The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-04-15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Lisa Holland Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal ABSENT Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner Maria Lorcher ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the April 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from April 1, 2021 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. - Approved 3. Public Hearing for Pine 43 Apartments (MCU-2021-0002) by Pivot North Design, Located South of E. Fairview Ave., on the East Side of N. Webb Way and North of E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Modification to the Conditional Use Permit (H-2018-0001) to revise the site layout to include consolidation of common open space into more usable areas with a clubhouse, and a change to the mix of units/types. - Approved 4. Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council 5. Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 2.15 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. - Recommended Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. - Recommended Approval to City Council ADJOURNMENT - 8:17 p.m. Item 2. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 15, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 15, 2021, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal, and Commissioner Nick Grove. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Maria Lorcher. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Lisa Holland Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove Steven Yearsley Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 15th, 2021. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We have staff from the city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as city planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on 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 this evening we encourage you to watch this on streaming the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. So, with that let's begin with roll call. Weatherly: Madam Chair, thank you very much. I would like to get your advice on proceeding. I just realized we do not currently have our legal counsel in attendance as of yet. McCarvel: I do know she is running a few minutes behind. I guess that's a process question. Staff, how do you feel -- I guess if we have a legal question we could stop or dowe -- Allen: I think that's fine with staff, Chairman McCarvel. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 5 Page 2 of 40 McCarvel: I'm okay with it. I think we -- I mean I'm aware that she is just -- could be five or ten minutes here, so -- she may have gotten stuck in traffic. But she will be on Zoom. I'm fine with it. I guess if we get to a point where we feel we have a legal question we will stop. Weatherly: Okay. I sent a quick text as well -- McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: -- to see if she will get back to me. I think we will go ahead with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we have no changes, so if I could get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the April 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting McCarvel: Next item is the Consent Agenda and we just have one item to approve, the minutes of the April 1st, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Grove: So moved. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 6 Page 3 of 40 McCarvel: And at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. The staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA where others from that group will not be speaking, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may press raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only listening on -- or on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example, please, be sure to mute those extra devices so we 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 be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember we will not call on you a second time. After the testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully they will make a -- make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from April 1, 2021 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. McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for -- or continue the public hearing for H-2021-0012, Jaker's Drive-Through Addition and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you all see my presentation? McCarvel: Yes. Allen: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission ❑ Item 2. April 15,2021 Page 4 of 40 McCarvel: I think we have got a different one. Allen: Okay. Hang on just a minute here. I was afraid that I might not have that right. McCarvel: We have got Pine 43 up there right now. Allen: Okay. Hang on a second here. Having a hard time seeing all my screens with my -- hang on. All right. Can you see Jaker's now? McCarvel: Yes. Thank you. Allen: Okay. Just a second. All righty. So, the first application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 1.37 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is located at 3268 East Pine Avenue. Adjacent land uses and zoning. Commercial uses to the north, south, and west zoned C-G and single family residential to the east zoned R-4. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is commercial. A conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential zoning district and residential uses to the east in Crossroads Subdivision in a C-G zoning district. Two 25 square foot, five by five foot structures are proposed for a drive-through menu, handout, and order placement and pickup along the south side of the existing Jaker's restaurant. No menu boards or speakers are proposed. Residential uses abut the east boundary of this site in Crossroads Subdivision, zoned R- 4. The project complies with the specific use standards in the UDC for drive-throughs as noted in the staff report. The row of parking directly south of the drive-through is proposed to be restriped to accommodate a one way drive aisle to allow space for the drive-through, which will reduce the number of parking spaces in this area by three. Based on the building square footage of 5,900 square feet, a minimum of 23 parking spaces are required. A total of 87 are provided in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown. They consist of stucco panels, with two inch wide recessed gold colored metal flashing accents, and asphalt roofing. The materials and colors coincide with that of the existing restaurant building. Design review of the structures has been approved by the director with this application. No written testimony has been received on this application and staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And just point of procedure, I see our attorney joined before Sonya started her presentation, so thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? And just state your name and address for the record and it -- yeah, we almost got to eat that thing. Anderson: Oh, sorry. Mark Anderson. BRS Architects. Address is 1010 South Allante Place. McCarvel: Okay. Anderson: Suite No. 100 in Boise. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 $ Page 5 of 40 McCarvel: Did you have anything to add to the staff report or anything you would like us to know about your project? Anderson: Negative. McCarvel: Okay. Oh. We are going to see if we have anybody signed in to testify then. Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff? I will take that as a no. Okay. If you would like to sit down we will open to public testimony. And, Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed in to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anybody online or in the room that would like to testify that is not signed up? Okay. And I'm going to go by the body language and assume that our applicant does not want to come back up. So, if I could get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0012. Holland: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public testimony on -2021-0012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Any comments, discussion? Holland: I think this is a fairly straightforward one. It doesn't have a lot of concerns to me. I think there is ample parking there. It will be nice for having a drive-up window and give them some more flexibility on how to continue operating as a restaurant. I don't see any concerns knowing where this is located. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think they have got more than ample space. Looks like a great use and probably continuing some things we learned in the restaurant business during COVID. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I agree with everything that's been said so far and hopefully I don't cut Commissioner Grove off, but I will go ahead and shoot a motion here. Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I approve -- move to approve file number H-2021-0012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15th, 2021. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 191 Page 6 of 40 Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file H-2021-0012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Pine 43 Apartments (MCU-2021-0002) by Pivot North Design, Located South of E. Fairview Ave., on the East Side of N. Webb Way and North of E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Modification to the Conditional Use Permit (H-2018-0001) to revise the site layout to include consolidation of common open space into more usable areas with a clubhouse, and a change to the mix of units/types. McCarvel: Okay. Next on the agenda we will open MCU-2021-0002, Pine 43 Apartments, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit modification. This site consists of 11.22 acres of land. It's zoned R-40 and it's located south of East Fairview Avenue and north of East State Avenue on the east side of North Webb Way. A conditional use permit was approved in 2018 for a multi-family residential development that consisted of 480 units on 26.17 acres of land. The first phase consisting of 240 units is currently in the development process. The second phase also consisting of 240 units is the subject of this application. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. Modification to the previously approved conditional use permit, file number H-2018-0001 , is requested to revise the site layout for the northeast 11.22 acre portion of the development to include a consolidate -- consolidation of common open space into more usable areas. The addition of a 7,047 square foot clubhouse and other amenities and a change to the mix of unit types within the development. No changes are proposed to the number of residential units or structures. The proposed plan includes a mix of one, two and three bedroom units and an increase in one bedroom units from 60 to 80. A decrease -- decrease in two bedroom units from 120 to 110 and a decrease in three bedroom units from 60 to 50 for a better use -- excuse me -- better mix of unit types available for rent. The proposed plan includes a significant increase and reconfiguration of common open space from two acres to 2.7 acres, resulting in an increase of .71 of an acre in excess of UDC standards. Site amenities approved for this space consisted of a fitness building and/or sports court, play equipment and plaza and community grill areas, with park style charcoal grills with an optional shade structure or covered dispersed throughout the development. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool with recreation deck, and two spas. Barbecue deck, covered outdoor seating and beach volleyball court in the common area along Webb Way and a dog run and dog wash, playground structure and community garden on the eastern portion of the development resulting in a higher quality of amenities for the development. These amenities and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 Flo] Page 7 of 40 common areas will be shared with the first phase. Staff recommends both phases are under the same management company for consistent maintenance of the overall development. Parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A total of 454 spaces are required consisting of 440 vehicle spaces, with 200 of those being covered for the residential units and 14 spaces for the clubhouse. A total of 462 spaces. Two hundred and forty-eight of those in covered carports are proposed. Garages were originally proposed along the east boundary of the site, which provided a buffer between the residential structures and the adjacent industrial uses to the east that have now been changed to carports. This change should ultimately provide more needed parking for the development, since some garages are typically used for storage and not parking. However, it will not provide a needed buffer between the different land use types. The interface between the proposed residential uses and existing industrial uses was a topic of discussion and concern at the public hearing for the original conditional use permit. Therefore, staff recommends a six foot tall closed vision solid fence is installed along the east boundary, with a fairly dense landscape buffer as proposed. A ten foot wide multi- use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along North Webb Way in accord with the pathways master plan. Pedestrian connection should be provided between buildings and to the main building entrances along Webb Way from the multi-use pathway as noted in the staff report. Conceptual building elevations and perspective drawings were submitted for the proposed three story multi-family structures and the single story clubhouse as shown. Building materials for the residential structures consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical fiber cement board and batten siding with gable roofs and asphalt shingles. Three primary color schemes are proposed for variety. Building materials for the clubhouse consist of vertical metal siding with vertical wood cladding, glazing, dimensional wood slat accents, a gable roof and metal roofing. Prefabricated steel siding is only allowed to be used as an accent material per the development agreement. Compliance with the design standards in the architectural standards manual and the development agreement are required. The proposed elevations should be revised to comply with these standards and requirements. The elevations in the first phase of development directly to the southwest of this site, Jasper Apartments, are a different architectural style as shown there on the elevations on the right. Flat roofs with parapets and more of a modern style and color palette, but the proposed structures incorporate several orientations of fiber cement board siding, which assists in unifying the structures. The applicant anticipates the existing structures will be repainted in the future to coincide with the proposed color scheme. While different architecturally, staff feels a similar use of materials and colors will offer variety within the development. Written testimony was received from Brian Wenzel, the applicant. He is in agreement with the conditions of approval and staff is recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Weatherly: Gary Sorensen, one moment, please. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 Fill Page 8 of 40 Sorensen: Good evening, Commission. Gary Sorensen. Pivot North Architecture, Boise Idaho. 1101 West Grove Street. I'm located in downtown Boise. As -- as noted Brian could not make it tonight, so I'm filling in and will do the best I can to field any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Did you have any presentation for us? Sorensen: I think -- I think Sonya had covered all the -- all the bases and we don't have -- as stated by Brian we don't have any objections to the recommendations from staff. If there are any specific questions regarding any of the materials that you see in front of you, we can -- we can certainly address any of those. But the presentation basically outlines the -- the same pieces of information that Sonya had previously went over. So, we think that the approach here is -- is a much enhanced version of phase one of the Jasper Apartments and offers quite a bit -- quite -- a better approach to the amenities and consolidation of open space and so it will feel better, I think, from a residential standpoint. McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. As far as the additional buffers, then, between residential and the commercial over there where the carports were going to be, I think that's all outlined and you are totally in agreement with that then? Sorensen: Yes, we are. Just for clarification previously there were garages and we still have carports and that -- along that edge, but I think adding a six foot solid fence as outlined by Sonya's recommendations is -- is not an issue at all. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Not seeing anybody jump off mute, so with that we will open to public testimony. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. Is there anybody in the room or online that would like to testify on this application? Okay. So, Gary, do you have any other comments you would like to make? Any other questions? Sorensen: I do not. McCarvel: Okay. With that, then, could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H -- or MCU-2021-0002? Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H -- or MCU- 2021-0002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F12 Page 9 of 40 McCarvel: So, when is the last time we have seen an applicant come back and want to give us more open space? Yeah. I'm good with the new design. The open space where it's gotten moved to seems to be much more usable. Any other thoughts or concerns? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I just would say adding more open space probably, you know, as -- as pointed out by staff, better utilization of parking to ensure parking and that the applicant is in full agreement with the staff's recommendation, it makes it pretty easy to get on board with this I think. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland or -- Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I just -- I mean part of it is they are giving more open space, but part of it is renumbering of some of the apartments that are in there. So, just want to make sure that that's -- according to what I read anyway, so -- they have a lot more one bedrooms that are in there, so that kind of reduces what they are required. That said they are providing ample space in there. I like the new layout. I think the walkability of it and the accessibility of it overall is going to be improved, just by how -- I drive by this every day or at least three times a week on my way to work, so I think the way that they have it laid out is just going to work better with what's being built already, as well as what -- what they have to go in next to there. So, overall it's very nice. I mean it's for -- for multi-family this is probably the first time I have ever seen multi-family go in without a line of people out the door to talk about it, so -- so far so good. I'm in favor of it. Holland: Yeah. Madam Chair, I would echo the same comments. It's nice that they want to add some additional open space, add some amenities like a clubhouse and also reduce some of the units that were three -- three bedrooms down to more of the one bedrooms. That's -- that's not common either. So, I appreciate that. That will certainly help with the parking, if there is any challenges there at all. But I also appreciate the -- not including the carport, because I think that is what we are -- or including the carports, instead of the garages, we think that is true. People like to store stuff, not cars, in garages. We all know that from our neighborhoods. So, I'm not going to cut anybody off, hopefully, but I'm going to say after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number MCU-2021-0002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15th, 2021, with no modifications. Seal: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F13 Page 10 of 40 McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve file MCU-2021-0002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the C-G zoning district McCarvel: So, on to H-2021-0014. Okay. So, I pronounce it -- or Artemisia Subdivision. I know I butchered that. I'm sorry. But we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 19.26 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 1690 West Overland Road at the northwest corner of Overland and Linder Roads. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the east is Camping World and Bish's RV, zoned I-L. To the south is vacant undeveloped land and office zoned C-C and apartments zoned TN-C. To the west is single family rural agricultural properties, zoned RUT in Ada county and to the north is Interstate 84. There has been no previous land use applications on this property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the northern 13.4 acres is mixed employment and for the southern 5.9 acres. Annexation of 25.67 acres of land, which includes the Idaho Transportation Department storm drainage area at the northeast corner of the site and adjacent right of way to the section and centerline of adjacent streets, with a C-G, general retail and service commercial zoning district, consistent with the associated future land use map designations. The proposed use of the property will include sales and service for commercial fleet operations for large commercial trucks and motorhomes, vehicle accessory sales, an installation facility for customizing vehicles, parts department and reconditioning facility for used cars for Kendall Ford Auto Center. The applicant anticipates the future uses on the six lots located along West Overland Road and adjacent to South Spanish Sun Way to be retail and office space. As a provision of annexation staff is recommending a development agreement is required to ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Because a conceptual development plan was not submitted for the commercial and office uses on the southern portion of the property, staff recommends the agreement is modified prior to development of that area to include a concept plan that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan per for the provisions in the development agreement and the Ten Mile Plan. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown consisting of nine commercial buildable lots on 19.26 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Lots range in size from .51 of an acre to 9.7 acres, with an average lot size of 2.01 acres. The plat is proposed to develop in one phase. One public street, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F14 Page 11 of 40 South Spanish Sun Way, is proposed via West Overland Road in alignment with that to the south. Direct lot access via West Overland Road and South Linder Road is prohibited. One stub street, West Tasa Street, is proposed to the west boundary for future extension in accord with the transportation system map in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. A temporary cul-de-sac is required to be constructed at the terminus of Tasa Street until the street is expanded in the future. Cross-access ingress-egress easements are required to be granted between all lots in the subdivision. Per the ACHD report Linder Road is scheduled in the integrated five year work plan to be constructed as a new four lane 1-84 overpass and widened to five lanes on each side of 1-84 with a level three bike facility from Franklin Road to Overland Road in the future. The intersection of Overload -- Overland Road and Linder Road is listed in the capital improvement plan to be widened to six lanes on the north and south legs and seven lanes on the east-west legs and signalized between 2036 and 2040. A future traffic signal is planned at the Linder and Overland Road intersection and scheduled for 2031 to 2035, but may be accelerated if the Linder Road overpass becomes a priority. For this reason and because Overland Road is fully built out, a traffic impact study was not required by ACHD for this application. Landscaped street buffers are proposed as required adjacent to public streets per UDC. That is proposed as required within the street buffers along South Linder Road in accord with the pathways master plan. Detached sidewalks are required along all streets with street trees. The Hardin Drain crosses the northeast corner of the site and is proposed to be piped. