' 9 _ Cul-Da-Sac - Length 47 Item 6. Ll 61 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H-2021- 0008) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel A. Request: Annexation of 4 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district to develop the property with a fire station and police station. Item 6. 162 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: April 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station &Police Substation (H-2021-0008) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel A. Request: Annexation of 4 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district to develop the property with a fire station and police station. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 1, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H-2021-0008) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral want to Testify YES OR NO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 4/l/2021 Legend DATE: PFajecT Lacs Tian TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner UUILUX 208-884-5533 - - Bruce Freckleton,Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: AZ H-2021-0008 , Meridian South Fire Station&Police Substation 41 LOCATION: 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd South side of E. Lake Hazel Rd,between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&zoning of 4 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district to develop a 11,650 sq. ft. fire station and 11,060 sq. ft.police substation building(public or quasi-public use). The applicant is the City of Meridian. The property is directly east of Discovery Park, and surrounded by land that was annexed in 2015 as the South Meridian Annexation,although the subject property was not included as part of the annexation. Plans are to develop the fire station and the police substation separately, with the fire station construction planned for 2022. Following annexation, a conditional use permit is required for a public or quasi-public use in the R-8 zone district per UDC 11-2A-2. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Residential/Rural Proposed Land Use(s) Public or quasi-public use(Fire Station and Police Substation) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2,with the fire station proposed for development first. Density(gross&net) N/A Open Space(acres,total N/A [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities N/A Pagel Item 6. 164 Description Details Page Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 3,2021,no neighbors attended. attendees: History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State E.Lake Hazel Rd/New N/S collector that is planned for Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) construction at the east of the property. Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant will be required to construct collector street Access along the eastern property line which will stub at the south adjacent to the southern property line. Existing Road Network E.Lake Hazel Rd. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None along property.There is an existing 10'pathway Buffers along the Discovery Park frontage to the west. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will be required to construct 10'pathway along E.Lake Hazel Rd and will construct the new north/south collector roadway at the site's east property line to stub to the site's south property line as well as 10'pathway along this frontage as well. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Discovery Park(South Meridian Regional Park)directly size) adjacent to the west and south. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station The proposal includes a fire station. Police Service • Distance to Police Station The proposal includes a police substation. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services N/A • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.08 • Other Sewer will come from Discovery Park Flow is committed Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See Application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Other Water will come from E.Lake Hazel Rd. Page 2 1 1Aerial Map allr# - — uw I `j IIII mill 11111 1 _ � IIIIII }+- '�k' rF+F•.�s.� f ' Hill — IIIIIIIL 4 i0. I4' '' i r 1111111 , �' L f 11 ■ d111 IIII �7�1 1 F - - 11 11 - " r,�ll■'I�Y'..sf i�f1►.� !L ' �RIII .IIR 11,111. k :&' wN a - - E EL = �1111 L�; . 111 a i Jill Legend 111 11� lilt 1 - III- - — MI1 1 � �1` E1,1 11111 11r11 IIIORI I IIII „ _ IIII pYYIYn I uu Iglu ,,, - uuu sue- z nw - Ii111, I IIIIII— 11111 1 _ 1 Z ��111111 — � _ Ilili _ iiiin Ilnlllll :1111� �iiii1117 11 ■ �11� Ir IIII �f11-1 1 � ■ 1�11��1 �INI11' �h1 Idl II IIII ■■ 1 _ � Illlll� 1111111 11 uumu I = m 1 r 11111111 ���. + M =- � LIII rI1R _ IIII I111111111111= Illllllll � �I II„IIII E- •E E-HPi�E 1111� � IIII IIIIII = ■ == IIII- �■� , u uuu I =,IIII' u ulll 'III ' I uuu uu � I - 111111 IIII _I111�b 11 III Item 6. F166] III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Stacy Redman, City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave,Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/12/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 3/9/2021 Radius notification published on 2/22/2021 Nextdoor posting 3/9/2021 Sign Posting 3/15/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /g compplan) The property is designated for medium density residential(MDR). This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The FLUM shows a fire and police station symbol in the general vicinity(north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd). The purpose of this designation is to preserve and protect existing and planned fire and police station locations throughout the Area of City Impact which provide efficient emergency response. The proposed fire and police station in this location would be consistent with the recommendations of the FLUM. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): • Develop and implement master plans for all public facilities, services, and safety to guide the growth of the City. (3.02.01). The subject property is shown to be within an area designated as afire/police station on the Future Land Use Map. • Support the appropriate expansion of City facilities, services, staff, and other resources to keep up with demand and established levels of service. (3.02.01 D) • Ensure that quality fire protection,rescue and emergency medical services are provided within Meridian. (4.11.03) • Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks. (3.02.01 G) A significant amount of land has been annexed in the surrounding area. This includes the Impressive East Ridge, Bicentennial Farms, Apex and Apex Southeast, Lavender Heights, Sky Page 4 Item 6. ■ Mesa, Pura Vida and The Keep subdivisions. Much of this area is not within the City's preferred 5-minute response time, and this future fire station and police sub-station were anticipated during the analysis of these projects'analysis. This annexation and zoning would support appropriate expansion and maintenance of services and would ensure quality fire and emergency services and would significantly improve the emergency response times. • Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. (4.04.01A) The Pathways Master Plan shows a future 10'wide pathway along E. Lake Rd. as well as a 10'pathway along the eastern portion of the property(in the area of the future collector road). The 10'pathway already exists along the northern perimeter of Discovery Park; the applicant will be required to complete this pathway along the north and eastern property lines. • Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.02B) The property presently takes access from two driveways off E. Lake Hazel Rd. However, a future collector is shown at the east side of the property. This collector is intended to serve the subject property as well as provide access to Discovery Park. The applicant will build this collector road from E. Lake Hazel Rd to the southern property line.As is required by UDC 11-3A-3, the applicant will be required to close both driveways accessing E. Lake Hazel Rd. • Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices. (3.07.01A) The applicant's concept plan shows landscape buffers along E. Lake Rd and the future collector street. Landscape screening is reflected on the plan to screen the site from Discovery Park at the west and any future development to the south. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing residence and agricultural buildings on the site which were constructed in 1940.All buildings will be removed with development of the site. D. Proposed Use Analysis: UDC defines fire station and police stations as a"public or quasi-public use."This use is allowed in the R-8 zone district as a conditional use. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-30 states public or quasi-public uses shall meet the standards for office use in accord with the district in which the use is located. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The applicant proposes to zone the property to R-8. Dimensional standards in the R-8 zone district include a minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., front setbacks of 25' from a collector street, rear setback of 12' and 10' side setback. Building height is limited to 35'. A 25' buffer is required along arterial roads and 20' along collector roads. The concept plan as submitted appears to meet the minimum dimensional standards. Page 5 Item 6. 168 G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Lake Hazel Road is improved with 2-travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is 50-feet of right-of-way for Lake Hazel Road. Lake Hazel Road is planned to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. ACHD is requiring the applicant to dedicate right-of-way along Lake Hazel Road abutting the site.ACHD has mentioned the applicant will be required to construct a minimum 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk,but as already mentioned,the Parks Dept is requiring the applicant to construct a 10' detached pathway along E. Lake Hazel to connect to the pathway to the west. The applicant will be required to construct a new north/south collector roadway along the site's east property line from the south property line to Lake Hazel Road. The applicant will also be required to install a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the stub street since it will be longer than 150-feet. Although ACHD is requesting the applicant construct 5' wide sidewalk along this collector,per the Parks Department,the applicant will be required to construct a 10' detached pathway along this section. This E. Lake Hazel Rd/Collector Road intersection is planned for signalization. The applicant has proposed to construct 2 driveways from the site to the new collector roadway; one for the police station and a wider driveway for the fire station. The applicant will be required to close the 2 existing driveways from the site onto Lake Hazel Road. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C requires one(1) space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor area. With 22,710 sq. ft. between the first station and the police sub-station,45 parking spaces are required,whereas 55 are provided. 17 parking spaces are provided to the public at the east, and 38 secure parking spaces are provided at the west side of the property. 12 of the parking spaces would be covered. The concept plan shows at least 3 additional spaces for fire apparatus at the east side of the fire station. The parking plan does not appear to meet all the landscaping requirements of UDC 11-3B-8. Internal parking lot landscaping is required with any parking lot with more than 12 spaces, including internal islands at intervals no greater than 12 spaces. Landscape planters are also required at the end of rows of parking. This will need to be addressed at the time of CZC submittal. I. Pathways( UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan shows a future 10' wide pathway along E. Lake Rd. as well as a 10' pathway along the eastern portion of the property(in the area of the future collector road). The 10' pathway already exists along the northern perimeter of Discovery Park; construction of a pathway along the north and a new detached pathway along the eastern property line will be required with development of the site. J. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The applicant will be required to construct pathways along the north and east property lines as part of this development. K. Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are not included with this development. Page 6 Item 6. ■ L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-5 requires a 25' wide buffer along arterial roads and 20' along collector roads. These buffers must be landscaped at one(1)tree per thirty-five(35)linear feet. Parking lot landscaping is required around the perimeter of the parking lot,and no linear grouping of parking spaces shall exceed twelve (12)in a row,without an internal planter island. Parking islands are also required at the ends of all parking rows. The submitted concept plan does suggest the road buffers are incorporated but along the E. Lake Hazel Rd frontage there is no landscaping shown. As mentioned in the parking analysis above, the parking lot and road buffers will need to meet the requirements of UDC 11-2A-5 at the time of CZC. There are existing trees on the site that will be removed with development of the site. The applicant should work with the City Arborist and submit a landscape plan that meets the tree mitigation requirements of UDC I I-3B-10 at the time of CZC submittal. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): No waterways are associated with this development. N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): The applicant proposes security fencing of up to 8' in height(fencing shown in red on the attached concept plan). The materials and type of fencing is not specified. Staff notes fencing height is limited to 6' in height in the R-8 zone district. The applicant should apply for alternative compliance concurrently with the CZC. There was discussion during the pre-application meeting regarding whether there would be security issues with the screen fencing on the west side of the site obstructing views into Discovery Park. It was determined this would require storage of vehicles at the east, along the new collector and in the same location as public parking,which was determined to be less than ideal. O. Utilities(UDC I1-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The submitted Water Main& Service Sizing Plan indicates 8"water and sewer lines serving the property. Water would be provided from a main in E. Lake Hazel Rd. Sewer would be provided from a main at Discovery Park. P. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted colored elevations for both buildings.Architecture consists of sloped roof buildings with CMU and wood grain metal panel as the primary field materials, and exposed timber frame and metal soffit accents. The proposed architecture will be reviewed in detail with Administrative Design Review and must meet the requirements of the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual and the site and structure design standards in UDC 1I- 3A-19. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation per the provisions and comments included in Section VII in accord with the Findings in Section VIII. Page 7 Item 6. ■ VII. EXHIBITS A. Concept Plan(date: 1/5/2021) --------.--.-.-`-.-,-.-•-•-`-•-� j 1 1 1 OF T 1 x: 1 _ 1 1: 1 1 ` 1 i is 1 i .� . j.-... .. ....... i 0 rf7 Item 6. 171 B. Water Main and Service Sizing Plan(date: 2/23/2021) - F.I,'-{=- ?=1 f SLEIIONLlF:— rlrhT-DF-'hIIA I h .. ...... ......... .,.....,, . ...�Q Ak lu i r 24� wAI--R {STUBBED V ONERS, +211-LT Kfi'S[10 s� : aF3i'�+IGE&Z4NWA7L9 MFTFR 1 - ?RJPU£ED HYC9AVT 1 • �: _� It - 8-M SEWER MAIN (s1LoULD�Y till 1EgE�, M SIN FRF SFFNICF n4F INTO'FT AT US% MIN] m FlRC I QRAN 1 ` 24N DOMESEM WATER i I;',T:E$24N WATT!AMR [9Y 4T HERS) 1 a 2144.5lmui foAk MY 9THFR21 1 F i EVIL.], 1 = i Bl.[I{i,5[];F[:;J iBY 4THER$� 'r,1FiYiYiit�fYilililiiif fl fiiY 7'Jri Page 9 Item 6. F172] C. Building Elevations: 2/9/2021) �— LEGEND 1.)Four Fold flows 2.)Overhead 3ectlanel Doors 3.)Composts Shingle Roofing f 4.)Mehl Fasda with Metal Soft 5.)Glulam Columns and Beams 6.)Metal Pane4s 7.)Wood Grain Metal Panel S.)Premlum Grade Ground Face CMU 9.)Wcad Grain Metal Panel Screening B e 1 a a a a r a �61 FRONT ELEVATION Page 10 Item 6. F173] - = - LEGEND 1.)Four Fold GYara 2.)Dwsrtmad Sew doors 3-)DongxmHe Shingle Rooding v� 4.)Me4!Faede wM Mecal So1Rt r I 6.]€G&dMFRC<M ng end Beams 5.)Mail Panels 7.)Wood Grain Mate)Panel 6_)Premium Grade Grand Feae CMU 9_)Waotl Grain Ma®I Farsl SerwkV Page 11 Item 6. F174] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual building elevations, and the provisions contained herein. b. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. An application for Design Review shall be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. Per UDC 11-2A-2, a conditional use permit is required for a public or quasi-public use in the R-8 zone district prior to CZC and design review submittal. d. A segment of the City's 10-foot multi-use pathway along E. Lake Hazel Rd and the new collector street planned along the east boundary of the property shall be constructed prior to certificate of occupancy. e. The applicant shall design and construct the multi-use pathways along E. Lake Hazel Rd and the new collector street planned along the east boundary of the property consistent with Meridian Pathways Master Plan. f. Applicant shall construct the required landscape buffers along streets consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C in accord with the installation schedule in UDC 11-3B- 14. g. Parking lot landscaping shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-3B-8C. h. At time of CZC, a landscape plan shall be submitted that preserves any existing trees on the subject property that are four-inch caliper or greater; or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-IOC. i. Applicant shall comply with any ACHD conditions of approval. j. All proposed fencing and/or any fencing shall be constructed as required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable, or submit an application for alternative compliance concurrent with the future CUP or CZC/DES application. k. Collector Road to east shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 1. There shall be no access to or from E. Lake Hazel Rd. m. The applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. n. The applicant shall be required to comply with tree preservation mitigation standards per UDC 11-3B-10. A. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Sanitary sewer and water infrastructure plans will need to be submitted and approved through the Land Development Division of Community Development. 1.2 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards. Page 12 Item 6. 175 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department. 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 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.3 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.4 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. 2.5 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.6 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.7 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.8 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. 2.9 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. 2.10 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. 2.11 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.meridiancitE.oMIgublic_works.aspx?id=272. B. MERIDIAN PARKS AND PATHWAYS https://weblink.meridianciby.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224659&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- C. ACHD https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224325&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty Page 13 Item 6. F176] II. 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; Stafffinds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property. This area is specifically recommended for afire and/or police station (see Section V for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds that a map amendment to the R-8 zoning district is consistent with Comprehensive Plan as the Plan puts high priority on quality fire protection, rescue and emergency medical services. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare as the proposed facilities are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city As the need for adequate public services and facilities is mentioned repeatedly in the Comprehensive Plan, Stafffinds that the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 14 Item 7. Ll 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason &Associates, Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-0 zoning district commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000 square-foot office building in lieu of residential development. Item 7. 178 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason &Associates, Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-0 zoning district commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000 square-foot office building in lieu of residential development. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 1, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO qj S 2 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/1/2021 Legend DATE: -- ® ® 0 Project Location ' TO: Planning&Zoning Commission a FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner " -:--___ 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0122 ® 6 3175 N. Ten Mile Rezone LOCATION: The site is located at 3175 N. Ten Mile ® EL Road,the southwest corner of the Ten Mile and Ustick Road intersection,in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 3, — Township 3N.,Range 1 W. M WF �® I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to rezone a 1.16 acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000 square foot office building in lieu of residential development,by Mason&Associates. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.16 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(3-8 du/ac) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial—Office Lots(#and type;bldg./common) One(1)building lot Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one phase Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 7,2020—1 attendee and 1 letter received attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-10-005 (ACHD Ten Mile);DA Inst.#111024535 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Page 1 Item 7. F_18o] Description Details Page Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two accesses are proposed,both to the adjacent Arterial Hwy/Local)(Existing and Streets—Access on Ustick is limited to a Right-in only by Proposed) ACHD;Access to Ten Mile is proposed as a right-in/right- out access. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No stub street connections are available due to site location Access and existing development. Cross-access is not feasible or proposed. Existing Road Network Yes Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing sidewalk;buffer is not properly vegetated currently Buffers Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are proposed or required. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 0.5 miles from Fire Station#2 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds.If right-in only access is removed,Fire desires it to become an emergency-only access. Police Service _ • Concerns None Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services N/A • Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.08 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed •Services are installed to site from W.Niemann Drive from the West. Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •There is no water infrastructure shown in this application. •There are two existing water stubs: one to the north off of Ustick;and one to the east off of Ten Mile.Any stub that is not used is required to be abandoned. Page 2 1 1 1 11NII11 - . - I ' mill 1111111 , millI Ii s .,��IV� 111111 �I. - :-a��- d_:=• `-�'` �j �. y1111■III 1111111 V► � ■ III■1■ � —J� � I, _ .1.1.11 ■ - � �' v��� all �S Iy *IUST+;CK�■■�� pm n ul III - USTIC'� ■�j��Ir�i■iw r■: I��i :::■ I n1 - ���.� s NONE .■u■.r.!.1 . e - ■ Ripon III MEN III ►1 i...a.. I..1 ..■.■ !1 r 1_' � i�'���'_•, 1 ■r� 0 1 - - o - ■ is ii ii !� � � � y�• - • - • ■ , - • - • �11111 I■1111 111111■:1111■111■ 11 111■. AIII � �II■■ n1nuN ■■ .�■■■■1 I■:I ioil 111111 iii�w1 1■ u w f ■Ia1 ■ -■ •. - n COCA `�■1■11■1■11■■I ,, 11 Emmons �r■■111■111■i � 1 ununnr+,l �♦ ' Iw 111■111 . ' � I� J■�I ■■■■■ ►� , i■iiiiiii■� �1 e� —US 1, ■■■■■ ■■IA II ■■■ ■ ■11 unoilr r■1u�r,USTIC-� ppn n �•�•m ■ �■ ��IY unnli. r■.■■.■. �' I iioo■ � ■ 1!;' momA■ ■I {� nn ■ �J ■ o■ ■. .l ■ I??Il■■ ■■ go ■�1■■■ I nun : � i■■ • ■■.A:."n ..•y.. ■■■I : ■�■ ■■■�i. ■1 .rr ■■11 �i■.i.■ ..1::: q.. ■ ■ ■■ Z�■ ■ ■■��■ ■■ ■■■.■.■1■a �Z ■■■■■....a r■ ■■ ■■■ ■■..! an in rr Wf1111■11111 m Wj ■■■r .� r..nn..n un Ilfi�jIn.n■_iii.A .��m 111111 NO NONE 1lo■■n ■■■■ . 1 - ....-.... ..: .. .::...:: .� e: a�■.�, ,. UJ�UQ ■I■■■ ---1 .� '��� rn■i?ru.ri■ � ::�nn11 .. u. �■.. ■■■■■ ■■■■■_ t !�■`11■■■■■■■ nu nuniq m IN 0 i Item 7. F182] IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/12/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 3/9/2021 Site Posting 3/20/2021 Nextdoor posting 3/9/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject site is somewhat of a residentially zoned outparcel due to the fact it located on a hard corner of two arterial streets and has no local street access to be utilized. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan has a provision to allow properties less than two acres in size (subject site is 1.16 acres) that have the access constraints to request a Rezone from a residential district to the Limited Office (L-O) district. The existing site constraints and this provision of the comprehensive plan are the reasons for the Rezone request. The L-O zoning district and office uses are not inherently allowed or compatible within the MDR future land use designation. However, with the allowed provision, office uses may occur with added requirements that deal with mitigating any noxious uses or incompatibilities of having an office near single-family residential. The Applicant has submitted a site plan that shows compliance with all dimensional standards for a commercial development and within the L-O zoning district. With the proposed site plan and proposed use of a dental office(a principally permitted use within the L-O zoning district)Stafffinds the proposed Rezone and use to be generally consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Part of the site design shows a landscape buffer adjacent to the abutting residential which is a requirement of the existing Development Agreement(DA)for the subject site. This DA was required when the property was annexed into the City for ACHD in 2010. As Staff analyzed the subject application and site history, Staff realized that a Development Agreement Modification is also required due to the original DA being for a residential development and not a commercial development. Therefore, the proposed Rezone and office use are not generally consistent with the existing DA. DA Modifications only require Council action so,following the Commission hearing the Staff recommends the Applicant submit a DA Modification application to run concurrently with this Rezone application for the purpose of entering into a new DA, subject to proposed development plan and new DA provisions in Section VIII.A below. Staff ,finds the proposed project and site design to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Page 4 Item 7. F183] "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A). The proposed commercial project sets the building as far away from the existing residential as is physically possible. In addition, the Applicant is showing the required landscape buffer adjacent to the existing homes to the south and west. Because of the proposed layout and landscape buffering, the proposed building and use should be compatible with the surrounding residential uses, especially after Staff's recommended revisions discussed in later sections regarding the fencing and landscape buffer width. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing stubs abutting the site,per Public Works comments. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal by being within half a mile of a Fire Station. School capacity is not a factor in a commercial development.A project of this small size should not impact the abutting transportation corridors but the Applicant's proposal to utilize an entrance that is part of a turn-lane for the main intersection is not supported by code. Staff finds that the existing development of the immediate area and proposed use create conditions for adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Support the inclusion of small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan,where appropriate." (3.06.02A). The proposed use directly abuts residential homes but has no shared accesses with these homes. However, there is easy pedestrian access to the proposed dental office from the adjacent subdivisions via the local and arterial sidewalks. Locating a neighborhood commercial use like that of a dental office near residential with easy pedestrian and vehicle access meets the intent of this comprehensive plan policy. "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily,and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D). With the proposed building elevations showing a 22'high building at its maximum and the required landscape buffer to the adjacent residential uses, the proposed use should be integrated with the existing neighborhood. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.011)).Proposed project is maintaining the existing detached sidewalks along Ustick and Ten Mile and shows sidewalk connections from building entrance to the arterial sidewalks. The proposed pedestrian accesses should be adequate for the proposed use. "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing a commercial development that places the building the furthest away from the residential it can be and proposes a 20 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the homes. The site design and landscaping should provide for a use that is complementary to the existing homes. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in order support the proposed office use. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on site. Subject site has two water stubs to the property and a sewer service line stubbed to it from the west through a driveway located on an adjacent City owned property.No other site improvements are known at this time. Page 5 Item 7. F184] D. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations of the proposed single-story commercial building. The submitted elevations show a single story building approximately 22' to top of plate in the area of the building that directly abuts the intersection;this area is meant to hold the corner of this intersection. The remaining portions of the building are approximately 17.5' in height. Overall the building is shown with varying parapet heights, a stone material banding along the bottom of the building,horizontal wall modulation, and a main field material that appears to be stucco. The south facing elevation also shows awnings and windows nearly the length of the building lending itself to a modern storefront feel. New commercial buildings require Administrative Design Review prior to building permit submittal so Staff will perform a more complete analysis of the proposed elevations at the time of that application submittal. Staff recommends the north facing elevation incorporate an additional field material to satisfy one or more of the architectural standards. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is a dental office within a proposed commercial building approximately 10,000 square feet in size. This use is a permitted use within the requested L-O zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2. The existing DA provision that requires a 20'landscape buffer adjacent to the three existing residences to the south and west. The submitted site plan shows this buffer with adequate landscaping and therefore compliance with this provision. A number of the parking spaces are facing directly towards one of the homes and there is an existing wood fence located along the shared property lines. Because the proposed use would have more vehicular traffic than residential, Staff finds that the proposed landscaping and existing wood fencing may not be enough screening to mitigate light and noise pollution from the proposed dental office and parking lot. City of Meridian does not allow double fencing so if any solid fencing were to be required it would have to replace the existing fencing and may require this Applicant work with the adjacent homeowner if the fence is not owned by this land owner, convoluting the process and end result. The Applicant should work with the adjacent homeowners to replace the wood fencing with privacy vinyl fencing. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed site plan shows compliance with all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plan for the proposed L-O zoning district as outlined in UDC Table 11-2B-3. The submitted site plan shows parking space at the required 19'depth and 9'width with all drive aisles being at least 25'wide to accommodate two-way traffic and adequate space for emergency services. In addition, the main drive aisle in the center of the site is at least 41'wide which is well beyond the required width. As noted above, the Applicant is showing the DA required 20'landscape buffer but Staff believes there is a better use of the site area when the drive aisle width is also considered. For example, to further mitigate any issues with the proposed office use and parking spaces abutting the residential homes, the Applicant could widen the landscape buffer that abuts 3079 N. Firelight Place (the home at the southwest corner of the site). The Applicant could widen this buffer to 30' wide and pull the proposed parking spaces even further from the fence. Increasing the buffer width and therefore requiring additional landscaping is a better alternative to replacing the existing fencing. Staff recommends that a wider landscape buffer be required to help minimize noise and light pollution. Page 6 Item 7. 185 G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to the site is proposed via two connections to the adjacent arterials—one right-in only access is proposed to Ustick and one right-in/right-out access is proposed to Ten Mile. The proposed access to Ustick does not meet ACHD policies but was a negotiated access at the time the property sold. The proposed access to Ten Mile does meet ACHD policy and is recommended for approval by ACHD within their staff report. See their report in Section VIII.D for more detailed information on the ACHD site specific conditions of approval. Staff supports the proposed and limited access to Ten Mile Road commensurate with the approval from ACHD. In addition to the access to Ustick not meeting ACHD policy, the City can restrict access for the development further despite ACHD previously granting the access with the sale of the property. The proposed access to Ustick is proposed as an entrance only into site but there would be no true way to restrict vehicles from utilizing it as an exit as well. In addition, this access point is directly within a right-hand turn lane on Ustick which furthers the safety issues associated with this access point. Therefore, through UDC 11-3A-3,Staff recommends the proposed Ustick access not be approved and instead utilize it as an emergency only access barricaded with knockdown bollards, to be approved by Meridian Fire. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 3C-6B for nonresidential uses. Commercial uses require I space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. The Applicant's submitted site plan shows a total of 42 parking spaces which exceeds the 20 spaces that are required at a minimum for the proposed building size of approximately 10,000 square feet. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are existing along both arterial streets(Ustick and Ten Mile)in accord with UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards.No changes to these sidewalks are required or proposed. The Applicant is also showing sidewalk connections from the front of the building to the arterial sidewalks,as required by code. Staff finds the existing and proposed sidewalks meet UDC requirements. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The Applicant is proposing landscaping regulated by three code sections due to their locations, Buffers Along Streets,Parking Lot Landscaping, and Landscape Buffers to Adjoining Uses (UDC 11-3B-7, 11-3B-8, & 11-3B-9,respectively). The Applicant is proposing a 20'landscape buffer to the abutting residential uses as required by the existing Development Agreement. However, the requested L-O zoning district also requires this buffer per the dimensional standards of the zone.As noted in Section V.F, Staff recommends this buffer be enlarged to 30'to place the proposed parking spaces further away from the residences. The proposed parking lot landscaping appears to meet UDC requirements as outlined in UDC 11-3B-8. The submitted site plan does not show landscaping between the existing detached sidewalk and back of curb. This area of the site is also required to be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-7. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to correct this with the CZC submittal. Page 7 Item 7. F186] K. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the required landscape buffers in accord with 11-3A-15. This irrigation will provide for healthier and sustained landscaping that is an integral buffer between the proposed use and the existing residences. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested Rezone per the recommended DA provisions in Section VII and the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 8 Item 7. 187 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Exhibit and Legal Description Ma_5c)n Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners 924 V St.So.Nampa,ID 83651 A'5 S cp C f a tc's 1 C. Ph(208)454-0256 Fax(208)467-4130 e-mail:dholzh ginasonandr5sociales.us FOR: McCarter-Moorehouse JOB NO.:AU1920 DATE: October 15,2020 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of Government Lot 1 of Section 3,Township 3 North,Range 1 West East,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 1,said corner being S 89'07'06"E a distance of 2640.66 feet from the N114 of Section 3; 'thence N 99'07'22"W a distance of 285.88 feet along the north boundary of Government Lot 1; Thence S 00'23' 5 1"W a distance of 61.00 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Ustick Road; Thence S 89'07'22"E a distance of 30.12 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence S 89'07'22"E a distance of 167.57 feet along the northcrly right of way of Ustick Road; Thence S 47'20'44"E a distance of 42.40 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road to a point on the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road; Thence S 00'24'09"W a distance of 27 5.5 7 feet along the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road to a point on the northerly boundary of Firelight Estates; Thence along the northerly boundary of Firelight Estates the following courses and distances; Thence N 89'36' 15"W a distance of 113.16 feet; Thence N 00'23' 5 1"E a distance of 110.07 feet; Mason & AssvCia tc.5 1' Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners Page 1 otl Page 9 Item 7. 188 Thence N 89'07'59"W a distance of 85.77 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 8 Block 2 of Firelight Estates; Thence N 00'23'5 1"E a distance of 194.72 feet along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 Block 5 of Englewood Creek Estates Subdivision No. I extended to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 1.16 acres more or less. SUBJECT TO:All existing rights of way and casements of record or implied appearing on the above- described parcel of land. p,L LA r 9' 6G FfBI�`t�� �550CIr�t'e5 Incj Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners PAgC Z❑r2 Page 10 Item 7. Fl 89 PARCEL EXHIBIT A PART OF THE NE 114,SECTION 3,T.3 N.,R. Y W.,BM MERIDIAN,IDAHO 2020 0 50 100 200 I Scofe, f"-10f?' NW Corner N1/4 Corner Govemment NE Comer Section .3 58917b'SO'E Lot I 589'07'22"E USTICK ROAD Government N89177'22'W4 R Lot f --- I- � f 320.39' 285.88' - 1034,38' .-I � I 589 L2 'D7'2P E `rga, i L�2f] 167.57' #? c� Lw I z p f� Parcel Line cable o 1 O1 PARCEL 5 z I 11.16 AC. I Line Length Direction 3 I• IN � L i 61.00 SO'23'51"W I v L2 30.F2 589-07'22E N89-07'59"W o n 85-77'� 1 W I I NI� I v I REOEND a I n CALCULATED POINT N893615W I SE Corner FOUND 8RA55 CAP M NJIMAENT 113-fS' �GoLotvernment FOUND ALUMINUM CAP MONUMENT FOUND 518"IRON PIN _ DEED LINE 5ECTI(NN I-INE MCCARTER MOOREHOUSE PARCEL EXHIBIT im w.. AU7HZo Mason + ❑ne:i AU79PO MfHlGfT ;r�'lasdr7 & WALE, 1'y}ao• RiY. n ssaciatcs �fYRa'""""`"�� - pper�e,�pgwa r. aA TE. CS 1�d(7/2020 Page 11 »mz F-19ol S. Concept Site Pa . .--- - - -? I ' m. USQ CK RO p I » c I � _ aIh AIM » § I � . � �� ��� \ �� I � E I __ ■*' . a � I ! w , e ._�, ._� 44 ' I �+ ; _ ■ � \ w I tE I I i I ��� + � � ■# I I {�$ --------- ,} I , | I r3 _ I + C5 7.. aI v�/+$ . — � � Page 12 Item 7. 991 1 C. Conceptual Building Elevations 0 0 v - L►t N � 0 1_ MI L _ O N O 004 Page 13 Item 7. Fl 92 U 1 I � q !I i 7:;�; ;I 3 f I ❑i:l❑ E El �J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :. -J--III-I------I-IJJ--L-I-I-I---I-_I-J---L--I---L-I_-I---.I-I-J---L-J--- ❑ 0 0 f T Rti �. ❑❑ ti - I ❑❑ -- _- - -- - -rI-I-I-I--I-II-I--I---I-=I----I--I- -1---I-rl-I-I--L.•N•• AL } , LLI ❑ ❑ C3 `' s Page 14 Item 7. F193 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall apply for a concurrent Development Agreement Modification application to run concurrently with this Rezone application and replace the existing Development Agreement.At a minimum the following DA provisions shall be included in the new DA: a. Show the access to Ustick as an emergency only access; b. The proposed access to N. Ten Mile Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out only access; c. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application submittal,the landscape plan shall show landscaping between the detached sidewalks and the back of curb abutting the adjacent arterial streets,Ustick and Ten Mile Roads,per UDC 11-3B-7; d. Show the required landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residential uses to be 30 feet wide instead of 20 feet; e. The allowed uses on the subject site shall be limited to professional services,personal services, and healthcare and social services. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 There is no water infrastructure shown in this application. There are however two existing water stubs, one to the north off of Ustick Road, and one to the east off of Ten Mile Road. Any stubs that are not to be used will need to be abandoned per Meridian Public Works Standards. 1.2 Sanitary sewer service is available in W.Niemann Drive to the West. 1.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). By entering into a development agreement with the City of Meridian,the applicant agrees to use the City of Meridians recycled water supply as the source of irrigation water.Further,the applicant agrees to provide for secondary backup water to provide service when recycled water is not available. Once development plans have been submitted to the city for review,the city will model the recycled water system and make a final determination regarding our ability to supply reclaimed water to the development. If the city can serve the development with recycled water then recycled water must be utilized as the irrigation source of water, a secondary or backup source must also be provided. If the city can't serve the development then the primary source of irrigation water should come from surface water irrigation sources if available. The applicant shall be responsible to construct the recycled irrigation system in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)recycled water rules and regulations,and Division 1200 of the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications and Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction.These requirements do not wave the applicants responsibilities or obligations to irrigation districts. 1.4 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards. Page 15 Item 7. F194 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. hi performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. Page 16 Item 7. Fl-951 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the proj ect. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, Page 17 Item 7. F196 cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. NAMPA-MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224336&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=224863&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property from the R-4 zoning district to the L-O zoning district and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if the applicant complies with the requirements outlined above. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the proposed use comply with the applicable regulations, specifically the purpose statement of the requested L-O zoning district. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, if the applicant complies with the requirements outlined above. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,school districts; and Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Not applicable; application is for a Rezone. Page 18 Item 8. Ll 97 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision (H-2021- 0007) by The Land Group, Located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 360 dwelling units on 15.89 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, located at 2700 E. Overland Rd B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. Item 8. 198 (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision (H-2021-0007) by The Land Group, Located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 360 dwelling units on 15.89 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, located at 2700 E. Overland Rd B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 1, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 8 3 t PROJECT NAME: Seasons at Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision (H-2021-0007) PRINTED FULL.NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 8. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING April 1,2021 �� DATE: III TO: Planning&Zoning Commission r FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0007—Seasons at _ Meridian/Winco Wells Subdivision f H-2020-0118—Volante Investments LOCATION: 2600 &2700 E. Overland Rd.,in the SE ` %4 of Section 17,Township 3N.,Range _ - - 1 E. (Parcels: S 1117438626, S1117438451) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted an application for the following: • Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2016-060157)to include a conceptual development plan for the eastern 15.89-acre portion of the subject property that is consistent with the Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)Future Land Use Map designation in the Comprehensive Plan, located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd.; Rezone of a total of 38.47 acres of land from the C-G to the R-8 (10.13 acres),R-15 (12.20 acres) and R-40(16.14 acres)zoning districts; • Preliminary plat consisting of 3 buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, located at 2600 and 2700 E. Overland Rd.; and, • Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 360 dwelling units on 15.89 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, located at 2700 E. Overland Rd. Page 1 Item 8. F200] II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 34.62-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial/retail(west parcel);multi-family development (east parcel) Current Zoning General Retail&Service Commercial(C-G) Proposed Zoning NA Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 3 buildable lots Phasing plan(#of phases) 2 Number of Residential Units(type 360 units [(180) 1-bedroom&(180)2-to 3-bedroom units] of units) Density(gross&net 22.6 ross /23 net units/acre Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 4.15 acres(26%) buffer/qualified) Amenities Clubhouse,fitness facilities,public art,open grassy area of at least 50'x 100',plaza,community garden; swimming pool, walking trails,children's play structure Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of November 17,2020;and January 12,2021 (6 attendees) attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ Ord.#661,661A&665(1994,Thomas&Wurst Properties);H-2016-0056(DA#2016-060157—Volante Investments) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study Yes es/no Access One(1)public street access(S.Wells Ave.)is proposed via E.Overland Rd.,an (Arterial/Collectors/State arterial street;E. Cinema Dr.is proposed to be extended from the west boundary to Hwy/Local)(Existing S.Wells Ave. and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Overland Rd.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service is"B") Stub E.Cinema Dr. stops 50' short of the west boundary of the site—no other stub streets Street/Interconnectivity/ exist to this site. Cross Access Page 2 Item 8. F201] Description Details Page Existing Road Network There are no existing internal roadways within the site;a curb cut in alignment with S.Wells Ave.on the south side of Overland Rd. exists on this site. Existing Arterial A curb,gutter and attached 7'wide sidewalk exists along Overland Rd.;no buffer Sidewalks/Buffers exists. Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Overland Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of Eagle Road and Overland Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7- lanes on the north leg,8-lanes on the south,8-lanes east,and 8-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.0 mile from Station#4 Station • Fire Response Time Within 5 minute response time goal • Resource Reliability 78%(goal is 80%or greater) • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project. • Accessibility Meets all erquired access,road widths and turnarounds • Special/resource Will require an aerial device—can meet this need in the required time frame if a needs truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 2,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. • Other Police Service • Distance to Police 1.5 miles Station • Police Response 3:42(Priority 3);7:12(Priority 2); 10:31 (Priority 1) Time • Calls for Service 3,400(in RD `M75 V)—between 3/1/19 and 2/28/21) • %of calls for service %of P3 US 2.2% split by priority %of P2 US 80.8% %of P1 US 15.6% %of PO US 1.1% • Accessibility • Specialty/resource needs • Crimes 309(RD—M751 —between 3/1/19 and 2/28/21) • Crashes 134(RD M751 —between 3/1/19 and 2/28/21) • Other MPD can service this area if approved.For more info,see: https:llweblink.meridiancity.otglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223900&dbid=0&repo =MeridianCiLy West Ada School District Page 3 Item 8. F202] • Distance(elem,ms,hs) Enrollment Ca aci Miles (rev.to Schaal! • Capacity of Schools Pepper Ridge Elementary 483 675 1.8 Lewis&Clark Middle School 838 1000 2.1 • #of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2201 2175 0.9 • Predicted#of students 36+/- generated from proposed development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent in East Overland Raod. Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.08 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Flow added to pacel as part of record H-2020-0118 •No Permanent structures(buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)can be built within the utility easement. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent in East Overland Raod. Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality There are two long deadends for fire hydrants which may result in poor water quality. • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns There are two long deadends for fire hydrants that we would rather not have because these may cause potential water quality issue. Page 4 1 1 1 1- 84 84 In TiA ■. •1 # i _ ■. ■ �'_ 1 114LUMIM1 1 1 1 1 in ZVI in Mill ••■• IINo - :•III R- (mac WRU ■" ■■ Iwuu: Suu�i ■�- u� ���i:. i 1111� ■■■■q� F ����� ■■_■ 11 . ■ � INI � ■■;:: . ___■ ■ �- ■ �_ FIFF�l.rr ■ ■ • • • • • • � . • 11 i • • • ••• 6 1 • .• 1� Item 8. F204] Jonathan Fragoso, Stonehill Morgan—7301 Peak Dr., Ste. 200 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/12/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 3/9/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 3/18/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 3/9/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(MTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAN): Land Use: This property is designated Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 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). This site will be anchored by a WinCo grocery store,conceptually approved to develop on the west parcel,which should have a regional draw; other future commercial uses will also be developed south of WinCo.A multi-family development is proposed on the east parcel. In the overall MU-R designated area south of 1-84 there are a lot of commercial, office and employment uses but comparatively not a lot of residential dwellings. The provision of multi-family apartments in this vicinity will provide housing for workers in this area and the commercial retail/restaurant and other uses will provide needed services for these residents. When the City approved the conceptual development plan included in the Development Agreement for the WinCo grocery store on the west parcel, it was anticipated that a non-retail use would develop on the east parcel in order to provide the mix in uses desired in the MU-R designation for this area. Although the proposed design and uses aren't integrated as desired in MU-R designated areas,pathways and cross- walks are proposed for pedestrian connectivity to commercial uses. The Applicant's narrative states that existing residential neighbors to the east and employees of area businesses are encouraged to enjoy the perimeter loop pathway and plaza at the east boundary of the site. Transportation: There are no collector streets planned across this site per the Master Street Map (MSM). This site is accessed via Overland Rd., a mobility corridor, on the south and E. Cinema Dr., a local street, from the west. This site is approximately a half mile west of the Overland/Eagle Rd. intersection, a major arterial intersection, and the I-84 interchange on Eagle Rd. ACHD is requiring additional right-of-way to be dedicated for Overland Rd. to be widened to provide a dedicated westbound right-turn lane at Wells Ave. when Wells is constructed to intersect Overland Rd.; a traffic signal will be installed at the Wells/Overland intersection prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed multi-family development. Page 6 Item 8. E Overland Rd. is listed in the Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)to be widened to 7-lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. The intersection of Eagle and Overland Roads is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north leg, 8-lanes on the south, 8-lanes on the east and 8-lanes on the west leg and signalized between 2031 and 2035. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was completed for the WinCo development in 2016 and approved by ACHD. A new TIS was prepared to analyze the additional trips for the proposed multi-family development and has been reviewed by ACHD. The multi-family project is estimated to generate 1,959 additional vehicle trips per day and 158 additional vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour based on the Traffic Impact Study(TIS) completed for this development in 2020. The WinCo Foods grocery store is estimated to generate 7,723 additional vehicle trips per day; 555 additional vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour and 820 additional trips per hour in the Saturday peak hour based on the TIS that was completed in 2016. The ACHD report states the PM peak hour traffic count for Overland Rd. is estimated to be 1,375,which will result in a PM peak hour level of service of better than"D".Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is"E". Transit services are available to serve this site via Route 42. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridianciu.orglcompplan): Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the variety of housing types in the City and specifically in the southern portion of the City as desired. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers." (2.01.01H) The proposed multi family development is located along a mobility arterial(Overland Rd.), which is a major east/west corridor proposed to be widened to 7-lanes; and in close proximity to neighboring employment centers in the Bonito and Silverstone subdivisions at Eagle/Overland; transit services are available to serve this area. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed multi family development will provide a transition in uses and buffering between future commercial uses to the west and existing low-density residential uses to the east. The apartment buildings will be set back over 100'from the property line; with the existing homes being set back on average 250'from the shared property line, this creates approximately 350'of separation.A 25'wide landscape buffer planted with trees is also proposed along the east boundary for screening. Page 7 Item 8. F206] • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the mix of housing types available in the City. There is currently a mix of housing types within a mile of this site consisting of single family, townhomes and multi family apartments. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed multi family apartments should be compatible with existing single-family residential properties to the east as they are both residential in nature. To buffer the single-family homes from the apartments, a 25 foot wide landscape buffer is proposed along the east boundary of the site. • "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 pedestrian pathway loop is proposed around the perimeter of the development connecting to the sidewalk along Overland Rd.; internal pedestrian walkways are also proposed throughout the development to buildings and common areas/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 Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The area surrounding this vacant site is mostly developed and part of the City with the exception of the residential properties abutting the site to the east which are still in the County. Development of this infill property will result in more efficient provision of public services. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop,dine, play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips,and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed project with multi family residential and a grocery store with nearby employment, restaurant, entertainiment, office and service uses will provide a good mix of uses that residents won't have to travel far for, thus reducing vehicle trips and enhancing overall livability and sustainability. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) Development of the subject vacant land, currently in the City limits, is encouraged over parcels on Page 8 Item 8. ■ the fringe of the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The multi family development proposed on the eastern parcel will provide a residential land use type which will contribute to the mix of uses already in this area consisting of commercial(restaurants, retail, animal care), office (medical/dentist,financial,professional) and residential(single family, townhomes and multi family).A grocery store is planned on the west parcel which will provide a needed service in this area. • "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." Although this area is not a large-scale employment destination center, there are a lot of smaller scale employment uses in this general area which is adjacent to I-84 and Eagle Rd./SH--55. • "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." The subject property is already included in a development agreement(DA) which was required as a provision of annexation. Because a conceptual development plan was not included previously for the east parcel, one is proposed with this application with the proposed amendment to the DA.A conceptual development plan for the west parcel was previously approved for a retail store(i.e. grocery store). • "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." No commercial and/or office buildings are proposed at this time. If the portion of the west parcel that lies south of Cinema Dr. develops with multiple commercial and/or office buildings,Staff recommends the buildings are arranged as stated as a provision of the amended DA. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." The proposed plan depicts a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer along the east boundary of the site to provide buffering between the multi family development and the abutting low-density residential development to the east. The proposed multi family development will provide a transition in uses between future commercial uses to the west and existing low-density residential uses to the east in Overland Way Subdivision, zoned Rl in Ada County. The properties where the residential homes are located are also designated as MU-R on the FLUM. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics,churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." No such uses are proposed in this development; however, there is a high school(Mountain View) and medical clinics to the southwest of this site in the larger overall area. St. Luke's hospital is less than a mile away to the northeast. Page 9 Item 8. F208] • "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." No such uses are proposed in this development; however, as mentioned above, a high school exists to the southwest of this site and Gordon Harris park exists a half mile to the south. • "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." A limited mix of uses are proposed within this development. Although a mix of uses exist in the overall area, they are not designed around public/quasi public spaces or centers of activity as desired. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The existing and future commercial development to the west will be directly accessible by the proposed multi family development both by vehicles and pedestrians through the pathways proposed in the development. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." The extension of Wells Ave. will provide a break and transition between the proposed multi family residential development on the east parcel and future commercial/retail uses on the west parcel. • "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): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. • 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 gross density of 22.6 units/acre for approximately 45%of the subject property governed by the DA. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. Retail commercial uses will comprise of approximately 33%of the development area governed by the DA on Lot 2, Block 1; other commercial uses are anticipated to develop on Lot 1, Block 2. 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 — Page 10 — Item 8. F209] 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 on this site. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed above. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) A modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA)(Inst. #2016-0060157—H-2016-0056), approved in 2016, is proposed to exclude the east parcel(#S111743 845 1) from the agreement. A new DA is proposed for the east parcel. This will accommodate the change in ownership of the east parcel if the conditional use permit is approved for the multi-family development. The existing DA includes a conceptual development plan for the west parcel(#S 1117438626),which depicts the extension of E. Cinema Dr. from the west boundary of the site to the east boundary, intersecting with S. Wells Ave. proposed to be extended along the east boundary from E. Overland Rd. An 85,000 square foot single-story retail building(grocery store)with associated parking is depicted on the north side of E. Cinema Dr. and vacant land with no development plan is depicted on the south side. At the time the original DA was approved, a use and development plan was not known for the east parcel. Therefore, a provision was included in the DA that requires the agreement to be amended to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the MU-R FLUM designation in the Comprehensive Plan prior to any development occurring on the site. The proposed development plan for the east parcel is a 360-unit multi-family development as shown on the site plan in Section VIII.C. As discussed above in Section V, Staff believes the proposed plan contributes to the mix of uses desired in the MU-R designation and provides a transition and buffer between commercial uses to the west and the low-density residential development to the east(i.e. Overland Way Subdivision). The addition of more residential uses in this area will provide more patrons for surrounding commercial/retail/restaurant and office (medical/dental)businesses as well as offer employment options in close proximity of the residents. In accord with the Mixed-Use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan,as mentioned above in Section V, Staff recommends the amended DA for the west parcel include a provision requiring future commercial and/or office buildings (if proposed) on Lot 1,Block 2 (the lot south of E. Cinema Dr.) are arranged to create some form of common,usable area,such as a plaza or green space. Staff recommends provisions for the new DA for the east parcel as discussed below and noted in Section IX.A. Page 11 Item 8. F210] B. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of 3 buildable lots on 34.62 acres of land in the C-G zoning district and is proposed to develop in two (2)phases (see Section VIII.A). The first phase consists of the extension of S. Wells Ave.to E. Cinema Dr. and includes the east parcel; the second phase consists of the extension of E. Cinema Dr. from Wells to the west boundary of the site and includes the west parcel. Right-of-way for the extension of S. Wells Ave. and E. Cinema Dr. is proposed to be dedicated with the plat. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. The only existing site improvement is curb,gutter and a 7- foot wide attached sidewalk along E. Overland Rd. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. In the C-G district,there are no minimum setback requirements; however, future buildings may not encroach within required street buffers and residential structures must have minimum 20-foot separation between structures. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed from Overland Rd., a mobility arterial,via the extension of S. Wells Ave., a local street that exists on the south side of Overland; E. Cinema Dr., a local street, is also proposed to be extended from the west boundary to intersect with Wells along the east boundary of Lot 1,Block 2. One access driveway is proposed via Wells in alignment with Cinema Dr. and one access driveway is proposed to the north/south driveway north of Wells for the multi-family development; Wells is not proposed to extend past Cinema Dr. as a public street. Several driveways are proposed to Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 via Cinema Dr.; one driveway is proposed on Lot 1,Block 2 via Wells as depicted on the plat in Section VIII.A. The 1-84 off-ramp runs along the northern boundary of the site. Direct access via Overland Rd., except for the emergency access, and the 1-84 off-ramp is prohibited. There are no existing stub streets to this property and no stub streets are required with the subdivision. Typically,cross-access isn't required between multi-family developments and commercial uses; however,if the Commission and Council feels a cross-access driveway and easement should be provided to the MU-R designated area to the east(currently developed with single-family residential homes)for future interconnectivity, a condition requiring such should be added. If required, Staff recommends it be located on the northern portion of the site to Parcel #R6744800055,which is owned by RJR Holdings and may redevelop sooner than the other properties. An emergency only access is proposed via E. Overland Rd. near the east boundary of the multi-family portion of the site; access will be restricted in accord with Fire Dept.requirements. In order to provide interconnectivity between uses in a timelier manner and disperse traffic,Staff recommends the extension of E.Cinema Dr. from the west boundary of the site to S.Wells Ave. occurs with the first phase of development. Road Improvements: Additional right-of-way(ROW) is required to be dedicated to total 62-feet from the centerline of Overland Rd. abutting the site consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) and Master Street Map (MSM) for Overland Rd. to be widened to 7-lanes. A dedicated westbound right-turn lane is required to be constructed on Overland Rd. at Wells Ave. The plat should be revised to include the additional ROW dedication and right-turn lane; the street buffer shall be located outside of the ultimate ROW for these improvements. When Wells is constructed to intersect Overland Rd.,a dedicated westbound right-turn lane on Overland is required to be constructed; additional right-of-way should be dedicated to accommodate the turn-lane. Page 12 Item 8. F211] No additional street improvements should be required as part of this application(see Section IX.J for more information). Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no multi-use pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. A 10-foot wide pathway is proposed as an amenity for the multi-family development on Lot 1,Block 1 that loops around the property through the street buffers along 1-84 and S. Wells Ave. and connects to the sidewalk along E. Overland Rd. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are required along arterial and collector streets; attached sidewalks are required along local streets. Because the existing 7-foot wide attached sidewalk along Overland Rd. is in good condition, Staff does not recommend replacement with a new detached sidewalk;however, if/when it's replaced in the future, a detached sidewalk should be constructed. Attached sidewalks are depicted on the landscape plan along E. Cinema Dr. and S. Wells Ave.,both local streets; the landscape plan submitted for the CUP application depicts a meandering detached sidewalk along Wells—this discrepancy should be corrected. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided with the subdivision in accord with the widths specified in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and planted in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A landscape plan was submitted for the proposed subdivision landscaping, included in Section VIII.B. Required street buffer widths are as follows: 25-feet along E. Overland Rd., an arterial street; 10-feet along S. Wells Ave. and E. Cinema Dr.,both local streets; and 35-feet along the 1-84 off-ramp, an entryway corridor. Street buffer widths are proposed on the landscape plan in accord with these standards. The plan is missing the street buffer along I-84 on the west parcel(Lot 2,Block 1); the plan should be revised to include this buffer. The number of trees proposed in buffers meets the minimum standard; however,a mix of trees and shrubs with lawn or other vegetative groundcover is required—shrubs should be added to the buffers in accord with UDC 11-3114C.3a. Street buffers are required to be placed in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association; the plat should be revised accordingly. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-A�: There are no large waterways that cross this site. There is a ditch that runs along the east and north boundaries of the eastern parcel,which is required to be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B.3. This ditch provides water to downstream users. A 10-foot wide ITD irrigation easement is depicted on the plan along the north boundary of the east parcel;no structures should encroach within this easement; if an open ditch exists within the easement, it should be piped. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Sewer and water services are available in Overland Rd.; service stubs should be provided to the properties to the east and west. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC I1-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Page 13 Item 8. F212] Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18 : An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A geotechnical investigation report was submitted with this application. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 360 residential units [(180) 1- bedroom&(180)2-to 3-bedroom units] on 15.89 acres of land in the C-G zoning district at a gross density of 22.6 units per acre. A total of(10)2-and 3-story structures are proposed with 36 dwelling units per building,ranging in size from 488 to 1,328 square feet. This development is proposed to be constructed in one phase. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10)unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code.Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed site plan complies with this standard. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures not visible from a public street; all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The Applicant's narrative states a minimum of 80 square feet of private usable open space will be provided for each unit in the form of balconies and patios. Floor plans should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with this standard. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards (see parking analysis below). 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: Page 14 Item 8. F213] a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The Applicant's narrative states these items will be provided; the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of these items in accord with this standard. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500)or less square feet of living area. 15 units contain less than 500 square feet(sf.) of living area; therefore, a total of 2,250 sf. (or 0.05-acre) is required. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. 315 units are between 500 and 1,200 sf.; therefore, a total of 78,750 sf. (or 1.81-acres) of common open space is required. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. 30 units contain more than 1,200 sf.; therefore, 10,500 sf. (or 0.24-acre) of common open space is required. At a minimum, a total of 91,500 sf. (or 2.10-acre) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development.A total of 165,485 square feet(or 3.8-acres) is proposed to be provided consisting of linear open space with a loop pathway, courtyard amenity space, a dog park, community center and swimming pool, as shown in Section VIII.E, in accord with UDC standards. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20'). The common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VIII.E meet this requirement. 3. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. This project is proposed to develop in one phase. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4')in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff.retroactive to 2-4-2009)All of the common open space area is proposed central to the development except for linear open space along I-84 and S. Wells Ave. where a 10 foot wide pathway is proposed. Because the site already complies with the open space standards without this area and because a pathway amenity is proposed within these areas, Staff is supportive of inclusion of these areas in the open space calculations. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life,open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: Page 15 Item 8. ■ a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100)in size. (2) Community garden. (3) Ponds or water features. (4) Plaza. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two (2)amenities shall be provided from two(2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20)and seventy-five(75)units,three(3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4)amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Based on 360 proposed units, a minimum of 5 amenities are required but the decision-making body is authorized to consider additional similar amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development. The following amenities are proposed from each category: a clubhouse with a swimming pool, bike maintenance room,fitness facilities,parcel lockers, remote work/classroom stations, and a coffee bar; an outdoor fireplace with a seating and a BBQ;public art; half-mile pedestrian loop with a 10 foot wide pathway and internal pathways; (18)grassy areas of at least 50'x 50'in size, including a dog park, multiple courtyards,park areas with seating, a plaza and pocket libraries; community garden; and a children's play structure. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. Page 16 Item 8. F215] 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict landscaping along the street facing elevations adjacent to E. Overland Rd. and S. Wells Ave. in accord with these standards. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided with the subdivision improvements as noted above in Section VI.B. The site and landscape plans should be revised to include the additional ROW dedication and right-turn lane for Overland Rd.; the street buffer shall be located outside of the ultimate ROW for these improvements. Landscaping is required to be provided along pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A mix of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway is required along the pathway within the buffer along the I-84 off- ramp. A 25-foot wide buffer planted with trees is proposed along the east boundary to existing low-density single-family residential homes. Structures are set back over 100 feet from the shared property line and the existing homes are set back on average of 250 feet from the property line, creating approximately 350 feet of separation between uses. The proposed buffer will provide added screening in this area in addition to mature trees on adjacent residential properties. Because residential uses are proposed adjacent to I-84, noise abatement is required to be provided within the buffer along I-84 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D.Noise abatement in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination shall be provided approximately parallel to the freeway. The top of the berm or berm/wall shall be a minimum of 10-feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the freeway. The Applicant is not proposing to construct a berm and/or wall as required and requests alternative compliance to this standard. Alternative compliance(ALT)to the noise abatement standards is requested because the buildings along the northern boundary of the site are set back at least 250-feet from the freeway.A letter was submitted from a qualified sound engineer with an alternate recommendation for noise abatement in the form of double-paned windows for all units facing I-84 and the off-ramp and minimizing the number of window openings facing the freeway. The letter states that in his opinion,double-paned windows are preferable to a wall and will provide adequate noise abatement for this site for the following(summarized) reasons: 1)the site is too distant from I-84 for a wall to be effective—the further a potential noise receptor is from the noise source,the more community noise becomes a factor; 2)the elevation difference and terrain features cover up the tires of the vehicles from both I-84 and the eastbound off-ramp which benefits the ground floor of the apartments—the terrain provides sufficient mitigation for tire noise; 3)ITD noise policy doesn't contemplate any mitigation for second or third floors of Page 17 Item 8. F216] receptors in an apartment complex—noise walls are typically not feasible from an engineering basis and a cost basis. Storm windows will provide a 25-dB reduction as compared to a 7dB reduction with a noise wall and provides a more cost effective and superior noise mitigation option than a wall.See the Applicant's narrative, Exhibit B,for this information (pgs. 16-18). Based on the analysis from the sound engineer,the Director is supportive of the request for ALT for double-pane storm windows to be provided in all units within the development,provided ITD approves the request. Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required for the proposed multi-family dwellings as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Based on(180) 1-bedroom units and(180)2-and 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 630 off-street spaces are required with 360 of those being in a covered carport or garage. Off-street parking is required for the clubhouse as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6B.1 for non-residential uses. Based on 7,900 square feet, a minimum of 16 spaces are required to be provided. A total of 655 spaces are proposed for the overall site with 360 of those being in covered carports,which is 9 extra spaces over the minimum required.Although the proposed parking meets the minimum standards,Staff is concerned there may not be adequate parking for the site to accommodate guests. The Commission and Council should determine if additional parking should be provided as a condition of approval of the CUP. Bicycle parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G and should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. One bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof. Based on 655 spaces, a minimum of 27 spaces are required; a total of 36 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Bike racks should be provided in central locations for each building as proposed. Fencing: No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan for this development. A 6-foot tall wood fence exists along the southern portion of the east boundary on the adjacent residential property; Staff is unsure what other fencing may exist to the north of that at the rear of residential properties. A fence is also depicted on the plat along the northern boundary of the east parcel. The Applicant states a privacy fence is proposed along the east boundary of the site; materials and sizing to be determined pending meeting with neighbors and project approval from the City. Staff recommends prior to the City Council hearing details of the proposed fencing type are submitted. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations in a"contemporary farmhouse"theme were submitted for the proposed residential structures on the site as shown in Section VIII.F. Two-and three-story rooflines with hip roofs and steep gables are proposed consistent with the"farmhouse"style. Building materials consist of a combination of vertical board and batten siding, stucco and decorative balcony rails along with varied color schemes. Stairways are concealed from public view. "L"shaped buildings are proposed for variety to soften the massing of the architecture and provide private pocket parks for each building. An administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the design of all of the multi-family structures and the clubhouse prior to submittal of building permit application for those structures.An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance is also required to be submitted along with the Design Review application. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the existing Development Agreement, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 18 Item 8. F217] VIII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 02/4/2021)&Phasing Plan — W Z O CJ IF fli �ieE EeE�ME F� - '� � En9��x,9uegw.Manner. Qu •C 'i v CuareTahle reliminary Plat Wince Wells Subdivision 1 e - ett11m^ery P1e1 T•P� -• m PPD1 Page 19 Item 8. F218] B. Landscape Plan for Preliminary Plat(dated: 3/31/21) lux ZM 7;1.�1ir\ --------------- -=---------------------- ------� i .00 mj _ i Wntlscace Pita PI.. .aL'.P. a OW O= i - I -- a e I I � --------- Lan6 cafe Site Plan L2 M Page 20 Item 8. F219] C. Site Plan for Multi-Family Portion of Development(date: 1/14/2020) so �jx o 9 r t7 0 i n w Y [� r.g 00 n - 0 z n z 0 N v r O _0 e > C U) ~ = o � z z � n i r 000°o°o°o z � N 000 °o n = M G N C Q Q Q1 O D®® _ m m Z n®® n i � � p v ------------- X i n - r z 0 z r a t 0 Ln EAST OVERLAND RD m TC1 O n m N ^ v x z W r y m Z Page 21 Item 8. F 20 RD,,®sFNs UN.NIRB NIN 'ZN PARANGPROWBEB PnMMANPNeYBE6 PANAxMPRDYDEo m pW RE51UENnx uNlrsl PROPORIED NET DEN-13a1RPBIDEMtL6 UNI ADNET SIA--AA_ER) BIB sE DNIN 1 - cREMUIRED 11 sPncDzsPROPos6D­I­LNF SlAlS) NAB PE 6N WNr DEnL� Nu REBURIED s1 IBTUUroI 46B SF is 7,MSF 4% - z�sF Al(I BEDROOM) IN SF 11a A6,1005F - IA) SF 46x RIAN I B.SF-3wsFnIN i ,cmosF A2(16EDROOMI ITL SF 95 32,d905F B112 BEDROOM) 1,0925F 30 32,7605E EB.... 93,3NA Vg BEDROOM) 11365F n 6,2005E 42% 63R BEDROOM) 11365E 6 511205E C7(3BEDiDDM) 1,328SF 30 N90 BF R% TOTAL nF3MENIUL NMNS 160 313,SINSF IT. 6 F AVERAIi BNf SI?E 916 SF 63,74I BE 6ANSF � PROJECT DATA MORGAN HOLDINGS& THE J J J sroNa HILL i LAN rioru�S DESECN SEASONS AT MERIDIAN GROUP N MERIDIAN I D A H O .SOLO NEW mAN GARRISON+PARTNERS-ALL RIGHTS 11111v 13 THE CONCEPTS AND DRAWINGS ARE PROTECTED UNDER U.S.AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AND CANNOT 6E USED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT- Page 22 Item 8. F221] D. Landscape Plan for Multi-Family Development(CUP) (dated: 11/24/20) GENERAILPNOSGFPENOTES PLANTSGHEONLE ai saa�v4 wu�u nvroEnavcEsganc ffrvE i �w xmixexrnxurvua�xvfl�msr eca zcu x s r «N xmc S aunmEFsrwrwiu xoraEuuccxEo ma �AY xrm-s � � eaa vue ez iEN mxc NII Ruu IEcOY[wsgx winNu euunlONOVPUTauxdrxx¢usmxuimN wMm{x0lEv ovdRls�S[xTAIIZFwRwvR0vk0P m ixcaseEwmir�caiw�xsrcneamonaa�xuv'raE xgnFnxlx.wualtw.m5e.wnxcvaoOUW OxcwofS xNunxts I liwNPR1-0TAu)xH0'mx0Rxw0Yw I-ASNSSEn.ua[55 Wmc rvur nwiSxmruuwS rvEcfia¢sur, LANDSCAPE NOTES MORcaNHOIOINcs& NOTHEn ? SEASONS AT MERIDIAN N� STONH HILL 5�.6110UP '�bs'� [ I p,max.-P....�n�• ecr�zxziz oxre.ii.z�.za�o MERIDIAN, IDAHO 02020 NEWMAN GARRISON P PARTNERS.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.THE CONCEPTS AND DRAWINGS ARE PROTECTED UNDER U.S.AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AND CANNOT BE USED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSf NT. Page 23 , II - I. J 5ii.:::=:'•!!5iii=:_ _ _- an M . ryi� __liy ivljiy it_:. !�N �� + •5 !.I-r, _.::_ � Ali S•ii+„'i FiI ■LiI {�7 EE �,,,...��d�si:�::=!"•!:sii w ui1�=�!nii.�i i:,.r ti_:;! r-':H 1p iE• !!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!I_I�'rl�I�I:i'�Il:�llllw w,,.,�1 Ii;-_^14i�1„• ��:�-`j��"', � '1'q R1 -fin _ ii EEI w !Sn;=-'---.•_II -.._.. -1 Ir �Siil �w fEE� ••t - w w il- - R cii �;■ 1ry1 E� EE�!�i 'iial itq M 1=lii %el7lli! � �:::-:. v;=lf1 � EV' -sll _ Illl�gilllllllll llllll�lllllllllllllll llllllIII I= +•., [ rrrr lyii MR Mij '::EtE EEE 5':-::-'•_I'Si I. ho `ram: _ '� EA M _ W. Il 111 i3l_:.� =!rv: Iri!!5i'la;= -=sl.�... _ ;_. � i� - I�E'a IM' �� AN�rRS N =.._:. -......................__ - _Mail Mail �I Yil ' � _ . .new MINE NUNN11 _ �ii Ip Ipl e- s'L7I !lF jilR oil = r-r, i.■? rII Eh� mail !wil �l.il' w w: - 1' ;■ 1 r nl lNi''- JA EAl EE w w- ` � li lil Islsii RK :-r�!Ifiii= !Ilriii �!Ifiii= �!Illiii 1� i _:aaaai io::-:�•'f•�i.;=.'�Il.Ine i! EE e! �IWW ILE �a ,.::: ••-...1 1".....I'III':iii�":iiic4iii�:IIIIIIIII!I IIIIIIIIIIII! �y�y� - !_:!5! �:_:!5 "r IF,l1 it 1,1 .n iiMi .;:. [�},}+� 5; - - '_� Iell1 'EEl�• '_ _ .5�iii� �JI! Y ..:=� +1��, I_flllllllllllll�:�i�IIII•Jllf�':�Illf'lill ll�.=� �_� _ ; � r A 'II E� E� 14 15 r'I �' w _w '•, ,EI � `Iei - III:IIIII_ _.._.._._... I 1:::-::Iii:�11tJ•��:::II _ FO0t '::' i::' i�51`�= dl 1 11 i�►IlrE► =�Er- 1E: �; t zIMi!Tiill2E�1= L.._kI yii q1 w !� � � ��. � a � � iR L+•01 ItS is•' .: _.'I �EAI ■ ii� L�:r!'il�,�.� li EEI w ,;E'E E71:= . FAM ' I! i,■ � Ems'! ; �. r_,�i ■s 5ii Ell . �.,i'_•:!•iiy-`!!5w:- ���`!� �i 1n III�IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIiIII�IIIIII�illill�lilll'II.�••.a_li�„i;,_;'Ir;;�J;g::illll llllllllllllllll:r , iIR:I.` +!!L:r'i :"I .._jVE EEE ii '�Elal S YIMi- r ali EEI w i5 EiE IEl7 R1= w w " - IM -', WIN `Ilitm t�l::.'. Inlllllll�III..IIIIIIIrtIil;��91111°.�� S � !♦ R ; - .I, ull�—��'., ..alr - ....... ......r i� �lilnoliiiiiic:i�i'i�':: ;R.,•�!I!,;;!.� 'i�i.r! rr _.ii =1p IHfL�II -M g a Mwii F' ��I f - - Irk- Awo •P an ll�Ili -1 EA. IVEII Iril @I15 .ia w w.! � l:i IGII 1p' 'I _ �i� �� _::_.,�,!la ■-'::=•Itil�::_:_��-Ilr_:_:::.!i�ui�_ ti�_:-!?s'!iull_:=�:. �-i�__..: •I ii=::._..J 1PU FM IIAIllrl�3E33�1^Isr�>i.: �lr1111111[lTI�:..� 1� E� 11=F .Il Ik:y _ 1 - !!�:, =:::1a;5,1�i;1�r1$■$&�1'1� �:':�■■Ill��l�gg�[! 1�. �11EI �!,_ ; 'jluil n; I, "::. alias' :-Ilaii.lir'_,�el.l._::=•..II-,;i 'S_ lyl lu;- �Ilr;:-..,,!!. - _II�'-:=:!!-Iri;,:-=:'• ='aJl i15.5 nli Ia+'illlif._. IIL.:i =`--!!ll i.;=��:y'::_ IIy�:-':. ■:c: ._..NI!y,-��'._.;_ IIIIIIIII .5':=::._- 5:i�l i. _ryR::r'..�_fy.r'j: -. -.:.::'41:r .. !Mi - ..II =.51 !LI -- - ii -! .II - :!III '- ��.:JI' .. =i yli !I i:J :.SII" r - IY,j - Y• y ::. :: .... , 1 r 1 lirii- _..Iljijj;i;�':=•_�I�: Illii,il.:ii..'iii.:::i.lai� :. 1-.i`.l =::ajiitii -IN,Ir�,l:._.IRII�:==��?:'n7r:'ilr•RiirMi - •�I-'_::: . .A.. :_. il- »m& � \ // K k2 § 9 — � ( § � } ■ ( � � § � - � m § � � r . . j � j _ / @ ■ . z - ! - � . / J oft'n r \ : Page 25 _.. „ - :iii=:=:_.. n N!!'1III�II. .......... — I +ilfii •`yn :rr Si =JI_ fii . KIM ii llllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII— — .I IRElln L„ iiI +Ili iKIM �::: 'lll —_ _IIS 5i - q1 i� 5i nii ji - �, iii !I • -- -._.. -ill=�:•I�I!i_i1 Yi 'illl 5' l�El l+l Lplll�lllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll llllll�• �� �i � m mj' _ ! li rr rr II -uii " �iil II IIIIIIII^ III Iil ':!y i=! ;Ili _ !lil ii5i .mg5iil_Fir'- _ ._... ... _ 1 j '_- is- —_:: .iii 'iI lTI L11iI5i -ry F.