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the Kendall Ford site as shown. Two single story structures are proposed on Lot 1, Block 1, with building materials consisting of ACM panels, which are aluminum composite, corrugated horizontal metal panels, CMU in two different colors, metal sun screens and canopies are proposed over some windows. Overhead doors are proposed on the north, east, and west sides of the building. Final design must comply with the design standards in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received on this application from Becky McKay, the applicant's representative Engineering Solutions. She is in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement per the provisions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you, Sonya. Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Members of the Commission. I am Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing Idaho Auto Mall, LLC, on this particular application that's before you, which is annexation and rezone, as Sonya indicated, to C-G or general retail service commercial. It looks like -- Bill, are you having trouble? Oh. Okay. McCarvel: Are we hearing Becky okay, Dean? McKay: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F15] Page 12 of 40 McKay: So, the -- I will go ahead and -- we have, along with our annexation and rezone application, we have a preliminary plat for nine commercial lots on 19.26 acres. The reason that the acreage for the annexation or rezone is 25.67 is because the city had requested that we include the ITD storm drainage pond that is not a part of our project in our northeast corner and, obviously, include any right of way that adjoins us, so that there is no gaps in the city limits. The principal primary use on the property will be for a Kendall Ford Auto Center. This center, as Sonya indicated, includes sales and service of commercial fleet operations for large commercial trucks and, then, a lot of the motorhomes nowadays have a Ford like pickup on the front or van on the front, so they will be doing warranty work on that or service work and, then, they have vehicle accessory sales and installation facility for customizing vehicles. At this time they have, I have been told, multiple facilities throughout the valley where they have different uses and so what they are trying to do at this site is consolidate those uses and have them at one location. They will have a parts department, they will have a reconditioning facility for their used cars. They picked this particular property because of its close proximity to an interchange there at Ten Mile. Visibility along I-84 and the fact that it was located on the west side of Camping World, which sells a lot of motorhomes, which have the Ford chassis and so that they can do the work. We have six additional lots in addition to the ones that will be utilized for the Ford Auto Center, whether it will be retail or office uses we don't have any particular users at this time, but we, obviously, have designed the development to be in compliance with the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan where we have a mixture of uses, which would include a -- kind of the light industrial, the retail and the office. As Sonya stated earlier, Camping World is designated -- or zoned I-L, light industrial. South Ridge that is just south of us has a community business district, traditional neighborhood center and, then, to the west we have an agricultural parcel that also has a residence on it, but it will eventually redevelop. We did hold two neighborhood meetings on the property. Representatives from Camping World and the owner of the property to the west, Mr. Blomberg, did attend our neighborhood meetings. They had no objections to the project. They were supportive of it. They thought it was a good use and thought it would complement that area. The property has two designations on it under the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, a mixed employment and mixed use commercial. The C-G zoning -- we debated that with the staff in the multiple pre-application conferences that we had and it was determined that the C-G would be the most appropriate zoning designation over a light industrial, since we would not have any uses that would -- would fall within that light industrial zone. One of the questions that came up about the Kendall Ford Center was, obviously, the architecture. The architect Adam Garcia has been working diligently with the staff and the design guidelines and the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan to make sure that the architecture meets those guidelines. Initially they had one large building. They did break that into two buildings. They kind of reoriented it so the bulk of that building was not so massive from I-84 and so we have two buildings with a combined square footage of about 92,307 square feet. In there there will be approximately 85 to 100 employees. But, like I said, will be relocated from other -- other sites throughout the Treasure Valley. So, they are trying to consolidate their--their facility here in Meridian. The cost of this -- this building and the infrastructure to support it will be approximately 20 million dollars. So, it is -- it is a big facility. It will be a big boost for the City of Meridian and they are glad to be a part of Meridian. They have -- their Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F16 Page 13 of 40 headquarters were initially out of state. They relocated those to Boise and they have since bought a building at Silverstone development off Eagle Road and did tenant improvements and so their corporate headquarters are now in the City of Meridian, along with this facility, and so, obviously, they want to be a part of this community and -- and they are excited about building this and getting going as soon as possible. One of the things on the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan was that it has provisions where it requires that the project not take direct access to Overland or Linder. We have a public commercial street that lines up with Spanish Sun located to the south and, then, we have a public commercial street that, then, as it comes in on -- on Spanish Sun will turn westward and stub to the adjoining property. That is in compliance with the transportation plan of the Ten Mile plan and we did work with staff on -- on locating that. We -- the -- the lot sizes in here range from about 9.7 acres to around -- I think they go to two acres. So, we have a variety of lot sizes and -- and the -- the reasoning between that was to provide different lots for different uses, so that we could attract other -- other retail or office within our particular development. The staff required that we provide 20 foot of landscaping along the Overland Road frontage. We will be installing detached sidewalks. Overland Road is built out to its five lanes and, then, Linder is an unimproved public right of way. It's intended that there will be an overpass there. Ada County Highway District did notify us that they needed additional right of way for that overpass and to accommodate that Linder Road signalized intersection at Overland. We did modify our preliminary plat from the original submittal to accommodate that and we did resubmit that to the City of Meridian. Along the west boundary, even though that may redevelop to some type of commercial usage, we are required to have a 20 foot wide landscape buffer based on the fact that it is currently a residential ag use and so that is incorporated into our plan. We did respectfully request within our application that we be allowed one building permit for the Kendall Ford Auto Center prior to recording the plat, because they are anxious to get going on their construction. The staff has been so kind as to allow that, which is consistent with some of the other commercial developments where the parcel is entitled for one building permit. Obviously, we will have to meet the Fire Department fire code as far as access and fire flow. As far as utilities, this particular project is in the water zone three. There is an existing 12 inch water main in Overland and the Linder right of way. In my conversations with the fire -- or with the water department there is adequate fire flow in order to serve this particular site. There is a 30 inch sewer main that runs along Overland Road. The depth of that is about 20 -- almost 24 feet. We did run our sewer profiles, because the Public Works Department wanted me to verify that we could sewer our Kendall Auto Center into that line and we did substantiate that that -- that is doable. In addition -- oh, I'm sorry. That's my phone. It might be my child. I apologize. In addition to that, the Meridian Public Works sewer master plan shows an eight inch sewer main that will run parallel with I-84 to serve additional properties to the east. They will -- the Public Works Department has asked us to trust fund for our 335 linear feet of that eight inch future sewer line and to provide that easement, so that sewer can be provided beyond our boundary, because some of those parcels that are to the east of us cannot sewer into Overland Road, because the properties drop off to the north. I think one of the things that was brought up in Sonya's staff report -- she did request that we have five foot wide detached sidewalks with eight foot landscaping on all of our interior roadways. I did not show those as -- as detached, I show them as attached, but we are in agreement with Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F17 Page 14 of 40 her requirement to make those detached. We have the Hardin Drain, which traverses our northeast corner. We did get plan approval from Nampa-Meridian, a license agreement, and prior to irrigation coming into the waterways. We have already piped the Hardin Drain with a 36 inch RCP. We have also coordinated with the property owner to the west and we have piped their delivery along Overland Road and down our west boundary to accommodate them. One of the big things within the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan is pathways. In your pathway plan there is a ten foot wide multi-use pathway shown along Linder outside that right of way. Our site plan does incorporate the ten foot wide multi- use pathway and, then, in addition to that we included a five foot pathway that loops all the way around our site and, then, there is discussions in that Ten Mile plan about creating focal points at the intersections. So, we do show on our landscape plan that we will have masonry signage and some type of sculpture. So, we do create a focal point at the -- the newly Overland-Linder intersection. Staff has asked us to provide some plazas, benches, interior pathways for the employees consistent with the Ten Mile plan. We are in agreement with the staff's recommendations. We ask that the Planning and Zoning Commission support the project. We are excited to get started. We think it will, obviously, benefit the city, benefit this area, and I stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you, Becky. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Seeing none, we will move on to public testimony. Madam Clerk -- Holland: Madam Chair, I do have a question. McCarvel: Okay. I -- I thought I saw your -- your facial -- was trying to get off mute. Holland: Sorry. Just a quick question for staff. In the C-G zoning, if somebody came through and they had some sort of a light industrial use that was still more commercialized in nature, maybe that kind of commercial-industrial flexspace, would that be allowed within the C-G zoning? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, flexspace is a principle permitted use in the C-G district. There are other light industrial uses -- or I should say not industrial -- light industry uses as defined in the code that are conditional use permit in the C-G district. Holland: Perfect. That answered my question. Thanks, Sonya. Allen: Uh-huh. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: Becky, do you have any other thoughts? I do have one question. How do you pronounce it? I'm going to make you walk all the way back up here for that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F18 Page 15 of 40 McKay: My-- my client kept providing names that we -- obviously had already been used and the architect came up with Artemisia. McCarvel: Artemisia. McKay: Artemisia. I had a difficult time pronouncing it and every time I spell it I spell it differently. So, I -- I have the same struggle you have. McCarvel: All right. Artemisia. I have forgot it already. All right. With that could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0014. Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded and thirded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Seal. Seal: I like where this is going in at. I mean it seems like a pretty good use of the property. I mean the fact that they are going to have the overpass right next to them, you know, where people are going to be able to come down in there is -- is probably going to be great for business, especially with the neighbors that they have and the use that they are looking at for this property here, so -- I like the layout of it. Obviously they want to have that -- that freeway frontage in there, but I like the layout that it leaves for the other buildings that can go in there. It will be interesting to see what does go in there. So, I'm just happy to see that that's in there. Parking looks like it's not going to be an issue in there, although it always is. It doesn't matter how many parking spots you put in it's always an issue, so -- but overall I like it. I think -- I think it will be a good fit for the community and for the business and allow them to continue to grow. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I -- I really like where this is located as well. I think it's smart planning with where the freeway is, what's kind of surrounding it, and I also like the size dimensions of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 Fig] Page 16 of 40 other lots that are proposed on the frontage, because they are in the category that's kind of missing in the market. So, it's nice to have a few more shovel ready properties for future flexspace tenants, future other commercial buildings. I think it gives a lot of variability for some of these small to mid sized projects that could be a really good fit here as well. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think between those two interchanges and, then, you will have the overpass and all the other businesses surrounding and it looks like it's going to be a beautiful building. Appreciate the thought that's gone into it. Yeah. I'm in support of it as well. Commissioner Grove, would you like to do the honors? Grove: Sure. McCarvel: Or give other thoughts? Grove: It looks good. I'm always in favor of anything that can continue to increase the employment opportunities in Meridian and this looks like a good opportunity here. So, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15th, 2021, with no modifications? Or was -- did I miss a modification? Seal: I will second that. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2021-0014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thanks, Becky. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 2.15 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. McCarvel: All right. Moving right along. Next item on the agenda is H-2021-0013, and much simpler name, Roberts Annexation. We will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Planning Commission. Alan Tiefenbach, planner with the City of Meridian. Can everybody hear me and see my screen? Thumbs up? Thank you very much. All right. This is an annexation of a little more than one and a half acres of land with an R-2 zoning district. The property -- so, the property is zoned R1 in Ada county. It's surrounded by an unincorporated rural and an R-8 zoned land in the City of Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan recommended this for low density residential. Again, this is an annexation of 1.7 acres with the R-2 zoning district. So,just a quick background on the property. So, the property is -- right now is comprised of two lots and these lots Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F20 Page 17 of 40 are presumably zoned R1 in -- in unincorporated Ada county. The southern lot, until just recently, had contained a 4,000 square foot residence. The applicant demolished his single family residence in anticipation of building a bigger one, a 6,000 square foot house, with a detached garage. When the applicant went to the county to get a building permit the county told the applicant that they needed to annex it into the city and they wouldn't issue a building permit. Here is a site plan that shows what they want to build now. That's on the left. That's a 6,000 square foot house. On the right there is just to give you a -- sort of a concept of where the project site is to see the Heritage Subdivision that is surrounding it. It's important to notice -- to note that the -- the nearest available sewer main is located in Locust Grove about 1 ,400 feet north of the subject property. The applicant has requested and asked for the city engineer and the Public Works director for a waiver and -- because they did not want to have to -- when you annex into the city you have to hook up to water and sewer. Obviously, 1,400 feet is quite a -- quite a ways for one applicant for one house to have to run a sewer main and it's very costly. They have asked for a waiver from that. That waiver has been approved. What that means -- and there is a condition now in the development agreement that when -- if-- if the surrounding area does annex in the future and/or if the city or somebody else expands that water main from the north to the south, that 1,400 feet, then, at that time the applicant will have to tie into that sewer -- or, excuse me, that sewer main, but until that time the applicant can -- can remain on well. Now, in regard to water, there is this kind of a different story. So, the problem -- when you hook up to city water all you have to do is you have to extend the water main to the property -- to the property line, so that adjacent properties can eventually hook up. So, the UDC requires this applicant to extend the water main from the intersection of Locust Grove and Paradise east along the property line to the eastern property line and that, again, according to the applicant is rather costly. What the applicant wants to do is to be able to run a service line directly from the shortest point A to point B from the house to the intersection and not have to extend that whole water main and that one they also applied for a waiver. The city engineer did deny that waiver. My understanding at this point is that the applicant is going to appeal this waiver to the Council. That's something that you could discuss if you would like, Planning Commission, but ultimately it would be the City Council that would decide if the applicant would do that. The last thing I want to talk about quickly is right now there is existing sidewalk on the east side of North Locust Grove, which runs along the property. Otherwise, the Heritage Subdivision, which is that whole subdivision where this property is -- so, there is several different streets -- East Paradise Lane, East Star Lane, North Spangle Drive and Freedom Lane, all these roads right now do not have sidewalks. These are just rural roads with -- that are dirt and have gravel on either side. Now, per our regulations you are technically -- the applicant is technically required to install sidewalk along the property, but, again, this would be the only property in this whole subdivision that would do that. But the staff does not have strong opinions about this. The Planning and Zoning Commission can certainly discuss whether they think it would be necessary to require the sidewalk of this one applicant and the one thing I wanted -- the last thing I want to say before I shut this down, just because there has been a little confusion in the community, is that the -- again, the only reason that this annexation is happening is because the applicant was not able to obtain a building permit in order to build a single family home. All that is proposed on this lot is one single family residence. There is no desire to subdivide this or build any Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F21 Page 18 of 40 more houses and just because this applicant is annexing also does not mean that any of the adjacent properties are going to be annexed and there has been some concern that I have heard from the community and with that, Commissioners, I will stand for any questions if you have any. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Semple: Hi, Madam Chair and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ben Semple with Rodney Evans & Partner. 1014 South La Pointe Street, Suite 3, Boise, Idaho. 83706. Everyone hear me all right? McCarvel: Yes. Semple: Excellent. Yeah. I want to thank Alan for his presentation. I think you did a great job encapsulating what this application entails. As stated, the property owner did purchase these parcels with the intention of building his own single family home for his family with an accessory structure on the site. When he approached Ada county, you know, initially they don't have a mechanism for a lot consolidation, because both of these -- these lots are within a current Ada county subdivision. So, they were going to require a subdivision process to consolidate the parcels. When we submitted our subdivision application within the county, the northwest corner of this property, when it extended to the centerline of Locust Grove, touches the southeast corner of the southern boundary of Alexandria Subdivision. You can see those smaller kind of skinnier townhomes to the west of Locust Grove. So, there is a single point that touches. There is no other path for annexation other than that point in the centerline of the road. So, when they transmitted it to the city it was determined that we needed to annex. So, this has been going on for about a year and a half or so. The applicant really is trying to build a house for himself and his family. I do want to reinforce, just like Alan did, we did receive some feedback from the neighbors that they are concerned about the precedent of annexing this property and whether there was some sort of redevelopment plan for the future and that is one hundred percent not happening. He wants to live here. That was the intent. He likes this area. He really wanted to just build this in the county. That being stated, he understands the process now and so we are going through the annexation and is in agreement with the majority of the staff report and the back and forth we had with the -- the staff, as well as Public Works. There is a couple items that we are a little concerned about the economic ramifications to a single homeowner needing to, one, extend an eight inch water main approximately -- sorry. Excuse me for a quick second. Approximately 285 feet down Paradise Lane in order to provide a single service line to his property. No other properties in this area have annexed or have indicated their desire to annex. I understand that that's, you know, maybe not the case in the future, because all of these other properties are on wells, they will not be connecting to that service or that water main in Paradise. That's kind of the reasoning behind why we are going to request a review of that denial of our waiver request for the water main extension. We are glad that Public Works has determined that they can waive a 1 ,400 linear foot extension of a sewer main to the property to service one home and allow the property owner to continue to use an existing septic system or develop a new septic system, obviously, going through all the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F22 Page 19 of 40 channels that we need to get that approved. Part of the development agreement that the owner is willing to enter into with the city, as stated in the staff report, would be to connect to a future sewer main if it is extended past the property at that -- because there is nothing in Locust Grove or Paradise for sewer mains right now. So, we are -- we are okay with -- with that condition with the connect -- the future connection to that sewer main. One of the other items that Alan brought up is a sidewalk. Again, about 285 linear feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the current rural road section that does not include stormwater systems. It is an ACHD road, but currently a rural road section that allows for sheet drainage off to both sides of the road and, then, infiltration into roadside swales. The road is paved with gravel shoulders and, then, the aforementioned roadside swales or areas where the water can infiltrate. If he was to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as I'm sure the Commission is aware of, ACHD, then, requires the installation of a stormwater system to handle that additional runoff. We can't just let it run off the back of the sidewalk and into the lot. That combined with the cost of the curb, gutter, and sidewalks we feel, again, is very cost prohibitive for the construction of a single family home. That being said, we are, you know, in agreement. We have had some back and forth with the Fire Department about constructing the driveway on this home to comply with the weight requirements for apparatus, so that a fire truck can drive into the driveway to get their distances from the shop buildings in the northeast corner of the property, as well as get all the way around the property for adequate fire protection if that still happens. I guess that's really the -- the majority of what I wanted to discuss tonight. We do have a couple other questions regarding some -- some just sort of general conditions in the staff report from Public Works. The -- the reimbursement for infrastructure enhancement that was under B2.2.2, we are kind of unsure about how that happens, but I think that that's a conversation with Public Works if we are required to extend that water main and don't receive a granting of a waiver at City Council for the water main extension and with that I think I would stand for questions from the Commission if you have any for me. Thank you. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant or staff? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I have -- question is more for staff -- generally speaking when something like this happens that sidewalks don't go in -- and I'm talking about a development, obviously, and not individual homes, but looking at the potential of the area. Does ACHD usually require some kind of deposit to be put in for that, so that they -- when that road gets improved they pay their part? Semple: They do. ACHD didn't have any comments on that, but, yes, what has traditionally been is that in the cases when ACH -- and this has usually been with bigger subdivisions, this usually has not been with a single family one lot, but they usually had, yes, required some kind of reimbursement, but in this particular case they did not have any comments one way or the other. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F23 Page 20 of 40 Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? With that we will open to public testimony. Madam Clerk, did we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we had one citizen sign up to testify. That's Eric Reece. McCarvel: You want to get that mic real close and state your name and address. Reece: Thank you, Madam Chair and Commission. This is my first time at one of these meetings, so I'm -- I don't know exactly what's going on with the meeting, but -- McCarvel: If you would state your name and address for the record. Reece: Eric Reece. 1850 East Paradise Lane. McCarvel: Okay. Thanks. Reece: We live in one of the most beautiful undisturbed by city neighborhoods in this county. No sidewalks. We have our own water. We have our own septic. That's how we want to keep it. Now, I'm curious if there -- because there was a well on that property, why did the homeowner have to hook the new -- the applicant, why does he have to hook to city water? Why can't he just use that existing well and septic as well? McCarvel: Okay. And we will have the applicant address your questions when he comes back. Reece: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. If that's all you have, that's -- that's great. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else signed up to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, there is not. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else in the room or online that would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I see a Nicole Carr. Nicole, one moment, please. Carr: Hi. Nicole Carr. 2105 East Freedom Lane. Can everyone hear me okay? McCarvel: Yes, we can hear you. Carr: I have just a few questions as far as what zoning R-2 means for the City of Meridian, because, I'm not familiar -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F24 Page 21 of 40 McCarvel: I guess -- Carr: -- with the zoning, as we are currently R1 with the county. McCarvel: You are kind of muffled. If -- if you could repeat that. Carr: Sure. My question is -- McCarvel: Oh, that's better. Carr: -- as far as R-2 zoning for the City of Meridian, what --what is allowed in R-2 zoning for the city? McCarvel: Okay. Is that all you have? Carr: No. I had another question with zoning, if it can be changed in the future at the owner's request and that should be it. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none, would the applicant like to re-address -- oh, did you have one more? Weatherly: Madam Chair, Chris is indicating a wish of testify. Chris, one moment, please. Chris, you should have the ability to unmute yourself. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Ilgenfritz: Hello. Can everybody hear me okay? McCarvel: Yes. Thank you. State your name and address for the record, please. Ilgenfritz: Thanks for taking my comment. My name is Chris Ilgenfritz. I'm at 2290 East Freedom Lane. Just wanted to quickly comment that I'm sensitive to the frustrations and the challenges that the homeowner has faced in trying to build his home on the property. I do not, as a nearby neighbor, support the concept of annexation into the City of Meridian. I understand that it's been frustrating for him to try and figure out how to build his house on that site without crossing the boundary line down the middle and I'm sure that's very frustrating. Unfortunately, his lack of planning doesn't necessarily -- or understanding of the process doesn't necessarily fuel the need to suddenly annexed part of this historic neighborhood into the City of Meridian and it would be my preference that this would remain a part of the county, as the rest of our neighborhood is, and that well -- I'm sure he would like to work through these frustrations and perhaps a redesign or some other way to address the county's problem will be a more appropriate approach and that's all I have to say. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other comments -- any other -- Weatherly: Madam Chair, I see no other hands raised. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F25] Page 22 of 40 McCarvel: Okay. Oh. Certainly. Come forward. Wilmock: Good evening. My name is Silvia Wilmock. I will at 2305 East Paradise Lane and like this gentleman before mention, yes, we are -- we understand the frustration that these owner -- I mean this landowner is facing. However, like many people, this area -- it's very secluded, it's all protected, and it's very important for the people in his community who live in this area to the desire to keep and protect this area, which, as you know, Meridian is expanding and we are keeping this real rural sense of community, which is very important for us. So, our next thing even the gentleman who will represent the owner -- I mean the landowner was mentioning he has no desire to build something bigger or it can be a low density development also I believe through R-2. What make that in the future, because it's been annexed it can be turned into something which is low density residence. So, that is a concern. Everything can be changed as to its impact. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify on this application? Madam Clerk, anyone? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I see no one. McCarvel: Ben, would you like to address these questions? Semple: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission and Members of the public, yes, please. So, again, I'm representing the property owner, who is also the person that's going to build the house on this property. He does not want to annex, to be totally honest. This was required because the county has no way for him to consolidate those parcels. We can't build a single family home on one parcel and a -- an accessory structure on another parcel. It's not allowed either. Which requires the removal of the property line that's between the two parcels. This -- again, the property owner and builder and the person that will be living there wants to be part of this county subdivision and community. I have no doubt that a condition of approval could be put in the development agreement that restricts this property to contain a single family home and the accessory structure that he has on there that is intended for an RV garage and a shop for his personal use and storage. Again, the property owner is not here tonight, but at no point in time in this process was his desire to annex and if there was a mechanism to do it another way and to get a building permit he would be doing that. There is no mechanism in the county or the city that allows him to build a home that would be over that property line without annexation. Again, he does not -- he is trying to get a waiver of the water main extension. There is a current well on the site that is still operational. He is intending to utilize that for irrigation if he can't use it for potable water and so I completely understand the concerns of the neighborhood here, but with a development agreement they could place on this annexation that would restrict the redevelopment of this property. Again, he wants to build his own family home and live next to these people and be a good neighbor. So, I think that that addresses it. I mean we were -- we went -- when we had our pre-app we were told to come in at R-2. It's -- you know, one -- the lowest residential density zone in the City of Meridian that would allow for this construction and this type of project. So, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F26 Page 23 of 40 don't know how else he can -- I guess ease the fears of the residents around there, other than going through this process and creating a development agreement that very much outlines what his intent is and that he intends to live there for the rest of his life. So, with that I guess I would stand for any additional questions or if anyone who needs anymore clarification I'm happy to provide that. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. I guess I will just jump off here in -- in the simplest layman's terms -- and I'm going to defer here to Bill in a second, because we had a question on the R-2 zoning and can it be changed in the future. I guess in the simplest layman's terms R-2 in general means no more than two houses to an acre and so at most, even if this person totally changed their mind after it came in and was annexed, at most you would have three, maybe four houses there; correct, Bill? I mean that would -- without changing anything. But I mean, obviously, the intent of this person is much different. Tiefenbach: Commissioner, can I answer that one? This is Alan with the city. McCarvel: Okay. Sure. Tiefenbach: First of all, R-2 -- so, R-2 is the lowest zone district that we have. Twelve thousand square foot lots. We can't -- we can't go any lower than R-2. The applicant didn't have any options through the county, other than to annex. The development agreement -- if the development agreement includes a site plan that shows one house, the applicant would not be able to build anymore than one house, exactly the house as it's shown, without going back to the City Council and having to amend the development agreement. The reason why that well is having to be capped is because that's a requirement of the city for annexation. If you -- if you annex to the city you have to go on public sewer and public water. That is certainly -- I could -- you could say that as an argument the -- in the favor of the applicant going to the Council for the service lines if the neighbors are nervous about extending water infrastructure there and whether that's going to be a precedent for more annexations, that would certainly be in the applicant's favor of why they would argue to Council that they should only have to require a service line which would only be adequate for the one house. So, yeah. And in order to build more houses they would first--A, they would have to amend --they would have to amend the development agreement, which would be a public process again. So -- and if it goes anymore dense than R-2 they would have to rezone it. So, hopefully, that answered the question. If -- if this was denied I don't know if they would go -- if they could go back to the county and tell the county that the city wouldn't annex it and now they have to let them build it or it's a complete loss. I'm not sure. Semple: Madam Chair, if I could add something. This is Ben, the applicant again. If can add something real quick. There is currently two parcels there right now, which I guess technically could have a home on each one. So, the applicant is trying to consolidate these, which would, then, again, remove that ability. I mean he could go pull two building permits in the county right now and build two homes. So, he's trying to do what's right for this area again. That's all. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F27 Page 24 of 40 McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Ben, any idea what -- you mentioned reference of an item you wanted looking at -- and I think most of the things we have that are discussion items as far as the water and sewer mains, that's items for Council, but there was -- what was 8-B-2-2, did -- did any other Commissioners write that one down? What was that one you were wanting to -- Semple: Madam Chair, it was just in the -- in the general conditions of approval from the Public Works Department. B2.2. So, Boy 2.2.2 states that 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 enhancements for MGC- 865. McCarvel: Okay. Semple: That's just a general condition and I feel like most of these are typically applied to a larger, you know, true development or subdivision. I just am not familiar with that process for being -- determining eligibility if we don't get a water main extension waiver granted, obviously, he would like to look into how he could get reimbursed for a little bit of that cost, knowing that an eight inch water main could service a lot more properties than his and, again, if this was a true development of the property I would be understanding of this as well, because I do this a lot for a lot of different people, that typically water and sewer and all those would have to be to and through. Just a very unique situation here. So, we are just trying to get a little bit more information on that, which we don't -- I don't need that answer tonight, I just wanted to have it on the record that we were curious about that. The main one that we wanted some feedback on was item J of the sidewalks, because -- because it states that the Planning Commission and City Council should determine whether requiring sidewalks along with frontage should be required in the development agreement. We would like to not have that included for the reasons stated in the -- in my presentation that it could create some drainage issues, as well as the extremely cost prohibitive to building one home if they have to build almost 300 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as well as it sounds like the neighbors don't want it there either, which, again, we are trying to be sensitive to the neighbors and do what we can for my client and the builder and property owner to build his residence for he and his family. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant before -- and, if not, if I could get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0013? Holland: So moved. Seal: So moved. Oh. Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F28 Page 25 of 40 McCarvel: Commissioner Holland and Commissioner Seal, you are both off mute. Anybody waive and see who want to go first. Commissioner Seal, you got a big grin. Seal: I don't know that I'm grinning, as much as -- Holland: Madam Chair? Seal: Oh, who was that? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Seal: Oh, go ahead. Holland: My internet connection is unstable. Commissioner Seal, why don't you go first. Seal: Okay. The whole time I'm sitting here I'm rewinding back to when we got rid of the rural designation in Meridian where this would fit. Not perfectly, but it would definitely make things a little bit easier on the -- make something like this go. There is a lot of stuff that's in the Comprehensive Plan about preserving the rural feel of Idaho -- or Meridian and things like that and I understand that's what we should probably try to do with this site. The only rub to me is where it's at. I mean this thing is right on Locust Grove. We got to be careful the precedent we set here, because as these develop and they will and they will get annexed into the city at some point -- I mean it might be when we are all dust, but at some point in time it will --that will happen for the majority of these. Not all of them. So, I want to make sure where ever we go with this that we are very very careful with it. I understand the need to put in the infrastructure, so as far as the water main I completely understand that. It would be nice to be able to work with the applicant to see if there is some kind of reimbursement, because that is the first leg into this that will make it to where if somebody else wants to annex, then, it's not such a stretch in order to get by that. That -- you know, the property that's there right by the road. So, I think that that definitely is something that needs to be held in there, but, hopefully, we can work -- you know, hopefully, some more can be done with the applicant in order to help alleviate some of the costs associated with it I guess. The -- as far as the sidewalks, generally speaking, with a development, you know, big or small, I have seen -- and I mean I have seen some five acre ones that have come in like this where, essentially, ACHD holds out a certain amount of money for sidewalks in the future. To me that's a lot more fair than make them put it in right now. That way as the road develops it can just be part of what develops, instead of putting the entire cost on the homeowner in order to provide that right now as is, especially when it doesn't connect to anything else. I mean this area is definitely one of the little gems in Meridian. There is a couple right in this -- in this area that had I had the money to live there I would be right now, because I think they are -- you know, they are just magical little places that you drive into and it's driving into another city. So, you don't have -- you know, you have the illusion of being a little bit more rural while you are in there. It would be nice to keep that -- these guys are at a rock and a hard place at this point in time. Personally it would be -- if it was in our purview to push back on the county to let this gentleman subdivide that, I would much rather go about doing that. That way, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F29 Page 26 of 40 you know, we don't have to do what the city needs to do, which is cost prohibitive for this, but as it -- coming into the city as an annexation, we have to protect it for the future as well. So, that's about all I got for now. I'm just kind of rambling, because this one -- this one's got me reeling a little bit. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, to answer a couple of concerns neighbors had -- and I know we already kind of addressed this, but R-2 is the lowest designation unit and as Alan stated, if they wanted to do anything other than build just one home with this they would have to go back through an entire differently -- different public process. So, I think that should hopefully ease their concerns. Also just want to note and remind folks that the city doesn't force annex anybody into the city. They are not going to be coming and telling you you need to annex your property just because you are adjacent city limits. 1 -- unless you decide to come forward and ask to be a part of the city for some reason, they are not going to be coming and pursuing you. So, I just want to give that assurance, too. On this specific landowner, I would -- I would support their request for not requiring them to do the water main extension. I know in my experience right now it costs about a million dollars a mile to extend water or sewer on major arterials, because of the road work that's required to go along with that and it's very expensive, so if you are looking at 1,400 square feet, that's over 250,000 dollars worth of investment for -- for the amount of length they would have to do. So, I think that's unreasonable to ask of one property owner. So, I would support their request for that, that they would just have to tie into the main line or do a mainline extension to the roadway, just from their property to connect in. I think that that's a fair request. I know that's not up to our approval there, but we can certainly make our comment and recommendation to Council on that. I also think it's fair that they can remain on their own septic, because they are not really creating a burden to the system, it's -- it's just one house that was already existing before, they just remove the structure and rebuild a new one. I don't see any other challenges really with them annexing into the city, being in that low density designation. I think it fits with the surrounding area. We are not looking to make a change or-- major change or add a new subdivision here, it's really just helping them accomplish their goal so they can build a single house. So, on the sidewalk side of things while I would love to see sidewalks on Locust Grove, I know that there is kind of a buffered bicycle lane walking path on Locust Grove on that side of the road that connects to the property. So, I'm not too worried about it, because there is a significant link that would need to have sidewalks and just having a piece of sidewalk on Locust Grove in front of this property might not be -- might not fit very well. So, I don't see a need to require them to do that at this point in time either and it would look weird to have a part of a sidewalk going down Paradise Lane, too, when the rest of the road doesn't really fit that. So, to summarize, I would -- I would -- I would encourage approval of -- or I'm in favor of approval of the application and also recommending to Council to consider waiving the requirement for a water main extension and waiving the requirement for sidewalks. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F30] Page 27 of 40 Grove: So, this is a tough one. I -- I sympathize with the applicant and with the -- the public testimony tonight. I -- I have concerns when we -- I have long-term concerns when things are not built out as -- as written in the code and the plan for the simple fact that in five years as everything else around here could potentially change, we now have disjointed aspects of -- within our city limits and it -- it causes future problems for the city as development tries to tie into things and so if we don't address it as they become available, it's harder to go back and fix the problems retroactively. You know, in terms of connections and things like that. So, I'm -- I think the biggest one for me is the sidewalk. If it doesn't get put in now is there a mechanism that, you know, allows this to connect in the future? You know, I guess maybe a question to staff, like when Locust Grove gets expanded I'm assuming sidewalks go in, but -- I think that's my concern is not having a disjointed plan for the city as things develop and get built out. You know, not too far north of this is, you know, the McMillan and Locust Grove area that has commercial aspects to it. There is commercial pieces and schools relatively close to this area. So, having pathways and connections for the future, in addition to, you know, the short term, is something that I'm a little concerned with and to the same point, you know, with the -- the water and septic and whatnot, having those in, you know, just creates harder -- harder development -- in-fill projects or development as we go forward. So, I -- I'm in favor with whatever, you know, the group says tonight, but those are just some concerns I have. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more thought to Commissioner Grove's comment. Commissioner Grove, would you feel better if-- if we asked the applicant to preserve the right of way for future sidewalks and that they wouldn't be required to construct them at this point in time, but when the roadway is expanded in the future and neighboring properties are developing that they would participate in adding sidewalks at that point in time? Potentially we could condition something like that. I know it's harder to maintain it and staff may not like that, but maybe staff can give us some guidance on what they would prefer there. McCarvel: I was going to say, that's my question to staff right now is -- when there is not sidewalks there and ACHD goes in and puts -- improves the road, they put the sidewalk in anyway; right? Tiefenbach: This is Alan Tiefenbach. Yeah. They -- if ACHD was widening the road -- it's one thing when you are building a large subdivision and you are requiring someone to put in a sidewalk. It's a whole other thing if there is one single family residence and ACHD is doing a large expansion and having to build the sidewalk. Bill, I don't know if you can lend anything more to this than what I have already said. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think Alan hit it right on the head. I'm almost going back to Commissioner Holland's point. It's -- they had a single family home and that's what they are putting back. So, it really is -- are they intensifying the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F31 Page 28 of 40 land? No. They are just putting back something new -- a newer residence and removing an older one. So, that's -- that's the approach that we are taking as -- as a staff member. McCarvel: I guess -- and my comments on this is I would -- there are always going to be these smaller areas in Meridian that will probably stay county, just because they were -- I mean you have got some nice homes and nice pieces of land that are just a find when you come into a city like this and somebody wants to sell one of those homes. I mean I just think they will be very sought after and I think whatever we can do to help preserve this little community within our city I think we should do and if -- if that means technically he's got to annex I think we should do whatever we can to help him also preserve the community he's trying desperately to stay in and improve and part of that is remaining part of the character of the existing community. So, I don't see the point in making him have sidewalk in front of the house. Linder I think will take care of itself when the road is built out and, you know, it's not in our purview to do the water and sewer mains I believe this evening, but my recommendation is if it was working, then, that should be fine. It's just that he was touching on that one corner and I think what he's got -- what this property owner has presented is keeping more with his community than going in and trying to subdivide -- subdivide in the midst of all this and probably a better option. I mean if we had -- we all crave these nice big lots and wish we would see more development coming with nice big lots like this. So, I think, you know, for those that -- you have got the wherewithal to do it I would like to support that. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to throw out a motion and see if it sticks. Seal: Can I throw a couple things in here? McCarvel: Of course. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean I know we are talking about this, but I mean it's -- it's not like he's putting in a -- you know, 1,500 square foot house. This is a 6,000 square foot house that's going in there with an RV garage and all kinds of stuff, so -- and I mean I guess I would ask the question if this was a business going in there would we require to do all these things on those exact two lots and one 6,000 square foot building? I mean I -- I think the answer would be, yeah, we would require them to do it. So, I mean, unfortunately, this person is in, you know, in a rock and a hard place and I do sympathize and I do want to see parts of the community stay rural. That said, we don't have a rural designation. We got rid of it. We have R-2 and that's it and I agree with some of the comments that Commissioner Grove said and I feel the same way. I think if we don't at least make some kind of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F32 Page 29 of 40 provisions for the infrastructure to be built or to be paid for it's going to make it incredibly difficult for somebody behind this to try and do what they want to do with it. I think this closes off the ability for anybody else to be able to try to annex into the city should it happen and as soon as this parcel touches other parcels they can annex into the city. So, before we -- you know. And, again, personally, I would love to own this piece of property. Personally I would love to build a big home and have it not have to have any of the things that we are talking about as far as sewer, water, sidewalks or anything along those lines. But I'm not going to be here forever and neither is the person building this home, but the city will be. So, hopefully, we can come up with some kind of provision in there that makes it to where the sidewalks can be built and they contribute their amount that they need to as well as the city and the sewer and I don't know if that's some kind of trust or something along those lines. That would certainly make things a little bit easier, although more cost to the owner, but, again, I'm -- like the one person that came up and talked, I mean not understanding the process is not an excuse for -- for things like this. So, before tearing down the home and trying to build across the property line there is definitely things that should have been done and they weren't and that's why we are here. So, personally, I would like to see more done in order to ensure that if anything needs to go in, that that is there for the next people down the line. McCarvel: Did I misunderstand -- or I mean did we answer that -- the concern on the sidewalk on Linder, that it would be taken care of in the process of improving Linder Road, since it is just one house and not an entire subdivision they kind of look at it differently. Did I misunderstand that? Seal: Well, I think that we can -- McCarvel: ACHD would -- it would just be done when the road improvement is done. Seal: Right. But, again, the person does own this property, it does abut Locust Grove and it will be something that other people have to pay their fair share. I think it's fair that they would do as well and I -- again, if this was a business we would require them to do it. There wouldn't be any talk of this at all. Even if it was a 6,000 square foot business with a parking lot. That's what we would require them to do. Unfortunately, to me that's where they are at. They are going to annex into the City of Meridian and, again, we are not all going to be here in the future when something else happens with this piece of property or when -- even when the road might develop or anything along those lines. I just want to make sure there is some provisions in there that account for that, that this property, this person, will need to pay their fair share or they will need to have some provision in there that allows for these things to happen. I think what they are doing with the sewer is -- is appropriate, although I don't know how that's going to be enforced in the future. I mean can they leave the property if the person decides that they don't want to tap into the sewer at that point in time? If we do the same thing with water main, same question. If we ask them to build sidewalks at a later -- I mean these are things that are thousands, if not tens of thousands and leading into the hundreds of thousands of dollars to do and at a future time. So, how do we protect that now? Because if it were me and I were building on this piece of property and somebody came to me with here is a two or Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F33] Page 30 of 40 three hundred thousand dollar bill in order for you to continue to live in your house, I wouldn't do it. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Hopefully I can help answer some of those questions that you raised and concerns. In the way I have seen it done in other areas when you have got a house like this that is not within 300 feet of city services, typically what they do is when they build the new house they put in stubs for the water and sewer and carry it to the street, so that way when it becomes available in the street they can just tie into it, so it's not as significant of an investment, so when they are doing roadway infrastructure it's easier for them to connect in, they just pay the connection fee and, then, they are on the city services. It's fairly easy if-- if the utilities are being worked on on that main road Locust Grove. At that point in time they would just connected it in. So, hopefully, if we put a condition in there that just requires them to stub and tie into city services when they become available adjacent to the site, that that would be an easy thing to take care of. On the sidewalk thing, I think I go back to Chairman McCarvel's comment that when ACHD re-does this roadway -- the entire section of it right now doesn't have sidewalks on this side of the road. Right now it's got a -- a buffered -- there is a -- there is a little bit of a median and, then, there is kind of right of way that's got asphalt pavement on it that they use as kind of a buffered bike lane that goes that whole length of Locust Grove. I'm familiar, because I have ridden my bike on it before. While I would certainly love to see sidewalks there, I think it's -- it's not a commercial user coming in, it's a -- it's a residential that's basically just replacing the existing residential house that was there. So, I -- I do see it differently than I would see it if it was a commercial project coming before us or even if it was a -- you know, somebody came in and they wanted to put two or three houses on that lot and create a plat, it would be a different story to me than it is just replacing the single family home that was there. I know it's a much bigger home, but just because it's a bigger home I don't think that means we should require them to do sidewalks and -- when it doesn't really connect anything and it doesn't really help anything. Locust Grove is slated to be expanded again in the future. So, hopefully, that helps a little bit. But I'm going to make a motion and see if it helps cover some of your concerns and comments and see if we can get somewhere. So, I'm going to say after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2021-0013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15th, 2021, with the following conditions: That the applicant would not be required to provide sidewalk on Paradise Lane at this point in time, but that they would participate with ACHD in making sure that right of way is preserved for future sidewalks on Locust Grove when the roadway is expanded in the future and that the applicant -- would also recommend Council consider the applicant's request on waivers to sewer and water connections, that they would, instead, create stubs to tie into the city infrastructure when it becomes available to their property, but they wouldn't be required to extend the mains at this point in time. And I will pause for comments and see if anybody else wants something else thrown in there. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F34 Page 31 of 40 Grove: I will second that. It covered a lot of the concerns I had. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval with modifications on H-2021-0013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. McCarvel: Okay. Next item on the agenda is public hearing for UDC Text Amendment H-2021-0001 and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Pleasure to be with you this evening. This is the first of two UDC text amendments that will be coming before you here not only this month, but there is also one planned for next month. This one is being expedited at the request of the Mayor's Office and so I wanted to at least get some of these in front of you. I would also let you know that these have been shared with the UDC focus group and I actually present it to the BCA this Tuesday with the following changes. So, really, this first round of UDC text amendments for this year was really just a mini cleanup. If you recall here -- I think I only have one modification for you to take action on this evening and that's particularly in regards to the -- the first one that you see on your screen this evening. I realized after the print date of the staff report that I needed to -- to wordsmith the height requirements in the Old Town a little bit better and so I was able to do that this afternoon and so as I conclude my presentation I will give you that exact language to incorporate in your motion, but I just wanted to share that with you that as of the print date of my staff report there have been some tweaks to some of these modifications. You also know if you had a chance to look at the public record staff didn't really receive official comments on the proposed changes, but as I was getting ready to prepare the application I did send this out to the UDC focus group and let them know that I was asked to expedite the changes and if they had any comments to provide those back to me and so I did send those to the clerk's office today and now they are part of the record. A lot of the concern had to do with common drive standards that I will touch on a little bit in my presentation and, then, also defining natural waterways versus manmade waterways and I will also share some of that thinking of why staff had added that verbiage to that section of code as well. So, really, tonight there is really three or four areas that we need to focus on. One is increasing the height in our Old Town district. Two, we are making some improvements to Chapter 3 of our code, which pertains to ditches, laterals and drainage courses and the reason why I put those changes this evening is because Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F35] Page 32 of 40 we were recently in front of City Council and realized that some of the standards that we had in that section conflicted with our irrigation district standards and requirements and I was asked to minimize those conflicts with those entities and that's what I'm proposing tonight. The other one is modifications to Chapter 5 of our code, which will limit Comprehensive Plan map text amendments to only twice a year and those dates would be June 15th and December 15th and, then, they-- probably the more contentious change tonight is the common drives and I know that the Commission -- not only does the Commission, but also the Council has an opinion on what that should look like moving forward and -- and I also want to let you know that you have -- definitely have input into the proposed changes to the language that I have before you this evening, so don't feel like you can't chime in and ask staff to make modifications to some of this text. So, I will proceed to the first change tonight. So, hopefully, all of you are seeing my screen here. If you recall back in 2019 1 brought forward a conditional use permit to allow a height exception in our downtown area and I know the -- the Commission struggled with that. They -- some of the Commissioners felt that 75 was appropriate and some of you wanted to see more of that intensification in downtown that's what Old Town is, is to -- to go vertical and so what staff's trying to do with this particular change is allow for that height exception in a limited area. So, in Chapter 1 of our code we do define our urban core and -- and what we don't want to do is have a knee jerk and just approve a hundred feet all throughout the Old Town boundary, because it is a larger area than just the urban core and so this is our first attempt at allowing an increase in -- in height at the staff level without having to go through that conditional use permit and we are defining that. We are limiting it not only to the core, but we are also having a minimum height of 35 feet and, then, a maximum height of a hundred feet. Now, under the code they -- an applicant, if they wish to go taller than a hundred feet they still can going through that conditional use process. So, again, a hundred feet is allowed outright with staff level approval and anything over that would require action from this body. Again, the next change this evening is ditches and laterals. So, essentially, when we -- some of the changes we have going on here is -- has always been -- lack of a better word of conflict, but really a difference of terminology as what waterways are versus what the city considers a waterway and what the irrigation considers a waterway and a lot of times they don't like to use the word creeks -- creeks or our natural waterways, because in their mind all of the canals throughout the valley are basically just delivery systems for water to farmers and so in this attempt what I'm trying to say is the city does recognize these different terminologies. It's in our code, it's in our Comprehensive Plan, and we want to be sensitive to that, but we don't want to not use that in our -- in our language of our code. So, I tried to at least make it clear whether it's -- we consider it a natural water feature or natural waterway or a manmade water feature, we still want them to all be treated the same. You know, if there is an opportunity to enhance that as part of a development, we want that to continue. But we also want to be sensitive to the fact that if an applicant can't do that because of the irrigation district's rules, that we have to give you and the Council the ability to say, okay, we have the irrigation district doesn't want that, we have to allow -- we have to let those rules supersede what our code is and so in looking at these changes here, a year or so ago we added a definition of linear open space to our definition section of the code and we defined that, but what we didn't do was give the applicants or the -- the City Council the ability to waive fencing along linear open spaces. We gave Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F36 Page 33 of 40 them the ability to waive fencing along water amenities, but not that verbiage. So, in working with the city attorney's office and some of that discussion that I heard at City Council, we just went ahead and defined -- we added water amenity and open -- and linear open space to the section of the code. So, that way it's clear that if development has an open waterway running through it and it is improved with landscaping and enhanced as part of the development and the irrigation district doesn't want fencing because of maintenance, that you and the City Council will have the ability to waive the fencing requirements. So, again, it's reallyjust trying to minimize conflict with the irrigation district. The second piece of this has to do with irrigation easements on buildable lots versus common lots. So, we realized over a couple of years ago this -- this code went into effect where we really--any irrigation easement that was wider than ten feet we really wanted it to be in a common lot and not on the buildable lot for maintenance purposes and we realized the way we wrote the code is we get granted all the authority to the City Council, but what -- what we were finding is a lot of times as an applicant goes through the -- the preliminary plat process they may not have all of those details to figure out how they are going to run the ditches to the property or something may pop up and the irrigation district requires them to run them along the back of the lot and so we get to final plat and if you notice this section of code, it says it has to be vetted through the Council through a public hearing process, where a final plat is not a public hearing, it's a public meeting, and so we realized this code was kind of conflicting or trying to -- was creating more public hearing processes for us, rather than just allowing the applicant to ask for that as -- as part of their final plat change as they move from preliminary plat to final plat I should say and so what we said -- we basically -- rather than requiring a public hearing, we have just said the applicant can seek that -- that waiver from the City Council as part of an application. So, it could happen at pre-plat with all of you or even a final plat without the need of that public hearing. So, we are just trying to clean that up and make it more of a waiver process than a public hearing process. Again, the -- the third change is Comprehensive Plan map amendments. All of you know we -- we updated our Comprehensive Plan about 18 months and we want to give that time -- that plan time to see if it works. If we -- you know, we had a huge public outreach process that we went through. That what the community says, this plan works and why should we change the plan once we adopt a new plan and that's what our Council heard and so they asked us to revert back to the way we used to do things and when we only accepted those applications to be submitted twice a year and you can see here that those dates are currently in code, we are just reinforcing that. So, if anyone wants to change our map, the only time we are going to accept any application is going to either be on June 15th or December 15th. So, what that means for all of you is it could mean a lot of applications or could mean no applications, we will just have to see how that plays out. A lot of this we seem to have gotten a lot of support from not only the UDC focus group, but also the BCA. So, I don't think any of the development community are really concerned with these changes. They understand that and they also want to be sensitive to the plan and, again, this is something that we did when I first started with the city back in 2007, we would bundle all of those applications up twice like a year and just hold onto them until those dates and, then, we would get them scheduled for a hearing throughout the summer and spring months typically. And, then, the last one for your consideration tonight is the changes to the common driveways. I know I have heard on a regular basis from this body Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F37 Page 34 of 40 that you really wanted to limit the number of units taking access on those common driveways. The changes I have before you this evening do not do that. Instead, what I have done is -- I have heard what -- my original intent with the common driveways -- this was vetted through the UDC focus group and it was quite a bit of robust discussion over it and not all of us could -- I know a lot of the members of the UDC focus group were not in favor of reducing the number of common drives -- the number of lots taking access from a common drive. So, as part of that effort I actually removed this from the current UDC changes, because I wanted -- staff wanted more time to work with the development community and the UDC focus group on some -- I think study it a little bit more, try to really determine what we are trying to solve with the changes. Again, I was asked by the City Council and Mayor to bring this one forward, because, again, they had concerns, they have been pretty consistent in limiting the number of units as well off of common driveways and supporting your guys' recommendation to that effect. The other component of this is -- is the width of the common driveway appropriate. I know on several occasions we have gone through the public hearing process and we have learned that Public Works has had concerns with -- with these common driveways and how do we extend city mains through that. Typically our code wants -- anytime a project extends mains through a development, we don't want those easements through private property, we want those as dedicated common lots and so what I have tried to do here, rather than reduce the number of units, what I have tried to do is empower the city to allow for a greater width in the common driveways to address some of those Public Work concerns and some of your concerns with parking and the width of these driveways and how do we handle trash collection and all those items that we continually struggle to talk about during the public hearing. So, again, if something -- if the Commission feels that it should be reduced from six to four, that's certainly within your purview tonight. But, again, in talking through these changes, UDC focus group, again, you -- if you look at the public record, they don't really want to reduce the number. If they said we are trying to solve a Public Works issue they are in favor of that as well, but that's what they are trying to understand and we are trying to solve a Public Works, or we really trying to make this code change better and, to be honest with you, this addresses one aspect, but it still doesn't address whether or not six is appropriate or not and, again, in staff's opinion that should be studied more with the UDC focus group, but, again, I will defer to all of you and listen to your -- your commentary on this particular one, but I want to let you know on the public record we had Dave Bailey, Laren Bailey, Dave Yorgason and Cornel Larsen submit comments on these changes and as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation this evening, I did wordsmith that first change this evening. So, basically, asking you to support staff's recommendation -- modifications after reading it in the area defined as the city core in Chapter 1, any new construction shall have a minimum height of 35 feet and a maximum height of one hundred feet. All other areas in the district the maximum height is 75 feet. So, that is the new language that I am proposing before you this evening. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Grove: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F38 Page 35 of 40 McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Bill, with the first one for Old Town, can you give me an idea, just so I'm not making it up in my own head I guess, in terms of what is a hundred feet in terms of stories typically? Parsons: Yeah. Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's interesting, we just -- you know, this week we were in front of City Council with the Ten Mile Crossing project and they asked for that height exception as part of their development agreement and that topic came up, too, as you guys spent time on that and it's my understanding that's typically a six story building. Grove: And for that, as a follow up, what -- how was -- how was a hundred feet kind of arrived? Like is there -- I know we had, whatever, like four stories there roughly for awhile. How -- how did the -- I guess why it's 100 feet instead of like 150 feet, kind of the goal here? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is no magic number between the one hundred. I mean, obviously, you guys can -- can do that. I think that's probably the reason why we landed on a hundred was just because we have had a couple of projects in the core that have come in with that height. I know when you look at our Ten Mile area we support taller buildings and higher FARs in those areas and typically when you go down -- most of your downtown areas do have height to them. I mean that's really where you want to see that intensification and you want to get those mix of uses and that walkability and you have to maximize your land use in smaller areas and that's why you -- you get that height increase. But there is no magic number between 100 and 150 feet. I think it's just more of -- that's what we probably envisioned for the city that we probably don't anticipate any buildings higher than a hundred feet all in downtown, but, again, the code still would allow that through a conditional use process. McCarvel: I have a question for you, Bill. What is -- you said -- is it my understanding they had -- there used to be four houses on a common drive. Okay. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair -- Members -- McCarvel: And that was -- Parsons: That is correct. McCarvel: That was changed because -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission that was changed at the request of a developer. We worked with Brighton Corporation -- during the downturn of the market they acquired the Spurwing Greens development, which is off of Chinden. At the time it was called Tree Farm, and as part of that pre-plat they went ahead and redesigned some of that and the way they designed their common driveways were U- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F39 Page 36 of 40 shaped and they were able to design six homes off of those common driveways and at that time we were like, yeah, if you want to propose a code change we would support that based on the design that they had at the time and we went forward with that and we supported that code change and now as this body has seen, it seems -- it seems to be more and more prevalently used in these developments, more so than I have seen in past years, and so I think that's probably some of the concern of why you guys have always been consistently limiting it to three or four. But, yes, the old code -- under the previous version of the code back in '9 or '10, 1 believe, it was no more than four. McCarvel: Right. Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just a comment. I know that we have talked about this a lot. Every time we have a shared drive that all of us cringe when there is more than four homes on that shared drive. I would like to see it go back to four someday, but I agree that, you know, tonight might not be the night to do that and I would like to see the UDC committee discuss that and maybe have some on-site field trips to look at how these function in some of the developments that have been approved with -- with more homes on a shared driveway, because I just think that they--they can be very clumsy on the way that they are designed, but I would like to be able to look at that and, you know, see where elements of-- of good shared drives work and where -- where they are challenging, so that we might be able to create better code guidelines in the future to help create the ones that work and restrict the ones that don't. I don't -- I think I'm okay with the changes you have proposed tonight, but I would still like to request that we study this further in the future. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the other thing to consider, too, is if we get in-fill, right, and we are trying to hit a target density and all of a sudden maybe they can fit six units on there with a common driveway and we have capped ourselves before, because a rule said you can have no more than four. I know in speaking with some of the members of the UDC focus group they actually informed me that the city of Eagle removed common drives from their code and now they have re -- are going back and adding -- adding them back, because they are finding that it works better for in-fill to allow some standard of common driveway. What that looks like I don't know, but I just wanted to share that information with you as well. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: For the -- I mean if it was -- if it was limited it's not capped, they can -- I mean there is still alternative compliance that can allow them to do more; is that correct? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F40 Page 37 of 40 Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is correct. They could -- they could go through the alternative compliance process. Seal: Okay. Because that's kind of where I'm at, because it is, I mean when we see these things come in and it's -- when it's used -- and my mother-in-law lives over in -- in the Spurwing Subdivision you are talking about and I think that the way that they have done the common driveways there is actually very pretty and open, provides community, but it's off the street, so it's almost a different definition to it, although I understand it's still a common driveway, but where we are seeing it where people are using it -- and my personal opinion is abusing it just to shove as many things as they can into, you know, the space that they have, you know, we should -- I think leaving it at six leaves that there to where now it's on us to, you know, are you against or combat against the people that come in and, you know, swing heavy and say, well, it meets all your code, because personally I don't think that should meet code when we are seeing that. I mean it's something that I think we have all expressed concern about. I think it's expressed at City Council as well. So, I mean from a -- from that perspective I think some change is definitely in order, not that we shouldn't listen to the community input and focus groups and things like that, I just think it's something that's probably been lingering long enough at this point. I think it definitely needs to go back down to what the original was and, then, alternative compliance is always there. Somebody wants to come in and knock our socks off with something, especially for an in-fill project, I'm all for alternative compliance. We have seen a few things come in that have done that, so -- but if you are not willing to do that and you are coming in with the status quo and your only argument is, well, it meets code, then, it would be nice to have a bigger stick to combat that. McCarvel: Yeah. I think I would agree with Commissioner Seal. I would rather see the standard be four, if not even three, but very much go with four, because that's exactly what we have been fighting lately is we see it used where we know it's going to be an issue instead of -- and I have not seen what was done in the Spurwing Greens area, but the descriptions I have heard that makes sense, where now developers have taken it to say, well, I can use this exactly to stick as many back in this corner, which normally would have been some of the nicer lots in the subdivision and, I agree, I mean I think we have spent way too much time hashing this out on every application that comes through that I would rather see the standard be a lower number and, then, apply for alternative compliance if you have something great in a unique space, because I think we have just spun our wheels on that very topic way too many times and the rest of it I -- I have no problem with all the other ones. I guess we are kind of at our discussion here without closing the public hearing, but I don't think we have anybody signed up to testify anyway. Weatherly: Madam Chair, you are correct. McCarvel: Okay. So, do we have more questions for staff? Would we like to close this as far as public hearing or do we just move on? And I guess point of record is I accidentally read directly off the agenda and it's listed as H-2021-0001 and on the staff report it's ZOA-2021-0001 . So, for the record we are ZOA. Questions? Comments? Motions? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F41 Page 38 of 40 Holland: Madam Chair, I will make a motion that we close the public hearing for the UDC text amendment ZOA-2021-0001. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA-2021- 0001. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: All seems pretty good. I have -- my personal opinion on like the -- the first one, I'm in favor-- I'm -- I'm in favor of having minimums for sure and as we continue to develop downtown -- I'm down here all the time, obviously, but I would be in --whatever increases those numbers to go up is always going to get my approval. So, if this is where we are at, I will take this. I would be in favor of going bigger, but I know that's not -- there is not usually an appetite for that, so -- and with common drives if anything -- we do drop that I would always be in favor. It feels like every time we have had one of those and we have complained and like sent it back to them with a continuance, they come back and take those out, it's a much better project overall anyway, so, obviously, on the same page as everyone else with the common drive. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: The -- I have mixed feelings on the -- the -- you know, adding the hundred foot maximum on there, so I -- you know, being an old country boy it's -- driving into downtown Boise sometimes it feels like the -- you know, the cityscape is going to fall on you when you are down there anymore, just because it's -- you know, it went from being a -- what seemed like a large throughfare there to what seems like now very small and very confined. So, it definitely will change the way -- the look and feel of things. So, that said I don't think we went crazy with it. We didn't have Commissioner Grove in charge of it. So, we have got -- I think it's a good starting place and I think it's a good place to show that, you know, we are willing to grow and we are willing to try new things as a city and bring things in and bring things up. I think if we want to make our downtown, you know, walkable and livable without it being all streets, that's the way we are going to get it done, so -- and, hopefully, that will actually help to encourage, you know, building out some more of the -- of the Old Town pieces of it. I'm actually very glad to see the -- the thought given to the waterways that are out there, because sometimes that does get contentious as far as what the irrigation districts want, what the city is calling it, what the builder is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F42 Page 39 of 40 calling it, what they think they should do with it, what they can't do with it, things like that. So, I think it will help clear up some of that when we go into -- into future meetings. At least that's -- I'm sure that's the hope. Yeah. And, then, on the common driveways I -- personally I think we should ask for three and if -- if City Council wants to give them four, then, great, but I just -- I think any chance we have to take a swing at that I think we should absolutely do it, because it's just something that people have been taking advantage of at that point and, again, alternative compliance is something that I look forward to. We have had a couple applications come in that have really knocked my socks off and it's been because of alternative compliance. So, I think that there is still plenty of room for people to do that and it allows us to, you know, let them come in and show us something that's going to help us to build that premier community. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Without cutting anyone off I'm happy to make a motion. McCarvel: Go for it. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number ZOA-2021-0001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15th, 2021, with the following modifications: That on the UDC 11-21D-4 we would make the modification as staff recommended to say in area defined as the city core in Chapter 1 any new construction shall have a minimum height of 35 feet and a maximum height of 100 feet. All other areas in the district the maximum building height is 75 feet and that the Council might consider Item No. 4, UDC 11-6C-3B on common driveways, making an additional change to the maximum dwelling unit served, that there was a lot of discussion from the Commission that we would prefer to see no more than three dwellings, but we would at least request lowering that maximum to four dwellings and allowing alternative compliance if someone wanted to seek additional units. Seal: Second. McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on ZOA- 2021-0001 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Who would like the honors? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner -- oh. Wait a minute. One more item before we leave. I understand this is our attorney's last P&Z meeting with us. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 2. April 15,2021 F43 Page 40 of 40 Pogue: That is true, Chairman McCarvel. Thank you so much. I am retiring and heading east, so that I can assist my 96 year old mom with my two sisters and, then, get up to North Carolina and help my daughter and son-in-law with their -- with my precious granddaughter and ultimately we will have a house here and a house in North Carolina and it's just -- I got to go. So, I really enjoyed working with this commission. You guys just are awesome and your dedication and professionalism and knowledge is really just such a benefit to the city. I'm really proud of all of you and just like to say that I will miss you, but I know the city is in good hands. So, I'm signing off tonight from Planning and Zoning, but I will be here for a few more weeks and, then, I'm -- then I'm flying the coop. That's where I'm at. Seal: Congratulations. Holland: Thank you, Andrea, for all you have done for us. We appreciate you and we wish you the best. Pogue: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Good night. McCarvel: Good night. Thank you so much. Okay. Back to Commissioner Seal. Seal: Oh. Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8.17 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED Approved RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN 5-06-2021 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Hearings Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Jakers Drive-Through (H-2021-0012) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.37-acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Commercial uses to the north, south & west, zoned C-G; and SFR residential to the east, zoned R-4. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: CUP for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of a residential zoning district and residential uses to the east in Crossroads Sub. in the C-G zoning district. Two (2) 25-s.f. (5’ x 5’) structures are proposed for a drive-through menu handout and order placement and pick-up along the south side of the existing Jakers restaurant. No menu boards or speakers are proposed. Residential uses abut the east boundary of this site in Crossroads Subdivision, zoned R-4. The project complies with the specific use standards in the UDC for drive-throughs as noted in the staff report. The row of parking directly south of the drive-through is proposed to be re-striped to accommodate a one-way drive-aisle to allow space for the drive-through which will reduce the number of parking spaces in this area by 3. Based on the building square footage of 5,900 s.f., a minimum of 23 parking spaces are required, a total of 87 are provided in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that consist of stucco panels with 2” wide recessed gold colored metal flashing accents and asphalt roofing; the materials and colors coincide with that of the existing restaurant building. Design review of the structures has been approved by the Director with this application. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0012, as presented during the hearing on April 15, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0012 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #3: Pine 43 Apartments (H-2021-0002) Application(s):  CUP Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 11.22-acres of land, zoned R-40, located south of E. Fairview Ave. & north of E. State Ave. on the east side of N. Webb Way. st History: A CUP was approved in in 2018 for a MFR development that consisted of 480-units on 26.17-acres of land – the 1 phase nd consisting of 240-units is currently in the development process (the 2 phase also consisting of 240-units, is the subject of this application). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C Summary of Request: Modification to the previously approved CUP (H-2018-0001) to revise the site layout for the northeast 11.22- acre portion of the development to include a consolidation of common open space into more usable areas, the addition of a 7,047 s.f. clubhouse and other amenities, and a change to the mix of unit types within the development. No changes are proposed to the number of residential units or structures. The proposed plan includes a mix of 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units and an increase in 1-bedroom units from 60 to 80; a decrease in 2- bedroom units from 120 to 110; and a decrease in 3-bedroom units from 60 to 50 for a better mix of unit types available for rent. The proposed plan includes a significant increase & reconfiguration of common open space from 2-acres to 2.7-acres resulting in an increase of 0.71-acre in excess of UDC standards. Site amenities approved for this phase consisted of a fitness building and/or sports court/play equipment and plaza, and community grill areas with park style charcoal grills with an optional shade structure or cover dispersed throughout the development. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool with recreation deck and two (2) spas, BBQ deck, covered outdoor seating and beach volleyball court in the common area along Webb Way; and a dog run & dog wash, playground structure and community garden on the eastern portion of the development resulting in a higher quality of amenities for the development. These amenities & common areas will st be shared with the 1 phase. Staff recommends both phases are under the same management company for consistent maintenance of the overall development. Parking is provided in excess of UDC standards. A total of 454 spaces are required consisting of 440 vehicle spaces (200 covered) for the residential units & 14 spaces for the clubhouse; a total of 462 spaces (248 in covered carports) are proposed. Garages were originally proposed along the east boundary of the site which provided a buffer between the residential structures & the adjacent industrial uses to the east but have now been changed to carports. This change should ultimately provide more needed parking for the development since some garages are typically used for storage and not parking; however, it will not provide a needed buffer between the different uses. The interface between the proposed residential uses and existing industrial uses was a topic of discussion and concern at the public hearing for the original CUP. Therefore, Staff recommends a 6-foot tall closed vision/solid fence is installed along the east boundary with a fairly dense landscape buffer, as proposed. A 10’ wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along N. Webb Way in accord with the PMP; pedestrian connections should be provided between buildings and to the main building entrances along Webb Way from the multi-use pathway as noted in the staff report. Conceptual building elevations & perspective drawings were submitted for the proposed 3-story multi-family structures and the single- story clubhouse as shown. Building materials for the residential structures consist of a mix of horizontal & vertical fiber cement board/batten siding with gable roofs and asphalt shingles; three primary color schemes are proposed for variety. Building materials for the clubhouse consist of vertical metal siding with vertical wood cladding, glazing, dimensional wood slat accents, a gable roof and metal roofing. Prefabricated steel siding is only allowed to be used as an accent material per the DA; compliance with the design standards in the ASM and the DA are required. The proposed elevations should be revised to comply with these standards and requirements. The elevations in the first phase of the development lying directly to the southwest of this site (i.e. Jasper Apartments) are a different architectural style (flat roofs with parapets and more of a modern style) and color palette but the proposed structures incorporate several orientations of fiber cement board siding which assist in unifying the structures. The Applicant anticipates the existing structures will be re-painted in the future to coincide with the proposed color scheme. While different architecturally, Staff feels the similar use of materials and colors will offer variety within the development. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MCU-2021-0002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number MCU-2021-0002, as presented during the hearing on April 15, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number MCU-2021-0002 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 19.26 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. at the NWC of Overland & Linder Roads. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: East: Camping World & Bish’s RV, zoned I-L South: Vacant/undeveloped land & office, zoned C-C & apartments, zoned TN-C West: SFR rural/ag property, zoned RUT in Ada County North: I-84 History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Employment (13.4 acres) & Mixed-Use Commercial (5.9 acres) Summary of Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land, which includes the ITD storm drainage area at the NEC of the site & adjacent ROW to the section/center line of adjacent streets, with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district consistent with the associated FLUM designations. The proposed use of the property will include sales & service for commercial fleet operations for large commercial trucks and motorhomes; vehicle accessory sales; an installation facility for customizing vehicles; parts department; and reconditioning facility for used cars for Kendall Ford Auto Center. The Applicant anticipates the future uses on the six (6) lots located along W. Overland Rd. and adjacent to S. Spanish Sun Way to be retail and office space. As a provision of annexation, Staff recommends a DA is required to ensure future development is consistent with the Comp Plan & the TMISAP. Because a concept development plan wasn’t submitted for the commercial/office uses on the southern portion of the property, Staff recommends the agreement is modified prior to development of that area to include a concept plan that is consistent with the Comp Plan. A Preliminary Plat is proposed consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Lots range in size from 0.51-acre to 9.7-acres with an average lot size of 2.01-acres. The plat is proposed to develop in one phase. One (1) public street access (S. Spanish Sun Way) is proposed via W. Overland Rd. in alignment with that to the south. Direct lot access via W. Overland Rd. & S. Linder Rd. is prohibited. One (1) stub street (W. Tasa St.) is proposed to the west boundary for future extension in accord with the Transportation System Map in the TMISAP. A temporary cul-de-sac is required to be constructed at the terminus of Tasa St. until the street is extended in the future. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements are required to be granted between all lots in the subdivision. Per the ACHD report, Linder Rd. is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a new 4-lane I-84 overpass and widened to 5-lanes on each side of I-84 with a level 3 bike facility from Franklin Rd. to Overland Rd. in the future. The intersection of Overland Rd. and Linder Rd. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north and south legs and 7-lanes on the east west legs and signalized between 2036 and 2040. A future traffic signal is planned at the Linder/Overland Rd. intersection & scheduled for 2031-2035 but may be accelerated if the Linder Rd. overpass becomes a priority. For this reason, and because Overland Rd. is fully built-out, a TIS was not required by ACHD with this application. Landscaped street buffer are proposed as required adjacent to public streets per UDC standards. A 10’ wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed as required within the street buffer along S. Linder Rd. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Detached sidewalks are required along all streets w/street trees. The Hardin Drain crosses the NEC of the site and is proposed to be piped. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the Kendall Ford site as shown. Two (2) single-story structures are proposed on Lot 1, Block 1 with building materials consisting of ACM panels (i.e. aluminum composite), corrugated horizontal metal panels, CMU in two (2) different colors; metal sunscreens and canopies are proposed over some windows. Overhead doors are proposed on the north, east and west sides of the building. Final design must comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/the requirement of a DA per the provisions in the staff report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15, 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- 0014, as presented during the hearing on April 15, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #5: Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.77 acres of land, zoned R-1, located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Property is zoned R-1 in Ada County, surrounded by unincorporated rural land and R-8 zoned land in Meridian. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential. Summary of Request: Annexation & zoning of 1.77 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district to develop a 6000 sq. ft. house Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes:  The property is comprised of two lots presently zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada County, of which the southern lot until recently had contained a 4,000 sq. ft. residence.  The applicant demolished this single-family residence in anticipation of building a newer 6,000 sf ft +/- house with detached shop / RV garage.  The applicant contacted Ada County to merge the lots together and construct the larger house and was told because the property directly abutted City limits, it would need to be annexed.  The nearest available sewer main is located in N. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1,400 feet north of the subject property.  The applicant has received City Engineer and Public Works Director approval for a utilities waiver from UDC 11-3A-21 to not connect to City sewer at this time.  However, the development agreement will require connecting to City sewer if and when a sewer main is extended in the future.  The applicant will be required to extend a water main from the intersection of N. Locust Grove Rd and E. Paradise Ln along Paradise Lane to the eastern property line to serve adjacent properties in the future.  The applicant has also requested a waiver from this requirement, stating it would be cost prohibitive and not necessary as adjacent properties to the east and south are remaining in Unincorporated Ada County and already have wells providing water.  Instead, the applicant prefers to only be required to connect a service line from the main to the new home.  The City Engineer denied this waiver request.  Applicant will be appealing this waiver to the Council.  There is existing sidewalk on the east side of N. Locust Grove Rd.  Otherwise, the Heritage Subdivision Filing One and Two reflects rural character and it does not appear any of the right of way within this subdivision contains sidewalks (E. Paradise Ln., E Star Ln., N. Spangle Dr., E. Freedom Ln).  However, UDC 11-3A-17 does require sidewalks along both sides of the street, or only one side of the street when the average lot frontage is more than 150’. ACHD has not commented on this application regarding any additional improvements.  The Planning Commission and City Council should determine whether requiring sidewalk along the property frontage should be required with the development agreement.  There is a 5-foot drainage, utility construction and maintenance easement platted between the subject lots.  Following this annexation and prior to building permit, the easement will need to be vacated as part of the consolidation of lots. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15, 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- 0013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number Number H-2021-0013 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: UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0001) Application(s):  UDC Text Amendment Size of property, existing zoning, and location: City wide Summary of Request: The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) as follows: 1. UDC 11-2D-4 – Standards in the old town district (O-T): Proposes to increase the minimum and maximum building height in the Old Town District; 2. UDC 11-3A-6 - Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses: Proposes changes to ensure City standards align with the applicable irrigation entities. 3. UDC 11-5B-7 Comprehensive plan amendments: Proposes limiting comprehensive plan map amendments to twice a calendar year. 4. UDC 11-6C-3D Common driveways: Proposes to grant the authority to the City Engineer to require a greater common driveway width to ensure adequate access and maintenance of City infrastructure. This round of proposed UDC text changes were shared with the UDC Focus Group and expedited at the request of City Council. Written Testimony: Dave Bailey Laren Bailey, Dave Yorgason and Cornel Larson Staff Recommendation: Approval with modification to height standards in the O-T District as follows: In area defined as the city core in chapter 1, any new construction shall have a minimum height of thirty-five feet (35’) and a maximum height of one hundred feet (100’). All other areas in the district, the maximum building height is seventy-five feet (75'). Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number ZOA-2021-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15, 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 of File Number ZOA-2021-0001, as presented during the hearing on April 15, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number ZOA-2021-0001 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the April 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 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 2. 67 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 1, 2021 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. Item 2. F68 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from April 1, 2021 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. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET 1 DATE: April 15, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Jaker's Drive-Through Addition (H-2021-0012) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 �- y 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 2. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-■- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/15/2021 Wegend DATE: Continuedfrom: 41112021 � pr4 tLflcfliar TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 IJFM SUBJECT: H-2021-0012 ■ Jakers Drive-Through—CUP,DES LOCATION: 3268 E. Pine Ave., in the NW 1/4 of Section 9, Township 3N.,Range 1E. - I I J 1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of a residential use and zoning district on 1.37-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Administrative design review of proposed structures. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.37-acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Restaurant Proposed Land Use(s) Drive-through establishment(order pick-up) Current Zoning I General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/16/20;2 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) CZC-06-102(5,300 square foot restaurant);CZC-14- 029/DES-14-026(600 square foot sun room addition) Page 1 Item 2. 70 A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend IyF � Legend - Prc?e c'Lou o Tkm Prnjent Lncu tm ,r I _ Ion t r IU . I E IN E A EAC E� 'IN'E1ti1E Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend 4 0Pro}eot Loco fbn - -� letPrc4Ect Lncutur , GIy Limit FE�c (ir — Purred Page's RUT y R- -L _ Ar-G L-O L'O 4 I -_- R1r��.� _ s I P— � III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Ma k Anderson— 1010 S. Allante Pl., Ste. 100, Eagle, 1D 83709 B. Owner: Adam Crane,Vintage Properties,LLLP—3755 N.Hill Rd.,King Hill,ID 83633 Page 2 Item 2. F71 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/12/2021 Radius notification mailed to 3/9/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 3/26/2021 Next Door posting 3/9/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Two (2)25-square foot(5' x 5') structures are proposed for a drive-through menu handout and order placement and pick-up along the south side of the existing Jakers restaurant. Because the drive- through is within 300-feet of a residential use and zoning district, a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)is required per UDC Table 11-2B-2 and 11-4-3-1IA. Residential uses abut the east boundary of this site in Crossroads Subdivision,zoned R-4. 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 87'+/--, the drive-through should have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways and drive aisles; there is no public right-of-way that abuts this site. 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; a one-way drive-aisle abuts the drive-through lane for vehicles to pass through to the east. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10)feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is located approximately 82 feet away from abutting residences to the east and residential zoning.A 4-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall block CMU wall on top exists along the east boundary of this site to buffer existing residential properties. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane is approximately 87 feet long; therefore, an escape lane is not required. 5) The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for Page 3 Item 2. 72 surveillance purposes. The drive-through is visible from a driveway that provides a connection between E. Presidential Dr. and E. Pine Ave. and from the adjacent property to the south for surveillance purposes; a public street does not abut this site. There are no menu boards or speakers proposed;window locations are depicted on the elevations in accord with UDC 11-4-3-11B. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required. Parking: The row of parking directly south of the proposed drive-through is proposed to be re-striped to accommodate a one-way drive-aisle to allow space for the drive-through,which will reduce the number of parking spaces in this area by three(3). A minimum of one(1)parking space is required for every 250 square feet of gross floor area per the specific use standards for restaurants in UDC 11-4-3-49. Based on 5,900 square feet, a minimum of 23 vehicle parking spaces are required; a total of 87 spaces are provided. Landscaping: No landscaping is proposed or required with this application. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.B that consist of stucco panels with 2"wide recessed gold colored metal flashing accents and asphalt roofing;the materials and colors coincide with that of the existing restaurant building. Design Review: Administrative Design Review of the proposed structures is required because they're visible from the north/south private street/driveway to the west per UDC 11-5B-8B. The proposed materials and design are consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and are approved. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance 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 V11 and UDC standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section V111 per the Findings in Section IX. Page 4 Item 2. F73 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site/Landscape Plan(dated: 2/5/2021) KEYED N o o,. ° - - O 00 °l8� 0 - 0 f UU g Or { CO, 935TALL5(ORIG3IAL) $ O 90 srws[re+n Q c CA .] r 6 m _ C x e ° p ° -- V] g � � Y Q Y n N o0•39'3a'c ...r �� ■ CARR B9 ' PLM PUN Soi.0 Page 5 Item 2. F74 B. Building Elevations (dated: 2/5/21) &Photos KEYED NQl ES ,CI] LEGEND IL I ..@...��,.�,,...u.ram��...p�,�,.,�•1�.,�oa a ....wu.... .,omm...�.,.....,c,.o.�� FLOOR PLAN B M a�W 'M u f *to � CEILING 6 2 Z mm L O Qa g � d Y u WEST SHED ELEVATIONS[EAST SHED SIM.) TYPICAL WALL SECTION PING as u�.e,re u �•=err-ry A1.1 Page 6 Item 2. 75 � B SOLITN ELEVATION EXAMPLE OF GOLD TRIM WALL VIEW LOOKING EAST 4„ a�w= - j O zz =.45T EL_=NATION VIEW'OOKCNG NORT1 NORT-d=L=NATION H Q W W Y - srrF vHcrr., VIEW LOOIGNG WEST WEST ELEVATION VIEW LOWNG SOUTH A 2.1 Page 7 Item 2. 76 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall demonstrate compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 Drive- Through Establishments consistent with the plan in Section VII.A. 2. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 — Drive-Through Establishment is required. 3. The future structures shall be consistent with the elevations in Section VILB as approved with the Administrative Design Review application. 4. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. 5. 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 asset forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) hyps:11weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=223674&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC itE C. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=224330&dbid=0&Mpo=MeridianC Lty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=223529&dbid=0&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. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed drive-through and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds the proposed 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. Page 8 Item 2. ■ 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, ef£ 9-15-2005) Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 9 Item 3. 78 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pine 43 Apartments (MCU-2021-0002) by Pivot North Design, Located South of E. Fairview Ave., on the East Side of N. Webb Way and North of E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Modification to the Conditional Use Permit (H-2018-0001) to revise the site layout to include consolidation of common open space into more usable areas with a clubhouse, and a change to the mix of units/types. Item 3. F79 (:�N-VE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Pine 43 Apartments (MCU-2021-0002) by Pivot North Design, Located South of E. Fairview Ave., on the East Side of N. Webb Way and North of E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Modification to the Conditional Use Permit (H-2018-0001) to revise the site layout to include consolidation of common open space into more usable areas with a clubhouse, and a change to the mix of units/types. 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 15, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Pine 43 Apartments (MCU-2021-0002) 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 3. ■ C�, EI IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/15/2021 Legend HYq 00 DATE: t 0 ILIProject Lflcfllar ME TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner -- 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: MCU-2021-0002 Pine 43 Apartments—MCU LOCATION: 2255 E. Fairview Ave., in the NW'/4 of Section 8, T.3N.,RJE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit(H-2018-0001)to revise the site layout for the northeast 11.22-acre portion of the development to include a consolidation of common open space into more usable areas,the addition of a clubhouse and other amenities, and a change to the mix of unit types within the development. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 11.22(site);26.17 acres(overall) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Existing Land Use Multi-family development in the development process (apartments) Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family residential Current Zoning R-40 High-Density Residential Physical Features(waterways, The Jackson Drain runs along the southern boundary and hazards,flood plain,hillside) the Settler's Canal bisects this site Neighborhood meeting date;#of 2/8/21; 1 attendee attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2017-0058(Pine 43 DA Inst. #2018-000751);H-2018- 0001 (Pine 43 Apartments—CUP);A-2018-0054(Property Boundary Adjustment);A-2020-0143 (CZC,DES for 11' phase);FP-2021-0006 Page 1 � m 1 1 1 Ilullll R MW ON w —FAI 1lIEW y, FAI • IF4V1 = ,' 1�1 yr �'�•�'M i loll'I IN Ir -�•Ili� i l�ari w y. A - m�R 11111 �,II11 G./JJ-4►YiT +�� *'.II � Ir IN • �U01 PINE 1MONONA ++ uul a i�2-• _•■ �Iliiiii '-�� -""■ :� iiu 4 • 1.1'l� '' I IIII�II 1114I D■110� ■1 ,_ .� 1.11■ 111.1.+ � IIIIIIIII III II ■.f�.� µq tl ulll ==I 111111 # I uinu duuuuuuulil Ell '•4iF}{A.Ify.+} I� 'III : r Ell ' 9 .�iiiiii' •" i S � S III 1 � 1111� - �� ■� 1 1 / . • Item 3. 82 C. Representative: Patrick Boel,Roundhouse— 1109 W. Main St., Ste. 390,Boise,ID 83702 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to 3/24/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 4/1/2021 Next Door posting 3/24/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing Conditional Use Permit(H-2018-0001) approved for the overall site is for a 480-unit multi-family development on 27.48-acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. This application proposes to update the site layout on the northeast 11.22-acres to include a consolidation of common open space into more usable areas,the addition of a 1-story 7,047 square foot(s.f.) clubhouse and other amenities, and a change to the mix of unit types within the development.No changes are proposed to the number of residential units or structures. Unit Types: The approved plan was for 240-units in ten(10) structures consisting of(60) 1-bedroom units, (120)2-bedroom units and(60) 3-bedroom units. The proposed plan is also for 240-units consisting of(80) 1-bedroom units, (110)2-bedroom units and(50) 3-bedroom units,which provides a better mix of unit types available for rent. Common Open Space: The approved plan required 66,800 square feet(s.f.) of common open space and proposed 87,224 s.f. The proposed plan requires 65,000 s.f. based on 190-units containing between 500-1,200 s.f. of living area and 50-units in excess of 1,200 s.f. and proposes 118,363 s.f., in excess of UDC standards. The proposed change results in an increase in common open space of 31,139 s.f. (or 0.71-acre)and consolidated common areas for better use. Amenities: Site amenities approved for this phase consisted of a fitness building and/or sports court/play equipment and plaza, and community grill areas with park style charcoal grills with an optional shade structure or cover dispersed throughout the development. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool with recreation deck and two(2) spas, BBQ deck, covered outdoor seating and beach volleyball court in the common area along Webb Way; and a dog run&dog wash, playground structure and community garden on the eastern portion of the development. Details of the proposed amenities should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The proposed changes result in more and a higher quality of amenities for the development. Off-Street Vehicle&Bicycle Parking: The approved plan required 450 vehicle spaces (210 covered) and provided 462 spaces (245 in covered carports and garages)for the residential units. The proposed plan requires 440 vehicle spaces(200 covered)for the residential units and 14 spaces for the clubhouse for a total of 454 spaces; and provides 462 spaces (248 in covered carports)in excess of UDC standards. Garages were originally proposed along the east boundary of the site which provided a buffer between the residential structures and the adjacent industrial uses to the east but have now Page 3 Item 3. 83 been changed to carports.This change should ultimately provide more needed parking for the development since some garages are typically used for storage and not parking; however,it will not provide a needed buffer between the different uses.The interface between the proposed residential uses and existing industrial uses was a topic of discussion and concern at the public hearing for the original conditional use permit. Therefore, Staff recommends a 6-foot tall closed vision/solid fence is installed along the east boundary with a fairly dense landscape buffer,as proposed. The approved plan required and proposed 20 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed plan requires 19 and provides 20 spaces in excess of UDC standards. Bicycle parking is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Specific Use Standards: The proposed multi-family development is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27,Multi-Family Development. Plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with these standards and those in the development agreement [L-2017-0058(Pine 43 DA Inst. #2018-000751)]. Landscaping: Landscaping proposed for the site is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.D. Street buffers and parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Internal common open space areas are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Parking lot and perimeter landscaping is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Fairly dense landscaping(approximately 1 tree per 25-linear feet)is proposed in the perimeter buffer along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to parking and industrial uses to the east. Staff recommends a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover is provided in the buffer accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.1. Mitigation is required for any existing trees removed from the site per the standards listed in UDC H- 3B-10C.5;the landscape plan in Section VII.D depicts the existing trees proposed for removal. Prior to removal of any trees from the site,coordinate with Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements(208-371-1755). Calculations should be included on the plan demonstrating compliance with UDC mitigation standards. Pathways: A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along N.Webb Way ang along the north side of the Jackson Drain, in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. 5. A public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted for the multi-use pathway along N. Webb Way prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site. If the pathway is in the right-of- way, it should be covered under a pedestrian easement with ACHD. Pedestrian connections should be provided between buildings in the form of pathways distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks in accord with the Development Agreement(provision#5.1.4b). Pathway/sidewalk connections should also be provided to the main building entrances along N. Webb Way from the multi-use pathway along N.Webb Way. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant states there is existing fencing along the project's east boundary that consists of a combination of chain-link and barbed wire; no fencing is proposed. Because the garages have been removed from the plan that were previously proposed along the project's eastern boundary, Staff recommends a 6-foot tall closed vision/solid fence is provided along the eastern boundary,with landscaping as depicted on the landscape plan (approximately one tree per 25-linear feet and a mix of evergreen & deciduous trees), as a buffer. Page 4 Item 3. 