■y.J�ly:_:_..r��y —'=::.,I.ir._..SI• i5 ':rr ME OR ME- ii 'ii lrii=�� ire III Illll�j Ii!5iI �ryI ai �I_ 5 Mn -_ Si it rr l - n� n�L; iic . —;'-:: Lq''i5, •*��IC����I! � —.._::�:.., ___ _ _. , 'I�"'lllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll llllll! Iy"I15���Ir-'!L ltiilSi j!Riiiiii! �g "!iiGiiry •'iGiiiy I I 'Mi.iii-:._ �i! I; !Ij :i = —G i!iiy,"'- -•I ■ :Eli HJlli S IJ IG .Jlli IR irr e�a I N' .._.5in;- r■n 5iii !ISii Rii = •' a -"-"' "-"'' I�•II III IIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIII III IIII IIII IIII IIII III II% y�_-' a ='C • i•I� ��Ili i:' ..ll.- -." 5 iSII ' Il rrl rr l i 4s L �1 li .._ _ .iii — —KIM = :'. ,INiiz ®::_::®,_::_�.,, - ��1111111111111111i'_i�'�' �.JIr111111111-1111�1111':.,,-.II...- i ti ..�111--111=-1111=11mii n =Mir 1111�`11_=11==11115 IIIIIIIII _ .-.._.. .. ,• NO Rill _ m rain _ — . - Lr1 - - - i - ii L1q W_ "i5 i rr II _ f..=,!airyII�IIiJII"yjli rr rr:JI l.lii5i ::_Ilili5ii,:::= II- y 1�1 G■1. 911 !S-' '- -°I ,llllll lllllllllllllllllllrylll lllllllllllyllllllllll ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(IIIIIIIII. I5I Gii IN.. �LN ■�II IIS..._. ...._ .II II. - — iii l�l 117 ' II nil ■ 4ii- L1■ Lp�r - Iliillilnlnllnllnl�nlillllllllllllll==- y - ,fill llllllllllllllllllllll)llllllllllllllllllllll)ll�' �'ryi WA 'llii�!=!.J!Ilii� —In P :.._.� �� ail -M RVA 15ii ■: 5— _. - - IIGi r> ! L I�ii IIGi l:. 5115 r�r aw' II - �i— — n 1• i ii LVIL WX !ry _.. _. _ ,i m, Ial - - , � 1,•1 ray: ii;; =.5 — =I 15ii i_Ilal_..��� -Ily I"5 _... _,IR _••Rii_:_"=•Iv��J:=li.JlRii= Rim::=..J!li„=_:=::>.'IRii=::_:- I.li!�J:="f��illpgpli li ii "5i 3I3 !ili����2�ir����il'��$����� =rl 1111■111!������i��1L'• 1 P 15ii = Il it I IIP 5 = _ !SIiG —G Ri .._. I15; iy ilill I � _I =_NIIGII=�i��$$C$$�MI°�■�a���� �11���a����i���a���111 IG —�;I_ i ._.._...,,.,I_ ,.in ii-'SII"i,::: !fl-i ': S :-..RI"ii •_• , •_••SII - - ..._::"='..5i1-.._::a='..SI r 1 ..5iilii r:ry..5lll:.-:"-..5! !-„ Illii�_IliFilm .._ IIII-'�.._.._. •(.III-:�.._•.._. - - II I-':�::_.• - _Slly:�::_.S T lrii�::=.:lIII.II-:: „�!!i:=:: Ind::=::3!iaiiiy:=::3 Item 8. F225] e H ._r7.z N ❑ .=w yCt r n £ 4 m ox, o ' o ^ n z S D Z � A Y - � I low. _! �1 LA f ' 1 J ° G Un - I ° r b ask ' i- a -- z - OIL - - s 0 u �'1 sin > ❑ a 6 N � N C { - I o `a MI n S Y OVERLAND RD. o� r a Cl E. R o s W `- � =3 3 i 9 Page 27 004 ` IL y i ML 07 .1-ii 4 t Irk: +A r" h, ICUF r 1 11 -mwT \, p pa rof x 1 .leg Offift Vw P. gm s + r 1 '' � �11hI�II 141 �1111 IT it j� ,III z� t � - _�� 7 ��I rt II,� _ � � . � I :,�' I I.G� it a - �� �I �� #'jll 1113` Ifiri11 I_� � ��. � � I� � � l 11 Yu &1l LI., I� .ill�l�lllll��l� � P�1'1��r! �I II it ill II p 111.�1�.6��f. � � �� � ' � . :.'�; fllllllllllllll111111111111111h11 �i��F, y� Olt OF - t�_ lip� �; t�__ �11111 -'� 11 II II II o © © o © o :. III����ll _ _ 11■ 11.1■1111 ■■I■I ■ ■■I�n�, I nn n■nnu , n1 •••i 1 11 11■ n■nnn IIIIIIIIIII�III■■�_� I�IiiVuiilli 1111 11■■1111 r IFT-1 m WEST ELEVATION ■■■Illllu iiiil@II IIIIIi111,111��� Ill mulll.n i IV+W� ,• �I�� 111■ 1 e SOUTH ELEVATION © ° 0 0 d��iiGsa • • • Item 8. F 30 a�. 4t t�y ROOF BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING STUCCO COLOR ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING DUNN EDWARDS PAINTS DUNN EDWARDS PAINTS COLOR-CHARCOAL COLOR-DEW 380 WHITE COLOR-DET 625 RECLAIMED WOOD /1\ WOOD/COMPOSITE,FASCIA, VINYL WINDOWS BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING TRIM,COLUMNS,RAILINGS COLOR-BRONZE FIBER CEMENT DUNN EDWARDS PAINTS COLOR-DEW 3B0 WHITE COLOR AND MATERIAL MORGAN HOLDINGS& k THE J)J J STONE HTLL O6iE........ 1,o LAND noyps oFSICN SEASONS A T MERIDIAN N 9 GROUP .! M E R I D I A N, I D A H O TP .20 NEWMAN GARRISON.PARTNERS.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,THE CONCEPTS AND DRAWINGS ARE PROTECTED UNDER U.S.ADD INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT AN➢INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AND CANNOT HE USED IN ANY MANNER WiTHO UT ERP RESS WRITTEN CONSENT, 21 �1 H W� TING Slh AM ILY DWELLI 0 26 1.-O 211 WALg AY/CARPORT CARPORT L DECAPE 2Yr'-0" SITE SECTION AT EAST PROPERTY LINE MORGAN HOLDINGS& THE J)J J STONE HILL s1 E 13e xo IRO0 NOF�IS DESIGN SEASONS A T MERIDIAN N 1 O GRauP �..,� ...e..�,,..,�... I p I MERIDIAN, IDAHO ®2U2U NEw Marl G 1RISON.PARTNERS,aLL RIGHTS RESERVED,THE CONCEPTS AND 1-111GS ARE PROTECTED UNDER U-S.AND INTERNa TIONaL COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AND CANNOT RE USED IN ANY MANNER wITIGUT ExPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT, Page 32 Item 8. F231] G. Legal Description for Property at 2600 E. Overland Rd. EXHIBIT A 2600 Overland Road Property Description PAREEL I A parcel of land located in the 5W 114 of the SE 114 Section 17, Township 3 North, flange 1 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as fo#tows: Commencing at the S114 corner of said Section 17 from which the SE corner of said Section 17 bears North 89°46'00" Bast, 2656M feet; thence North 00"24'05"t art, 45.00 feet to the SE corner of Destination Place Subdivision filed in Book 93 of Plats at pages 11190 through 11192, records of Ada County, Idaho, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the East boundary fine of said Destination Place Subdivision North 00°24'05"East, 1,181.25 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate 84; thence along said southerly right-of-way line the following.3 courses and distances: thence North 81'35'27"East, 158.13 feet; thence South 86°18'23"East,471.33 feet; thence 83.33 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 1,809.86 feet, a central angle of 02`00'17"and a long chord of 63.32 feet which bears South 85'10`34"East; thence leaving said southerly right-of--way line South 00"24'05"Vilest, 1134.59 feet to a point on the North right-of-way tine of E. Overland Road; thence along said North right-of-way line the following 4 courses and distances: thence South 69'59'52''West, 71.96 feet; thence South 00°24'05"West, 11.58 feet; thence South 45"33'34"West,28.68 feet; thence South 89°46'00"West, 597.70 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 18,74 acres, more or less. 729 �. O.I~x,trR Page 33 Item 8. F232] H. Legal Description for Property at 2700 E. Overland Rd. EXHIBIT A C=. 2700 Overland Read PAEM LI Property Desc;iption A parcel of land located in the SW 114 of the SE t14 Section 17, Township 3 North,Range 1 East, Boise Wridian,Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more part;cularlydescribed as follows: Com men ping at the S 114 corner of Bald Section 17 from which the SE comer of said Section 17 bears North 8964V00"East, 2656,88 feet; thence North 00'24'06'East, 45.00 feet to the SE corner of Deslina#tort Place Subdivision filed in gook 93 of Plats at Pages 11190 through 11192, records of Ada County, Idaho,said paint also beling oat the North right-d-way line of E. Overland Road; thence along said hlarth dght-of-way line the following 4 courses and distances: thence Barth W46'01V"East, 597.70 feet; thence North 453T34"East, 28.66 feet; thence North 00'ZV05"East, 11158 feet; thence North 89"59'52"East, 71.96 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; (hence leaving said North right-of-way line North 00'24'05"East. 1134.50 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate 54. thence along said southerly right-of-way line the fallowing 2 courses and distances: thence 63116 feet along the arc of a non4angent curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 1,809.86 feet,a central angle of 20'02'39"and a long chard of 629.93 feet which bears South 74'0706"East; thence 5oulh B4007'46"East, 23.82 faut to a point cm the Wc5t boundary line of Overland Way Subdivislen fled in Book 46 of Plats at Pages 3798 and 3799,records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said West boundary line South 00"08'32" East,980.53 feet to a point on the North right-oF-way line of E. Overland Road; thence along said North eight-of-way lime the fallowing 4 Courses and distances: thence South 89'4 W'West,600.41 feet lbenue North 41'30126"West,29.30 feet; thence North 00'24'05"East,9.19 feet; thence South 89°59'52"West, 18.04 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNIN ContaRnin9 15_875 ar-res, more or less. t1A 9 v 772 o� + Jj iY i q ,Y 2 7's O F%p'aQ Page 34 Item 8. F233] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Development Agreement Modification: 1. The existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2016-060157) shall be amended to exclude the east parcel(#S1117438451) from the agreement and to include the following additional provisions: a. Future commercial and/or office buildings (if proposed) on Lot 1,Block 2 (the lot south of E. Cinema Dr.) 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). b. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications for the site. The amended DA shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the City within six (6) months of City Council granting the subject modification. New Development Agreement: 2. Anew Development Agreement(DA) shall be required for the east parcel (#S1117438451)that shall include the site plan in Section VIII.0 and the following provisions: a. Development of the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan, landscape plan, qualified open space/amenities exhibit and building elevations included in Section VIII and shall comply with the provisions contained herein. b. All structures in the multi-family development shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved for the structures within this development prior to submittal of building permit applications for these structures.An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance is also required to be submitted along with Design Review application for approval of the proposed use and site design. d. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications for the overall site. e. The traffic signal at the E. Overland Rd./S. Wells Ave. intersection shall be installed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the multi-family development as deemed warranted by the Traffic Impact Study. The DA shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the City within six (6) months of City Council granting the subject modification. Preliminary Plat: 3. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. All street buffers are required to be placed in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association, as set forth in UDC 11-313- 7C.2b. b. Depict the street buffer along E. Overland Rd. outside of the ultimate right-of-way for the widening of Overland to 7-lanes. c. The extension of E. Cinema Dr. shall be included in the first phase of development. Page 35 Item 8. F234] 4. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.B shall be revised as follows: a. Landscaping is required to be provided adjacent to the pathway within the buffer along the I-84 off-ramp per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.A mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one(1) tree per 100 linear feet of pathway is required. b. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along the I-84 off-ramp on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 in accord with UDC Table 11-213-3, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-313-7C. c. Include shrubs(along with the trees and lawn or other vegetative groundcover) in the proposed street buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.3a. d. Street buffers are required to be placed in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association as set forth in UDC 11-313- 7C.2. e. Depict the street buffer along E. Overland Rd. outside of the ultimate right-of-way for the widening of Overland to 7-lanes. f. Depict a detached sidewalk within the street buffer along the east side of S. Wells Ave. consistent with that shown on the landscape plan associated with the conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit: 5. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 6. For each of the multi-family units, a minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Floor plans with square footage noted for patios and balconies shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with this standard. 7. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas,and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 8. Comply with building code requirements for separation between structures within the development. 9. The Applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to the noise abatment standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D is approved by the Director,provided ITD approves the request. Double-pane storm windows shall be provided in all units within the development as alternative compliance consistent with the sound engineer's recommendation. Confirmation of ITD's approval shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 10. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the locations of the property management office,maintenance storage area, central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access), and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. Page 36 Item 8. F235] b. All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. c. Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations adjacent to E. Overland Rd. and S. Wells Ave. as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. d. Include a detail of the outdoor fireplace,BBQ,public art and children's play structure. e. Depict the minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along E. Overland Rd. outside of the ultimate right-of-way for the widening of Overland to 7-lanes. f. Depict a gate across the emergency access driveway from Overland Rd. as required by the Fire Dept. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 No Permanent structures(buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences,infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.) can be built within the utility easement. 1.2 There needs to be a water easement from the deadend water main to the eastern property line at both the northeast deadend and the central east deadend for future connection. 1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards. 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, Page 37 Item 8. F236] the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services.Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 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 Page 38 Item 8. F237] in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=225401&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCibX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223900&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224575&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciV.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224333&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitE G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2234 73&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancit E.or zlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223532&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitE I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancit E.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224862&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiCE Page 39 Item 8. F238] J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224820&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions and conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposedplat is in substantial conformance with scheduledpublic improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. B. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-G district(see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Stafffinds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-C and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-G zoning district. Page 40 Item 8. F 39 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Staff finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. C. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5): In order to grant approval of an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR The Director finds strict adherence to the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D is feasible although not entirely effective due to the height of the proposed structures. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance of providing double pane storm windows on all units as noise abatement to the traffic on 1-84 provides a superior means for meeting the requirements in UDC I1-3H-4D. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use%haracter of the surrounding properties. Page 41 SEASONS AT MERIDIAN H-2021-0007 — CUP for Seasons at Meridian, PP for Winco Wells Subdivision H-2020-0118 — Modification to DA for Volante Investments MDRGAN HOLDINGS N G j J} jJ .► r►� THE �� Egg & Nol�andiS DESIGNLAN D iNGROUP STONE HILL P Pfi—q I Lscape Arteedun h I P1q.a Porno 6n IJ- fJ7 .- 4W M i - ►l 7-4 • 1 r a a � 41t s zo16 D.A. Conditions CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. All development shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. W I N CO 2. Development of the west parcel located at 2600 E. Overland Road property shall be SITE generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.4 and A.S. 3. Prior to development of the east parcel located at 2700 E. Overland Road, the Development Agreement shall be modified to include a conceptual development plan that is consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With development of the subject property, the developer is required to extend sewer & water mains to and through the property. 5. Future development shall comply with the design standards contained in UDC 11- 3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual and/or any updated versions thereof. 2o16 D.A. 6.EiMbitAA: Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(dated:April 12,2016) SIX= ------- -.y-------- SITE Concept P l a n -._ �I ------- LDTI tMTSACRfE M STALLS 4 70PUM ----------- I LEGEND MMOF&-bAft MAJOR A m CM"CORRAL SSAW S.F. PARKIMOSPACLS SINGLE STORY I PWFVRrfAkARM UNE MWING UNE 9ASSMIMT 00MCREnGIDEWALK 7TrMTI BICYCLE PAR KINQ APN:S111743$M PAM'S" MAX04UwwQ"Ew-rr 374- ZbNI":"-0ENWkAkFtETAJLAM 04, SERVWCOUROEMCM DWRICT DES-1110ATIM PLAU SUB. TOTAL SITE AREk'~3".MCI$ACRES TOTAL PANAMARM 12k=&F, TOTAL PARI"tAIISOCAM AREA.45L011 a-F Wy!Q PAW M LOT LANOMICAM MWOMPS TOTALLANDWAVEAMM 511001110, PERCIERVAUe OP LAMD10CAM IM PAWM STALLS MSQVMD.ird P^Fd(M STAUB PRCWDW 4H ONE"M I-AwMxrAj1$=%ft2w AuAvrM.LSFWMU9";G ADA VALL4PAMIDIM.It SICYCLE 3PACES FIJEWARED M MrAn AP� BLOCK I YACWT LAND onwgwwe =1L L 0 0 OWrAgr OUNIMMM-k Ba LEGALORMAPTIM KING ArCATICkWIPARGEL 1,LOCATED M THE SWI40FTMSE$iDFSECTFON17.TAH,,FLIR, OMMITT"M E OVERLAND RD R.M.MSE.ADA COUNT,WHO MOW SITE PLAN WALE:1�41W C11 zoo 6 D.A. Conditions CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. All development shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Development of the west parcel located at 2600 E. Overland Road property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.4 and A.S. 3. Prior to development of the east parcel located at 2700 E. overland Road, the PROJECT Development Agreement shall be modified to include a conceptual development plan SITE that is consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With development of the subject property, the developer is required to extend sewer & water mains to and through the property. 5. Future development shall comply with the design standards contained in UDC 11- 3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual and/or any updated versions thereof. 2ol6 D.A. -- + ro osed n p p I .. P ARQlB � ModificationOR a - 95.000 S.F. 61NGL-E STORY � i E57110ATK k PU,CF SUB. I � _ I C QM. BLOCIL Y i p�y��1 VAC.WT LAM � S I I _ E0VEP4 MDVW Y Future Land Uses Citywide Ten Mile Spocific FL U M 0 Low Density Residential Civic Low Density Employment Medium Density Residential Old Town High Density Employment Med-High Density Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Employment ® High Density Residential Mixed Use Community '----,I Mixed Use Residential - Commercial Mixed Use Regional Mixed Use Commercial - Offce Mixed Use Non-Residential - Industrials Mixed Use-Interchange I PROJECT SITE I� tr Current Use Mix in MU Zone Office: 2,300,000 square feet - Retail: 509,000 square feet (not including Winco and Pads) • • • • • Multifamily: 578 units • RT 40 S ■ '_ _ A ■ Retail & ' j R Hospitality Office Medical Single family Homes k �+ Multifamily s► _ '-- ❑ Undeveloped f•. -_ - - - - - � s d 09 Preliminary �y �� Plate Ymjec[9immaFF[ WinCo Site Pr 'ect Site w_w eFacd Lot z Lod � B LOfl � � ``. lOfi Y 17.GT tl� iSfYlYi� � Y ......c —,_.i...m_...:�.w_w... ayCA l l 1.--------- -A PHASE 2 — EClYFN1 F10. 3 �_ g� YPYPlapef. i � sa — ___ @gineea,IanecapelFrmYect,gamer. 3 Vacant Lot m .w_ fir _ __— __—..__—.._—__..___—j a • . _ —._�—�—•�.�—..__..— — _•�.�_•� vac v � Y aFre Yawe is __ � ...._.. .... ig -•- PP61 Site Plan for CUPAA, 3i J - W-: E. Overland Road - - �. _ :, - �'-•ifs. S:� ~~ -� mil N I ' IF.� �_�•F _ y� "r �-�^yl 1 li�i� �l� .9--tilt, �..IR-•.+_ �y .� P MOW E0 1!4 Is r' .'.-r., ui._Ij■.•'���': ..- l - L. r: !''�± 11 @�.��i_ � ■�. 5�i q i„r�r f.� r� �L����M_ !� �.�;'.r:,::. �1jr���,,�� y _ ■ © : tip. : p O ® © 0 © 0 i 111111 1111 1111 t1111111�1 111111 sI K1 �� 1111 1111111111— _ _ 11 1 1 111 ti, _ail !1 I I111 Ill ]11111n 11/11111 1111 Jill■ IMF-] _ _1I11i1Mtf 111111 an n11 Kill 11 111�1 o soon sill 111101 s111 IK 1111 II11 11111 11 HIM111111 s111 � llln�J WEST ELEVATION Q. rrr�rrr r�rrr ■11K 11 ■■ 1111 ■■.......... IIl1wl'l�� I���#III i1�Iliil�1 Iv�M1'IC ■■ ■■ ■� 11111 11 Is s111_111111 �II11 ■■ 1L�1!1 II ��lililo ■■ I ii if'ili II III I _=_,__"___ If.____-_� II!ii��i li 11111i iiillJ ■� 1111M I Ifli Illfllfi�l I — wrr�� "' � wa ww ■ — 11IK 11 ■■ 1111 ■■ , ■■III Il■� ■■�wn III �■■ I ■■ •' 11111 �,I■■I IIl11�!-.- ":111K 11 ■■ 1111 ��. '�■ �■ - MY 111i111I�I_ -- ----- -- ---I li.Ili Cli ii _ _ ■� 111:"iiil�iliiid� 11'0�11 :: •' 11111 s111 � iF�m �'` I111 �1111 1111 111 I ■■ �_. 1111 �I 11 s111 SOUTH ELEVATION i r poll li n I�.I � _ I -. F ..c - i.. may- Ire - S - - •. oil .41 If � .ram r •�:r ';�'}.'�Y, f�,, Ell 1. .. Ift ION ■' Ut 9 , •� 7: f : I A yk 260% Open Space . 13 v o QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS ® LINEAR OPEN SPACE BUFFER: 63,741 SF - - i ® �] LOCAL COLLECTOR STREET BUFFER: 9,817 SF A. A. ` ® ARTERIAL STREET BUFFER(50%): 15,228 SF COURTYARD AMENITY SPACE: 57,642 SF CLUBHOUSE FACILITIES: 27,997 SF DOG PARK 6,288 SF o TOTAL OPEN SPACE: 180,713 SF I TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 690,426 SF I o PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE: 26% I - 26 Qualified Amenities A. Quality of Life: • Clubhouse — parcel lockers, bike maintenance room, remote work/classroom stations, coffee bar, outdoor fireplace with seating, BBQ • Fitness facilities • Public art B. Open Space: • 18 Grassy areas at least 50'x100' — including a dog park, multiple courtyards, park areas with seating, pocket libraries • Plaza • Community garden C. Recreation: • Pool • Walking trails • Children's play structure pis. ;��-� ;� . ►� :- � hn s w: Ir-, <: ,�� •ate _ '�-� ���z � � 1 -�.. ZAL r,, ,._ ' ,. ;�• ;may '��' �'t •�.:�. ■� tit - ,. •�� ' �}. ,. _ � �� �r: '� r: 4 L hszir � r ;.. - r a 40 40 � � "� � , ��� Y � •r � 1 �4 � �!' AFC. IN ® � �I — ' Pi • _ MONO A^1 . •I I.J.' •.y 4!X a``.aaaa __. _ ���� LU Y, ER THE FUTURE OFF PACKAGE DELIVERY Parking Z llo� I I - rt TOTALPAMOFROC_ i eru�.w: eUum TOTAL PA?•:YG UNCUE Mr;RUKE Cmpmr TOTAL COUNT NEMI PA"GiFMWEED 3A9l44349OV!US PAM GFROV 3JROB1f'FRE51A AMC 19 2H C41 " a ACCBSELEPAPI{WTj n a < 9 a c o r. o � o K = - m m "-ONV*-bPA"dVACEIVdLUHAMT#ULMFaA PAC;RJE0lk:9 A ------------- I G r EA51 0YE RLAN0 1CSA 1, ' EEL 1 - "f-� TL � i � II_' i , 4L:�� �:k s"��r.. S.�.=�4 "n. '��•�� I l — r n s7 r ql Buffer to Adjacent Homes W, UJ JI yl �I .+'full 'I; EEr T� .�, �� I ��� 01 a 1-I FE, H- 11F li E17 ; TING SIN AMILY DWELLI WALK AY/ CARPORT DRIVE CARPORT LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE PARKING AISLE PARKING BUFFER 101'-0" 250'-0' ------------- BUILDING SETBACK AVERAGE SETBACK OF EXISTING BUILDINGS Services • Fire — Meridian Fire Station #4 is 0.9 miles away • Police — Response time is less than four (4) minutes • Traffic — All ACHD conditions of approval are acceptable • Sewer/Water — Meets Meridian Master Plans • Schools — WASD schools have capacity to serve the project Distance to Project Pepper Ridge Elementary 483 675 1.8 Miles Lewis & Clark Middle School 838 1000 2.1 Miles Mountain View High School 2201 2175 0.9 Miles Requested Changes to Conditions of Approval Request Condition A.3.c be deleted: A.3.c. The extension of E. Cinema Dr. shall be included in the first phase of development. • ACHD has approved construction of Cinema Drive in Phase 2. • Traffic Impact Study placed all trips on Wells and still meet LOS. • Apartments site has primary and secondary access. SEASONS AT MERIDIAN MORGAN HOLDINGS& i J i J y E THE NORKIS DESIGN LAND STONE HILL P Pfi—gIL"..p.ArtheecLmIP1q.aPmno6n •UP GROUP Dave Aizpitarte Bionomics Environmental, Inc. 1 �- Fh- "In my opinion, double-paned - windows are preferable to a noise - = - tiat wall and provide adequate noise abatement for this site. Picture One.Approximate location of Apartment Complex Picture Two Location at fence line Combined 4 - -- . -- - PARCEL 9Site Plan � Y MAJOR A L:✓, J �' 95WO S.F. SINGLE:STORY 141 o � I STINATICN PLACE SU6. - I ' J n i...; CINEMA DR, J ' FUTURE RETAIL E OVERLAND RO a MOR SITE PLAN SCALF—:1"=40'-0' '� Zoning Map _ ;________ 7 i I� _ I ' f ALLO �r`, 1LIAGIC C��tEtEE1T§ II,O�UIST VIEW VIEVv AMD _ L _ SIG S 14LAGIC VIER -_ -----` - r Residential Districts — INGD J --- STOn . `� /`., RACh731L �L Low Density Residential{R-2} OC[�Sr VIF-M � y ♦/'' i `, HEIGI�PS _ PLACE`` %l .r Medium-Low Density Residential(R-d) V♦ J '+, i0 02 Medium Density Residential RR$y N 03 ---- r--- - 1: I N NO 0� Medium-High Density Residential(R-15) ; L DESTINATION O High Density Residential[R-da] 4 PLACE bXYGEN 1}0 02 _ PLAYGROL'Ihi] Lr i i'+YATTCT� PLAFE N0 03 I DORADO ` S19NEMQN r Industrial Districts PROJECT SITE I DES L�iATIQLkFrA6 Nd 02 Light Industrial(I-L) _-- _ _-- ---—,-� ------ ------------ s ' BL SI SS ' 1 ERrIDNI SLR ■ Heavy Industrial[I-H} - 0.1 ti I P - Traditional Neighborhood°ishicis Ir _ GALTDRX S _ . TRUST SAGECREST,•', ;i ! t�CD D -� ■ Old Town(O-T) iSTORAGE -VAP,EPjVtUA I AZA C IND0 C.C., Vi3RST _ Traditional Neighborhood-Center CTN-C} I f PLAZA - NO 03 r 1-T R�; RESOLUTION IGRAMERCY BONIZ` N❑ 2 SLL� RSTD1 -------- AA Ol i--- ----, Traditional Neighborhood-Residential(TN-R) ]IN i NO QI NO 01 r C: R1' GOLD5T0VE EERE[7hDO SILF7 Commercial Districts l [ BONITO I i LD5*0111E C� L---I RLII VIEW. �� r 1-4 RIA(FOLADE I__iCE ER�ONDO Neighborhood Business(C-N) `. DR"N� -PR Mb NO 01 _ O01 Community Business(C-C) �' EIG S ------_--- --General Retail&Service Commercial(C-G) V �YHELL• RC PE I �61�rro; Limited Office{L-0} I. ----- NO 03�-� FERS3N - --- - Mixed Employment{M-£} J [ PLACE ■ High Dens Em meat H-E [O 11I T LOTT g PARK 1�Q 0 THOUSAND . YHO S `- Y '-'��` UARPER 3 9 �Y P oy R } t;An SPRIlV G +� '`�L'T HERL AlYI L�II C PaRTC NQ+�T t SPRIltiGS�q?l 9rd - �`--_-_ . . - 0 © © 0 © 0 III::III leii �111 I- Illlllltl aiiililiiii! ll111 ' ��I - ■■■ ... Oman IIII '�1111I1 III®:I I Il it . '���I III Ilii� i Ii iil ■IIF • loll - z Illll Illllliiliiiiiiilllllll 111111 11 l iil . �I III__ __ i ii'ii ;II II :'ll r lillllllllll1:; 1i ii ii I 1 ii i1 v' `: ;l i l li ;I i1i i1 111111 iQi i1 - �1 WEST ELEVATION 0 © ® 0 © 0 nnnnminnnnninnn nnnEM ------..--oil 1 -- 111111 I gill IIII ■■ I��I N I 0�II I:■�`III 11■1 1111■ :'II �I:'I ■■ � 111�11 II''I 111111� _ Illliiiluiiliillllllll�1111�� �� ��lil it iliiiiii ll! iiiii ii iii it iii�l I Il i it ll ll Il IIII ii:liiill "�' I11111I lliIN iHiiill l - !11111 Il:il f111 slllll I lllliiilililiilllllll �Illll '!;i; I ____ -______ _ I;.: 11111� IT171 I 111 091, iiI l 111I ± 1 mllal. in Fr. Tim - IIIIIIE: 11111 f111 ! ■ loll 1 III - III II IIII i�= .-��■ IIII IIII III 1 ■ � IIII SOUTH ELEVATION i ■ © : tip. : p 0 © © 0 © 0 i �I11111 11II 1111 t1111111�1 �111111 1111 ■� 1111 1111111111— _ f '■ _ 111 u;� - Il 1111 !� 1111 h'�:��jl1jj 11 1111 11 11111 i 1� �11 II Il 111[II - �_„ , �_111111 ■ Il ll ; ��;e��l III■�� I I..._.., II>�� "�.- ,1 11 1111 11 11 11 = — i'llllll 1 111111 �■. 1111 GI Kill 11 1111 1 1111 1IL _ 1111 1111111111 111111 1111 1111 1 11 1111 I111111111 — WEST ELEVATION rrrrn r�rr� - -.-------- ■ II II II I1r.. ..=..� :�:# : :: 1 IVIIl: ■ •• ■. j jj j� '. 1111111111 ■• ILLL II, III I I �� , I ��I�I�III�I� �111w Ifli I� I�i Ilogo— �I;IiI ■■ Ililf 111�I III ■ ___ __ _ Illtii ■'� �ww Ifllfl 11 1111 l C���� �. . :III �:::li ::III., III ::: II::I ����� �,I::I 1�h111 ----- -- ---I li.lei Cliff I ■ 1111ii 111011 — TII1111 f111 � �F�. �` 111 1 1 1 ■■ � �_�'�� � 1�11 'I ■■' = = 111111 1111 ii .� 11 11 1111 111 I ■■ I �— SOUTH ELEVATION COLOR KEY LEGEND MATERIAL KEY LEGEND . ns — Palette . 0 . O p p © 2 m-7 IT ® ® 0 1111 i1 !� i1 i1 �_ ■ii If Ii ii ii 11 ■■ �1�E iil ii II lii�i ill ill fj ll 1�1�����11 - IIII ll M ll if i � �: ,:�:';Il ll 111- -r 11 ll ll ll ::- � Il ll Il Il ll i111i 111I11i flit Ill I fill fI1111iif1 r - WEST ELEVATION 0 1 l IIn' ' ■ " A IL glll:lll I:II: i IIII"I� IIII' '� iilii itMn�► � I "' I �� �ilNi i i1i li II III q Il iliitJ.117 - II n ■■ �■ � _�i Ii i1 11 i1 - 11 i ii � ���; 'II'1 ■' �����u:� :;� ; - > lliil' Il1f` kfUl �` ➢1 Il II l ■ I I 11 n 11 I 111 I 11..1 IIII it ll if il SOUTH ELEVATION 0 © © 0 © 0 1-MINION III■■ I ii ii 'I"' i ii i NO _Ill'III !I In Il;- _ .., lllli�uiilliulllll Iwlll �" � I� ' IWIIf1® 11■! II11 11 111 II 111I '--�: ;�,-a�-.:�11 � _.�16 IIi Ili III■�II I!II � s_� � I■® I,---— � h111 1 w 111111_ . .. - — IIIIIIiI lllllli!iiiiliiiilllll,l �jll _�_ '�! :^,I; SIC nl4 f:ll� I I._.._, — _._ 1•' �� 11 ��illwlfdW Ig19I IL _ -11 IIIi II ;;i ��llf1 ■ �I�. 111(� .m. I�i�l It IRi 111 11 w11 ! ■ !l�iw - ��ILli WEST ELEVATION irrrrr�r�rrnirrrrrirrr■ .. iI I®fi II::II ii iI ,,,' IIII II III I:j :lll,::I�:I 1 Illlllll: II�� II::� ■■ 11111 "ii�i _ Illlllf!Illlliflllll111! 1���! `�II Itlililiiiiiiiilliiiihililllll 1 1 . 1 I�__ I_ I Ill ii7liiillflllll!IIIlll1111,1lll - �i111l1 i■ IF� ? � _ �®i 1111 II Ii 11 i , 1[1111 ■■ d111111 I�IIIII�III■Illll 1 „a[■I II II! I 1■I�L�ilolmi 11 I _ �lllll _ ��■■ mMINI � �ii�■ 11 I� II 11 �I ■Bill I�®: ` II 11 SOUTH ELEVATION