84 Stormwater: An adequate storm drainage system shall be 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. There are some above-ground retention areas proposed along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site for stormwater management as depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.D. Waterways/Ditches: There is an existing irrigation ditch(Settler's Canal)that runs east/west across this site that is proposed to be relocated and piped in alignment with the new entry driveway via N. Webb Way in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. Buildings and trees should not be located within the easement/piped area. Ownership &Maintenance: The first phase(i.e. Jasper Apartments)and proposed second phase of development will have shared ownership and amenities for the overall development. The clubhouse proposed in this phase is sized to accommodate users from both phases.A pedestrian bridge will link the projects internally. Staff recommends both phases are under the same management company for consistent maintenance of the overall development. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations and perspective drawings were submitted for the proposed 3-story multi-family structures and the single-story clubhouse as shown in Section VII.F.Building materials for the residential structures consist of a mix of horizontal&vertical fiber cement board/batten siding with gable roofs and asphalt shingles; three primary color schemes are proposed for variety. Building materials for the clubhouse consist of vertical metal siding with vertical wood cladding, glazing, dimensional wood slat accents, a gable roof and metal roofing. Prefabricated steel siding is only allowed to be used as an accent material per the development agreement(see definition on pg.E-5 of the Architectural Standards Manual and#R5.1E)— revisions should be made to comply.Additionally,per the DA, exterior building walls should demonstrate the appearance of high-quality materials of stone,brick,wood, or other native materials (acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block,textured masonry block,textured architectural coated concrete panels, or stucco or stucco-like synthetic materials—smooth faced concrete block,tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. The building design shall incorporate at least two (2)changes in one or a combination of the following: color,texture and materials. Rooflines shall demonstrate two (2)or more of the following: overhanging eaves, sloped roofs with two or more roof planes, flat roofs with varying parapet heights,or cornices. Administrative Design Review of the proposed structures is required.All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The elevations submitted with this application are not approved and will likely require further modifications to comply with design standards.Per the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM), architectural elements should be provided to clearly distinguish between the ground level and upper stories (ASM Goal#R3.1E);visually heavier and more massive elements or materials should be provided at the base of buildings with lighter elements and materials above(#R3.1F); horizontal and vertical elements should be integrated into facades to break up monotonous wall planes (#R3.20); 25%or more of the non-roof surface area of the clubhouse(i.e. accessory structure)must utilize a like material of the primary structures(#R3.3B); locate focal points as key elements within the building design to enhance architectural character(#R4.20); incorporate a trim color and an accent color or unique material into the color scheme as integrated details of the building design(#R.5.2A); modulate and articulate roof form of the clubhouse to create building profile interest and to reduce the appearance of building mass and scale(#R3.4). The elevations in the first phase of the multi-family development lying directly to the southwest of this site(i.e. Jasper Apartments) are a different architectural style (flat roofs with parapets and more of a modern style—see Section VILE)and color palette but the proposed structures incorporate Page 5 Item 3. 85 several orientations of fiber cement board siding which assist in unifying the structures. The Applicant anticipates the existing structures will be re-painted in the future to coincide with the proposed color scheme. While different architecturally, Staff feels the similar use of materials and colors will offer variety within the development. Wayfinding signage and clear addressing should be provided on buildings for emergency responders; coordinate with Joe Bongiorno,Fire Dept. and Terri Ricks,Land Development. The Applicant should coordinate with the Police Dept.on emergency access for the secured buildings. Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s) is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of building permit applications to ensure consistency with the provisions in the development agreement, conditions in Section VIII,UDC standards and design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds the proposed changes result in more diversity in rental options, larger and more consolidated/usable common open space areas and a higher quality and more site amenities. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit modification with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 6 Item 3. 86 VII. EXHIBITS A. Approved Site Plan(dated: 1/5/2018) f----------' - --� »W rERXEP_ PERICH 549RiINI WE DATA �I �W •�� OPEN SPACE � + I J 31 Urki "�� nor- PAWING P4LClJLATft$ 71 oil SRE OEVIEW E4T AMENFEE oZE7ZIEornr_s f.% LEGEW wrew.ra-n,uex &SffE P-'IN .PWb.,E 2 m 1� - Page 7 Item 3. F87 B. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 2/23/2021) I L3L3 i 1,3SCHd-ELM3WLWVdV EV3NId { ++ :ra Farr w yNOLL3f17LLSNO}LQi LOM}NOIL%OUIOOW LJWN3d 3sn i NW1JONO7 }.I I, II .. ............ FT L1J_WJJ��'�'i� C'-4L.1 ............................................�.............. .......... ........�+.. ............... .............................................W...............— I � � I I � I I ' Page 8 Item 3. F88 C. Approved Landscape Plan&Open Space Plan(dated: 1/5/2018) GENERAL SHEET NOTES A9 rEKKER LEA=v❑ IERICR IXIATINJ GENERAL SHEET NOTES J "Slfff KEYED N407EB I LEGEND a a :::'.... '.11111111HIIIII L0I111111RII1011nI *M� 629M PLANTING PLAN — .la TREE PROTECTION uP22 Page 9 Item 3. F89 STE DATAEKHER i euiDM AFSA PE$ICH SANATI �' �•.Fw aT A.Afl� i - - -_-KEYED wrESloop- I II C i LEGEND � I A J. II mIIIIII1fQI�ID'IIIII[DIA•,�jn`� rl�'I G I i-- I adawQ A, OPEN 2PACE SrrF- .4Y I CLIP1.3 Page 10 � ■ ' ... -.11.7 ITS UCT. .- ' . ■ .- .. - ' . .. -. • ■ : - ■- . ■ ® ■ �� Aga■% @��9�a ,�•� | �� .�� • I ��' • ��_' � _ �` ] � $ 22: . _ f• � . �\ 2 � , . �� 25� } � jwt� | . om \� ° ° � e } /� { � \ tj - :�� l E | � � 1. � op � \. -_�� - . ��• $r ; , � � � | -� {| ii ��} —_1 -- Item 3. F91-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- s i } u 9SrHd 51M9WiN'Md'M F►3HId . - � T�fiifF-13S,w9u53�iH3Wd4T1n34 H�€i4 I Icy I e fff I I I _ 1 I r e { FFF�555 � I I `1 I H a a w Page 12 Item 3. F92 I Aagt I ye 6 �F � 1135VHd•SLN3W1}ltldtl E43NId _ g :yaafaad .� 1 d —r. + f• - I=ZIE-13SM3lAAiNVU9"13A30N9153a I�Ys t?gaffe m q0 0 01� I HM IlM.l.lSt I d � 4 ';r p!'i�}fsst? ,.� i; HUM mod, as:e sa .: ,:°L {; �-•, _ S ,liEE"sate:ali5S8�iE�i?e�iE \ � T" �' • � � T� O i---- - � T Q 1. I� O O O . 1c 0 A 0 a Page 13 Item 3. ■ --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- --- ----------------------------------------- 0. , LA - ! 113SgHd•SLMINIWdgE93NId a r—d w a1 [OWE—135 M31AR 1N3 Wd413AM MiS39 e Y;•I�;EE 6- 1 ISFEi�i6l�� E f[ D f 1l�Y,gli 3lia�al�l e'�a6i J Q i r I$11in�95 e7��s�1:5: :4! f s i ! 1 [ E-II,I,E ! a C lk !ei:Es!ile:1511191i:l!1 1 !! _a LU r .k 9 s V'I f co d J N i_i 1 r 1 o�o�a�ala a ofla` Ho 70010101 _ I W Page 14 Item 3. F 4 ----------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- �= Alsl w LL u YEE 6 ��ILLm � 1135tlHd•5SN3W131tldtlE43Nld � TZM/E—135 M31AR IN i MOl3AW ND1534 J a000 o ._ �. s _y v TOT g ! lie vS !l�inip• O u1 a O :! y4 'o! .•r.yaley6ENs-i ! O O rJ .i - c3 •n '� it°l.3�` � �sal.�i5s1 =1,gl!t!! v� o o a I f O I I C} . - H CO r 0 or I' - � n W Page 15 #m1 F95-1 §/ �( ■ - 0■2 we 2.| i_w•aINI_ae3m ,Z/ZZ/e13Sm1ARa,mm___ .m m, h�Q| |.. . || Mim ma m��,�|�� ..,.,......|. 2 ||�| � | �� m �|� �� 1! | Wm % : lwmmammmmm �L g ±!@9. a mf - \ � \ � | ��)| r \ � . / �"� Page 16 � m ��rrrf� i I i I ■ ■ i a y tt " Item 3. F 7 k .I A �f -I U ir qq �s i IS *Concept only—exact system to be determined in the future Page 18 El E. Approved Conceptual Building Elevations(H-20 : 000 WN M�. PERICH Rua Nil _• ... ylr� r s� ■ ■.■ ■tea 'LI15"OUSI ELEVATION Page 19 Item 3. 99 1 Elevations approved for construction in Phase 1: rExxER PERICH SAOATINJ 13 CI 760UI=I:!I.I 2 9 oa'9 515 idi.P1011dN06W.�k6 r1�.�,�2-F#B�R� �°' "°" (�.�}9Al➢INGTYPE El El El Ea 11 El �aa wLL .s ® v:9 0n Uj B19UUINGT PE2-F, T C . sueHrru w.e A El ® ® ® ® '4 s n a•s �m ID E%7HigF2 ® ® ELEVATgNS L21 VNIwWMG E2-BACK - - CZC4.3 Page 20 Item 3. Fool F. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations &Perspective Drawings for Multi-Family& Clubhouse Structures NOT APPROVED—SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL VFftT.FIBER CEMENTBOAADIBATTEN AGING 2—RES FOR—REST 5� -------------------- ■�■ tF11W ■ ■ ■ I� w., 1.WEST(WEBB WAY)ELEVATION 2.SOUTH ELEVATION ALUM.STOREFRONT zcn�e.i=zo WMri WINOGYJS PAINIEO AETAL AWNING PAINIEO NETPL GGW XSPgf i ASPFALT SHINGLE ROOF PANTED META_RAILING VERT=EEFGEMEMEOARDIRATTENSIDINC 2TE%TUP-FOR IMERE BOARDF CONIXiETE H CRIZ.FIBER CEMENTIAPSIDING (WHERE OCCURS) z ■ ■ o ■_ m o 3.EAST ELEVATION 4.NORTH ELEVATION R_' -0 13 TYP.BUILDING(BUILDING 3)ELEVATIONS O4092MI Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision,Mendian,ID PIVOT FORTH PNa JOBg20.052 arrhitectuI-e ALUM.sroREFRONT vERncALwaDD CLADDING VERTICAL I—AL SIDING OIN£NSICNAL Woon SLATS NETA_SIGNAGE,SEE IAIA)SCAPE DRAWINGS 1.WEST(WEBB WAY)ELEVATION 2.SOUTH ELEVATION PATNT€B META_AWNING VERTICAL WOOD OIABDING METAL ROOF ALUN.STDREFRDNT Fr_ -0 'o 3.EAST ELEVATION 4.NORTH ELEVATION(POOL DECK) WU O 14 AMENITY BUILDING ELEVATIONS 04092021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision,Mendian,ID PIVOT FORTH PNa JOB d 20-052 ardT itect a re Page 21 Item 3. 1 01 i t* r VIEW 1,AERIAL LOOKING EAST FROM WEBB WAY K,toy N fl 07 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Opt 092021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision,Meridian,ID RIVOT FORTH PNa JOB#2M62 architecture 1 f�,w� yM _ Y IE�,_MO I4�YE Tf,d11ENITr EULMW G 08 F..F.--F._ - DA091C@1 Pine 43 Multifamil � °^W d.In PIVOT NORTH Y PNa.�C94N arcM1itec ure Page 22 Item 3. 102 T� o1i r a VIEWS,LOOKING EASTTO VEHICVIAR ENTRYFRWN B WAY �T� 4 pg PERSPECTIVE VIEWS �yye1 Pine 43 Multifamily R e Ub�gID PIVOT FORTH Pna�fAY P6162 arcM1ltectu1lre `1 V V"CLCK%M 5TT05ECONOARY OPEN SPACE PERSPECTIVE VIEWS mo9uii Pine 43 Multifamily 4 New" PIVOT rrNORTH Z JOB x260.52 architcrt- FNIIIIIIIII VIEW 5.LOOKING NORTH TO MEN"POOL DECK PERSPECTIVE VIEWS ao5an� Pine 43 Multifamily PwSubd„i..,Mud.,ID PIVOT amhit�treNORTH IN.JOB Page 23 Item 3. F103 Potential Color Schemes: NOTE COLOR SCHEME SHOWS ARTISTS INTERPRETATION OF POTENTIAL COLOR PALATTE,POTENTIAL RECOLORING OF PHASE 1 WILL BE REVIEWED WITH CITY PINE 43 PHASE 4-COLOR 1 PINE 43 PHASE 4-COLOR 2 t • PINE 43 PHASE 1-EXISTING BUILDING 2 _ PINE 43 PHASE I-EXISTING BUILDING 1 El PINE 43 PHASE 1 BUILDING 2 E I POTENTIAL RE-COLOR NOOF PHASE 1(JASPER APARTMENTS) PINE 43 PHASE 1-BUILDING I TO MORE-CLOSELY ALIGN WnH PROPOSER PHASE d PROJECT USE SIMILAR COLORS IN DISTINCT WAYS FOR COHESIVE ALIGNMENT 04 ELEVATION CONCEPT-PHASE 7 FIELD CCLOR OF PHASE 4 BECOMES ACCENT OF PHASE I,VICE VERSA oa.a�.zaz� Pine 43 Multifamily Pine SubdIMIDn,Mendian,ID PINE 43 PHASE I COLOR STUDY PIVOT NORTH PINS,JOB#20.©52 architectare Page 24 Item 3. F104 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. All future development shall comply with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2018-000751),preliminary plat(H-2017-0058), final plat(FP-2021-0006) and the site/landscape plan,including amenities, submitted with this application and with the associated conditions of approval contained herein. 2. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall include the following: a. Demonstrate compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 Multi- Family Development, as follows: (1) All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be depicted on the plan and be located in areas not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street asset forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. (2) Depict the location of the property management office,maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail)that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicle access, and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (3) Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2, as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plants. b. Depict landscaping along the multi-use pathways along N. Webb Way and the Jackson Drain in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C. c. Depict pedestrian connections between buildings in the form of pathways distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks in accord with the Development Agreement(provision#5.1.4b). d. Depict pathway/sidewalk connections to the main building entrances along N. Webb Way from the multi-use pathway along N. Webb Way. e. Include mitigation information for the existing trees being removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5. Coordinate with Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements(208-371-1755). f Depict the boundary of the minimum 20-foot wide street buffer(future common lot) along N.Webb Way,measured from back of curb,to ensure compliance with building setback requirements. g. Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C(street buffer/parkway), 11-3B-8C(parking lot), 11-3B-12C (pathway), and 11-3G-3E(common open space). h. Parkways planted with Class 11 trees shall be a minimum of 8-feet wide (Class II trees are preferred) as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E. If less than 8-feet wide,root barriers shall be constructed. i. Depict all stormwater retention areas on the plan. Page 25 Item 3. Fo5l j. Depict 6-foot tall closed vision/solid fencing along the project's eastern boundary. k. Include details for the playground equipment,BBQ's,covered seating area(s), community garden and dog wash facilities. 1. Depict landscaping within the perimeter buffer along the eastern boundary of the site as proposed(i.e. a minimum density of one tree per 25-linear feet).A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover shall be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. 3. Submit floor plans for the units with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with the private usable open space requirements in UDC 11-4-3- 2713.3 (a minimum of 80 square feet is required for each unit). 4. The Settler's Canal shall be piped as proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. 5. Submit a public pedestrian easement to the Planning Division in accord with Park's Department requirements for the multi-use pathway along N. Webb Way prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site.If the pathway is in the right-of-way, it should be covered under a pedestrian easement with ACHD. 6. The development is required to 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 as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F; submit a copy of this recorded document to the Planning Division with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 7. Compliance with the qualified open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27 is required. Plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall demonstrate compliance with these standards and be consistent with those proposed with this application. 8. Phases I and 11 shall be managed by the same company to ensure consistent maintenance of the overall site. 9. Wayfinding signage and clear addressing shall be provided on buildings for emergency responders. Coordinate with Joe Bongiorno,Fire Dept. and Terri Ricks,Land Development. 10. Coordinate with the Police Dept. on emergency access to the secured buildings. 11. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for structures on this site. 12. All future structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and in the Development Agreement. Exterior building walls should demonstrate the appearance of high-quality materials of stone, brick, wood, or other native materials (acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, or stucco or stucco-like synthetic materials — smooth faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or pre-fabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials as set forth in the Development Agreement (provision #5.1.4h). See notes in Section V under Building Elevations. 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. An Administrative Design Review application shall be submitted concurrently with the CZC application. Page 26 Item 3. ■ B. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223662&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC Lty C. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:11weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=224331&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=224004&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC 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. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should 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. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Page 27 _ NRI.$OM LANE —————— —— —— } ; l Il �- -=` ---_-_------- I I R' - �a -a- r - ---------- lisp �4.. �.a FFf M� Is �lr tx tAe m Iseml wm ,flm��esas m.lseml' , • n _ jai m S I I I I I PIS �_��,r�;;�:�� • �q. _ 7T. --- s. I �i 11 SPACES --- — $T$' 1 - ' f I - o eLn I 19 LU I � ICI •J —. Ill I I I � IIr O G I I I � I I t200 d0.l0 •,8 $ ,0l00 I]�00 1Z' 2+W 1 I II - -T_- f SL — — — — II EVIOUSLY APPROVED CUP CURRENT PROPOSED 1 /05/20181 04/15/2021 01 04/15/2021 Pine4ffultifamily Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID IVOT NORTH 3PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture Item 3. F107 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 28 Pine 43 Residential DATA MATRIX Pivot North Architecture Meridian, ID 04/15/2021 Conditional Use Permit (01/05/2018) Current Proposed (04/15/2021) Unit Mix Unit Mix 1-bedrooms: 60 1-bedrooms: 80 2-bedrooms: 120 2-bedrooms: 110 3-bedrooms: 60 3-bedrooms: 50 Total: 240 Total: 240 Amenity Building: 4,000 sf Amenity Building: 7,047 sf Open Space Required: # ratio subtotal Open Space Required: # ratio subtotal Units <_500 sf: 0 150 - sf Units <_500 sf: 0 150 - sf Units 500 <_ 1,200 sf: 180 250 45,000 sf Units 500 <_ 1,200 sf: 190 250 47,500 sf Units > 1,200 sf: 60 350 21,000 sf Units > 1,200 sf: 50 350 17,500 sf Total: 66,000 sf Total: 65,000 sf Open Space Proposed: 8/,LL4 sf Open Space Proposed: 11$,sbs sf *note: includes parkway and landscape buffer on Webb (collector) Parking Required: # ratio subtotal Parking Required: # ratio subtotal 1-bedrooms: 60 1.5 90 1-bedrooms: 80 1.5 120 2-bedrooms: 120 2.0 240 2-bedrooms: 110 2.0 220 3-bedrooms: 60 2.0 120 3-bedrooms: 50 2.0 100 Amenity Building: Amenity Building: 7,047 1:500 sf 15 Total: 450 Total: 455 (240 covered) (240 covered) Parking Proposed: 462 Parking Proposed: 462 (245 covered) (248 covered) # ratio subtotal # ratio subtotal Bike Parking Required: 450 1:25 18 Bike Parking Required: 455 1:25 19 Bike Parking Proposed: 48 Bike Parking Proposed: 02 04/15/2021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID PIVOT NORTH PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture Primary resident amenities include: - Leasing office with conference facilities - Clubhouse with demonstration kitchen - Fitness center - Spa-like locker room - Golf simulator - Recreation deck with fire pit 1 1 f f fj - Swimming pool and 2 spas - Outdoor BBQ/ pizza oven area r - Covered outdoor cabana seating H n 00 - bLd BH Q - Beach volleyball court. Q Additional amenities include. - Dog run and dog wash �� Playground� Pla round structure � - - Edible garden - Covered, secured bike parking U] a CD C Q 0[3 03 04/15/2021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID IP I VOT NORTH PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture 00 � AW 19 , - -I- i L - L rill OEM fib. 1 �1•: 0, 04/15/2021 VERT. FIBER CEMENT BOARD/BATTEN SIDING 2 TEXTURES FOR INTEREST 12 A_ 5 LU 21 FID N 6 FL L 0 FE-11 F D E ,4 ------- .� 00 2 LL + 0 1 EN IFE-11 9 EN E191 99 9 �1 0 -------------------- ----------------- 0 Big an a 21 IN (B1 ABOVE) (Cl ABOVE) 1. WEST (WEBB WAY) ELEVATION 2. SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1"=20' ALUM.STOREFRONT SCALE:1"=20' VINYL WINDOWS PAINTED METAL AWNING PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF PAINTED METAL RAILING VERT. FIBER CEMENT BOARD/BATTEN SIDING 2 TEXTURES FOR INTEREST BOARD-FORM CONCRETE HORIZ.FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING (WHERE OCCURS) 12 5 7. 7 - - - w _ oC D P IF-01 ED 1101 E I :.Ego ELI F1 ----------------------- ------------------- 0 El FF1 IF L__11 FIE 11 [1111 91 or + O --------------------- ------------------- a ElCDOFFfl � El M ® � o ®❑ 1 ■❑ O0 � ® rn -WWTI"; 3. EAST ELEVATION (B1 ABOVE) 4. NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:1"=20' SCALE:1"=20' m e 4. 2. 1. r KEYPLAN 05 TYP. BUILDING (BUILDING 3) ELEVATIONS 04/15/2021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID PIVOT NORTH PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture ALUM.STOREFRONT VERTICAL WOOD CLADDING VERTICAL METAL SIDING DIMENSIONAL WOOD SLATS METAL SIGNAGE,SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS w 0 U i_ fV + r ` LL 31 i l ' II + O 1. WEST (WEBB WAY) ELEVATION 2. SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1"=20' SCALE:1"=20' PAINTED M ETAL AWNING VERTICAL WOOD CLADDING METAL ROOF ALUM.STOREFRONT 12 w 12 - 2 r... 12 _ U N F- Ln + LL y FF1S FP::,- 0 0 3. EAST ELEVATION 4. NORTH ELEVATION (POOL DECK) SCALE:1"=20' SCALE:1"=20' 3. 4. m e 2. r� KEYPLAN 1' 06 AMENITY BUILDING ELEVATIONS 04/15/2021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID R I VOT NORTH PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture IF JJ I "J JP i. Le 47 R ff), YAP 14Elimp Ob Lit z� L AF g ffak LJtr -own �R l� y� } I Am dr METAL SIDING, CONTEMPORARY WOOD CLADDING FOR WARMTH AND TEXTURE WOOD SLATS FOR DRAMATIC IMPACT ROOF FORM . LK PROJECTpo • - - --- ------------------------ W 2. LOOKING NE TO AMENITY BUILDING m r� KEYPLAN 08 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS 04/15/2021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID IP I VOT NORTH PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture •'� YsyF r+ 1 � w �. Mt IL II . im 1 r •- • MM fi 0IJ low VIEW 4. LOOKING EAST TO SECONDARY OPEN SPACE ,U- m r� KEYPLAN 10 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS 04/15/2021 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID PIVOT NORTH PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture �, - •i� � 1��, i� �� "°�� r�: �� ids �, � ►.� � � �rS ■ice--a � "� � i� �� ii■.I •� �iT�l II !!il �—_ -- � p�'�`- ' ��.f. ,�Fa ia�■■.� �� .�T� � s wry .�.■. � I�rr c } it - ' — -�• � ;: �� - ,. - 4 _ I VIEW 5. LOOKING NORTH TO AMENITY POOL DECK 1 � PERSPECTIVE 04/15/2021 NOTE: COLOR SCHEME SHOWS ARTISTS INTERPRETATION OF POTENTIAL COLOR PALATTE; POTENTIAL RECOLORING OF PHASE 1 WILL BE REVIEWED WITH CITY — FIE] 101 _ : � � H --- r 1E no 0 FIT 0I -ju P I dl ED 31_j G win - �� [Mg 0 ED PINE 43 PHASE 4 - COLOR 1 PINE 43 PHASE 4 - COLOR 2 El E fl g El 0 El PINE 43 PHASE 1 - EXISTING BUILDING 2 El 0 PINE 43 PHASE 1 - EXISTING BUILDING 1 D t 0 El PINE 43 PHASE 1 - BUILDING 2 IF POTENTIAL RE-COLORING OF PHASE 1 (JASPER APARTMENTS) PINE 43 PHASE 1 - BUILDING 1 TO MORE-CLOSELY ALIGN WITH PROPOSED PHASE 4 PROJECT USE SIMILAR COLORS IN DISTINCT WAYS FOR COHESIVE ALIGNMENT 12 ELEVATION CONCEPT - PHASE 1 FIELD COLOR OF PHASE 4 BECOMES ACCENT OF PHASE 1,VICE VERSA 04115I2021 Pine 43 Multifamily COLOR Pine Subdivision, Meridian, ID PINE 43 PHASE I R STUDY PIVOT NORTH PNa JOB # 20-052 architecture Item 4. L108 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Item 4. 1 o9 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26- acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 15, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 1 � i 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING April 15,2021 Legend DATE: ��Project Lacfl�iar _ - � TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 LI I I I I I I I SUBJECT: H-2021-0014 Artemisia Subdivision—AZ,PP LOCATION: 1690 W. Overland Rd., in the SE 1/4 of ---- Section 14,T.3N.,R.1 W. (Parcel #S1214449107) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning(AZ) of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district; and, Preliminary Plat(PP) consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the proposed C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 25.67-acres(AZ); 19.26-acres(PP) Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County/C-G Future Land Use Designation Mixed Employment(ME)(13.4+/-acres)&Mixed-Use Commercial(MUC)(5.9+/-acres) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Corporate office,parts sales,service,accessory center,RV maintenance Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 9 buildable lots/0 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 0 of units) Physical Features(waterways, The Hardin Drain runs along the northeast corner of this hazards,flood plain,hillside) site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 8/26/20;3 attendees&2/4/21;no attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) None - Page 1 Item 4. F-1111 B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required. es/no Access One access is proposed via W.Overland Rd.,a 5-lane arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street along the southern boundary of the site. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"D"(acceptable LOS is"E") Stub One stub street(W. Tasa St.)is proposed at the west boundary of Street/Interconnectivity/Cros the site for future extension s Access Existing Road Network W. Overland Rd.runs along the southern boundary of the site Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks exist along W. Overland Rd. adjacent to this site. Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIPu Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass and Improvements widened to 5-lanes on each side of I-a4 with a level 3 bike facility from Franklin Road to overland Road in the future. • The intersection of Overland Road and Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened 6-lanes on the north and south legs and 7-lanes on the east west legs and signalized between 2036 and 2W. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 0.1 mile • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 87%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 4 current resources would not be adequate to supply service (large building with high fire loading) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 2,500 gallons per minute for two hours,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • 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 • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 Item 4. F112 Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Project Luca for � � � Project Lucafton - _ I Low �ier iry -IteS tl$� Reiden iol ial y p menf i]hrD Sify IY sidenfial Zoning Map Planned Development Map ffeegend R1 R1 (fLegend ( Project Lacai�on I Project Luca-ion +_i {'al}I Limit wlwa — Planned Parcels IRE] RI RUT -L - ` RUT-RLL" ---- TN-R R-15 TN-C CrI--C RUT R-1. TN-R R-8 R-8 R-8 r?4 Page 3 Item 4. F113 A. Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP— 1029 N. Rosario St., Ste. 100,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owners: Idaho Auto Mall,LLC—8854 W. Emerald St.,Boise, ID 83704-4830 C. Representative: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions,LLP— 1029 N.Rosario St., Ste. 100,Meridian, ID 83642 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 3/26/2021 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 3/24/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 4/3/2021 Nextdoor posting 3/24/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the northern and western 13.4+/-acres of this site as Mixed Employment(ME)and the 5.9 acres at the southeast corner of the site as Mixed-Use Commercial(MUC). This site is within the area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). The purpose of ME designated areas is to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of office,research and specialized employment areas,light industrial including manufacturing and assembly,and other miscellaneous uses. These areas generally do not include retail and consumer service uses serving the wider community. However, a small amount of retail and service establishments,primarily serving employees and users of the ME areas or nearby industrial areas, are allowed. ME areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small, local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises.ME areas should be designed to encourage multimodal travel and convenient circulation to supporting uses located within the area. Buildings are anticipated to range in height from 1-4 stories,have total floor areas of 10,000-1,000,000 square feet,with a FAR that will exceed .75. The purpose of MUC designated areas is to encourage the development of a mixture of office,retail, recreational,employment and other miscellaneous uses,with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses. This designation requires developments to integrate the three major use categories—residential, commercial and employment. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are essential. Development within these areas exhibit quality building and site design and an attractive pedestrian environment with a strong street character. The northern portion of the site, designated ME, is proposed to develop first with two(2) single-story structures with a combined square footage of 92,307 for Kendall Ford Auto Center, a regional company;proposed uses include vehicle sales and service and retail sale of vehicle accessories. A Page 4 Item 4. F114 variety of lot sizes are proposed on the MUC designated southern portion of the site for future retail and office uses adjacent to W. Overland Rd. Staff believes the proposed uses are generally consistent with the associated ME and MUC FLUM designations and will contribute to the variety of uses already in this area and with future uses. Existing uses consist of single-family and multi-family residential uses to the south and southwest, which provide the residential component of the mixed-use area although not an integrated part of the development; office to the south; recreational vehicle sales,retail parts/accessories sales and service to the east; and future mixed employment uses to the west. Future development along Overland Rd. and internal local streets should incorporate street-oriented design consistent with the TMISAP for commercial developments. Transportation: The Transportation System Map in the TMISAP depicts arterial streets along the south and east boundaries of the site—Overland Rd. exists along the south boundary as a 5-lane roadway and Linder Rd. is listed in the IFYWP to be constructed as a 5-lane roadway and a 4-lane overpass in the future along the east boundary of the site. A local street is depicted through the western portion of this site from Overland Rd. to the west boundary of this site consistent with that shown on the proposed preliminary plat. Mixed-Use Commercial areas must include an integrated system of sidewalks,walkways and pathways that provide access to all structures and spaces within a development. Sidewalks should not be located immediately adjacent to the curb—they should be separated from the curb by a minimum 4-foot wide planting strip planted with street trees and other landscaping. A loop pathway is proposed on the landscape plan around the perimeter of this site as an amenity for employees and the public. Street furnishings such as seating,newspaper racks,bollards,trash receptacles,bicycle racks and other elements important to the functioning of an effective pedestrian environment should be provided as set forth in the TMISAP(Street Furniture,pgs. 3-28—3-29). Exterior lighting should be used to provide illumination for the security and safety of entry drives, parking, service and loading areas,pathways, courtyards and plazas,without intruding on adjacent properties. Site lighting should be architecturally compatible and consistent in design between sites. (See TMISAP,Lighting,pg. 3-30). Design: In commercial developments,building orientation and setbacks should be close to the street with the main entrance of buildings oriented to the street(Street-Oriented Design,pg. 3-33). For all new commercial and mixed-use buildings, a continuous unbroken frontage along required build-to lines to a minimum height of 30-feet should be constructed for at least 75% of the property frontage. Adjustments to this requirement may be allowed, such as modest setbacks to accommodate additional sidewalk space for cafe seating,or breaks in frontage for the creation of pocket parks.New Buildings at street intersections should"hold the corners" and avoid introducing additional building setbacks unless a new public space is specified. At least 40%of the linear dimension of the street level frontages shall be in windows or doorways; street level windows shall be clear or tinted visually permeable glass(mirrored or reflective glass is prohibited). Window sills shall be located no higher than 3'6"above adjacent exterior grade;headers shall be located no lower than 8'0"above adjacent exterior grade.No wall frontage shall continue uninterrupted by a window or a functional public access doorway for a linear distance of greater than 12'. The principal doorway for public entry into a building shall be from the fronting street. Corner entrances may be provided on corner lot buildings (Commercial and Mixed-Use Buildings,pg. 3-33).No parking should be placed between a building and the fronting primary or secondary street(Commercial Activity Centers,pg. 3-37). The space between a building fagade and the adjacent sidewalk or walkway should be appropriately landscaped with a combination of lawn, groundcover, shrubs and appropriate trees(Building Facades, pg. 3-38). Page 5 Item 4. F-1151 Low-rise buildings of 2-4 stories over much of the area is desired(Building Heights,pg. 3-38). Buildings should be designed with clearly delineated bases,bodies and tops(Base,Body and Top,pg. 3-39). Comply with the general recommendations for Activity Centers noted on pg. 3-40. Awnings shall be provided on building facades for climate protection for pedestrians and shall extend a minimum of 5-feet from the fagade of the fronting structure—8-feet is preferable in wider pedestrian environments(Awnings,pg. 3-45). Signs should be designed to contribute to the overall character, identity and way finding system. The colors,materials, sizes, shapes and lighting of signs should be compatible with the architecture of the buildings and the businesses they identify(Signs,pg. 3-46). High quality public art should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes,public buildings,parks, transit,infrastructure,and other public projects(Public Art,pg. 3-47). The Applicant proposes a focal point at the northwest corner of Linder&Overland Roads with a sculpture and masonry signage(see detail on Sheet LI AO of the landscape plan in Section VII.C). Open civic spaces should be provided in commercial activity centers/mixed use environments and should be located adjacent to an accessible from at least one primary street(3-48).Linear open space with a pedestrian walkway is proposed around the perimeter of the development; additional common/gathering area(s)should be provided within the commercial/office portion of the development. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed uses should be compatible with similar uses (Camping World&Bish's RV)and zoning(I-L) to the east,future mixed employment uses to the west, and multi family residential, office and future commercial uses to the south across Overland Rd. • "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 anticipated retail uses should provide shopping opportunities for area residents and employees of the proposed auto center and offices. The proposed auto center will provide jobs within close proximity of single family and multi family residential uses to the south across Overland Rd. • "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas."(3.06.02C) The proposed retail uses should provide supportive uses for the auto center and office uses. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large Page 6 Item 4. F116 commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A) The landscape plan depicts a pedestrian walkway within the landscape buffers around the perimeter of the development and sidewalks along internal public streets.Additional internal pedestrian walkways should be provided between buildings within the site for pedestrian connectivity and from the perimeter sidewalks along Overland and Linder Roads to the main building entrances. • "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 though this development in accord with current City plans. • "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 to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response times for Police Dept. and Fire Dept. meets the established goals. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01 C) A 50 foot wide landscaped street buffer is required to be provided along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to I-84. The structures on Lot 1, Block I are proposed to be setback 315'+from I-84. • "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 are proposed as required with this development. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 25.67-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district,which includes the ITD storm drainage area at the northeast corner of the site and the right-of-way to the section/center line of adjacent streets. The proposed C-G zoning is consistent with the associated ME and MUC FLUM designations as is the proposed uses. The proposed use of the property will include sales and service for commercial fleet operations for large commercial trucks and motorhomes;vehicle accessory sales; an installation facility for customizing vehicles; parts department; and reconditioning facility for used cars for Kendall Ford Auto Center. The Applicant anticipates the future uses on the six(6)lots located along W. Overland Rd. and adjacent to S. Spanish Sun Way to be retail and office space. Vehicle sales and service,minor vehicle repair,retail sales, and professional services(i.e. offices) are all listed as principal permitted uses in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2, Page 7 Item 4. ■ subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3 as applicable.Note:Major vehicle repair is prohibited in the C-G zoning district. The property is contiguous to City annexed land and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the development plan proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed herein. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat consists of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Lots range in size from 22,305 square feet(s.f.) (0.51-acre)to 422,643 s.f. (9.7-acres)with an average lot size of 87,625 s.f. (2.0 1-acres). The subdivision is proposed to develop in one(1)phase.Note: The portion of the annexation area at the northeast corner of the site that is the ITD storm drainage area is not included in the proposed plat as it's been dedicated as right-of-way. The Applicant requests approval to obtain building permits and develop the Kendall Auto site on Lot 1,Block 1,prior to recordation of the final plat. Staff is amenable to this request as the subject parcel is considered a legal parcel eligible for development;however,prior to issuance of building permits for any other lots within the subdivision, the final plat should be recorded. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site; the previous home and accessory structures have been removed. Proposed Use Analysis: A variety of uses are proposed on lots in the subdivision including vehicle sales and service and retail sale of vehicle accessories; retail; and office uses. Vehicle sales and service is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-38. Retail sales and professional services (i.e. offices) are also listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district. Other uses are allowed as noted in the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts Table 11-2B-2. Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C- G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. 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. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) One(1)public street access(S. Spanish Sun Way) is proposed via W. Overland Rd. in alignment with that to the south. Direct lot access via W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd. is prohibited. One(1) stub street(W. Tasa St.)is proposed to the west boundary for future extension in accord with the Transportation System Map in the TMISAP. A temporary cul-de-sac is required to be constructed at the terminus of Tasa St.until the street is extended in the future. Page 8 Item 4. F118 Cross-access/ingress-egress easements are required to be granted between all lots in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Per the ACHD report,Linder Rd. is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass and widened to 5-lanes on each side of I-84 with a level 3 bike facility from Franklin Rd. to Overland Rd. in the future. The intersection of Overland Rd. and Linder Rd. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north and south legs and 7-lanes on the east west legs and signalized between 2036 and 2040. A future traffic signal is planned in the CIP at the Linder/Overland Rd. intersection and scheduled for 2031-2035 but may be accelerated if the Linder Rd. overpass becomes a priority. For this reason, and because Overland Rd. is fully built-out, a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required by ACHD with this application. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 6B.1 for non-residential uses in commercial districts. Parking stalls and drive-aisles should comply with the dimensions in UDC Table 11-3C-5. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A 10' wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed as required within the street buffer along S. Linder Rd. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. The pathway should be placed in a 14- foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s).If the pathway will be located entirely within the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17; detached sidewalks/pathway are required along W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd.,both arterial streets. and per the guidelines in the TMISAP. In accord with the TMISAP and UDC 11-3A-17E,Staff recommends minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are provided along all streets within the development. Sidewalks/pathways should include dedicated crosswalks at the intersection with all streets within commercial activity centers and should be distinguished from surrounding paving as set forth in the TMISAP(Crosswalks,pg.3-28). Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Parkways are recommended along all streets within the development in accord with the TMISAP,planted with street trees and landscaping per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees is 8-feet; the minimum with of parkway planters for Class I and III trees is 10-feet. Planter widths for Class 11 trees may be reduced to 6-feet if root barriers are installed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 50-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to 1-84; 25-foot wide buffers are required along W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd.,arterial streets; and a 10-foot wide buffers are required along S. Spanish Sun Way and W. Tasa St., local streets,per UDC Table 11-2B-3,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Street buffers with detached sidewalks are measured from back of curb. All street buffers are required to be maintained by the property owner or business owners' association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. Page 9 Item 4. 119 1 If residential uses abut any of the lots at the time of lot development, a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer shall be provided, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C. A residential use currently exists on the abutting property to the west. Landscaping is required adjacent to the pathway along S. Linder Rd. per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. A 5' wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B- 7C. There were existing trees on this site around the home that have been removed—the Applicant states these trees were diseased and trash trees that did not require mitigation. If any other trees exist on the site,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. Contact the City Arborist,Matt Perkins,prior to removing any additional trees from the site to determine mitigation requirements. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Geotechnical En ing eering Report for the subdivision. The preliminary plat depicts an existing ITD storm drainage facility at the northeast corner of the site that is proposed to remain. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-151: Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. This property lies within the boundary of Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District; water delivery is from the Kennedy Lateral which is piped along Overland Rd. The Applicant proposes to install a pressure irrigation system along with a pump station adjacent to W. Overland Rd. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. An existing 12-inch water main is located within Overland Rd.with a second 12-inch water main within the Linder Rd.right-of-way. An existing 30-inch sewer main line is located within Overland Rd. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Hardin Drain is a large open waterway that lies within a 40-foot wide easement across the northeast corner of the site that is proposed to be piped with a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B.3. This project is not within the flood plain. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall chain- link fence exists around the ITD storm drainage facility which is proposed to remain. No fencing is depicted on the plan around the Kendall Ford; Staff recommends if fencing is proposed for security that it be of a higher quality than chain-link(i.e.wrought iron)—the Applicant should clarify at the hearing if fencing will be proposed and if so,what type of fencing is proposed. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the Kendall Ford site as shown in Section VII.D. Two (2) single-story structures are proposed on Lot 1,Block 1 with building materials consisting of ACM panels(i.e. aluminum composite), corrugated horizontal metal panels, CMU in two(2)different colors;metal sunscreens and canopies are proposed over some windows. Page 10 Item 4. F120] Overhead doors are proposed on the north, east and west sides of the building. Final design must comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the requirement of a development agreement and preliminary plat per the provisions noted in Section VIII,per the Findings in Section IX. Page 11 Item 4. 121 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map Legal Description Annexation & -G Rezone - Proposed Artemisia Subdivision A parcel being a portion of the SE /4 of the SE f4 of Section 14, Township 3 Nortn, Range ' Wwit, Boise Meridiark,Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of said Section 14, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southwest corner of the SE '.of said Section 14 bears N 89'1941'W a distance of 2861.68 feet; Thence along the southerly boundary of said SE X of the SE %, also being the centerline of VV. Overland Road, N 89"19'41"W a distance of 923-89 feet to a point; Thence leaving said centerline and southerly boundary N 0'44'19" E a distance of 1210-11 feet to point on the centerline of Interstate 84; Thence along Bald Centerllne S 89`34W" E a distance of 921.31 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said SE V4 of the SE '1, also being thie centerline of S. Linder Road, Thence leaving the centerline of said Interstate 84 and along said easterly boundary and S. Linder Road oenteriine S 0`32'59" VVa distance of 1213-95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel Contains 25.67 acres and is subOct to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, PLC Land Solutions. P p,i Lq s March 5, 2021 Tg IL I � �ons Artemisia Subdivision—AA tian&Rezone --' �rwww,�n ^nCwwng 3Db MD.19-72 P�ryR 1 of 1 Page 12 Item 4. F122] CITE' OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION & C- REZONE i E PROPOSED ARTEMISIA SUBDIVISION A POR7104 OF THE SE 114 OF THESE 114 OF SECTION 14, T-3N R.1W W. B.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN_ADA CiDUNTY, IDAHO ;Ii It p' 100` 209 409 r- L'39'34'd 1. 1- WSTATE 84 I S FE Y; 25.67 ACRES f- rd 1d 1737.7§' 92389' Polly OF RZGINNIN 14 I3 1�4 — 23 NM]9'41'w 2661.d8' W. OVERLAND RD, 2v 24 L{ r BASIS OF BEARING � T ` 5 �^ Latnd- luin Lead Surveying and Qmsulting OF g51 a: erw 37 $rF A O �0' E LRIOWY.to 83642 +� 12 0 91 291-.NG 6mal 2ee,7557!« ww.krKlxlullors 612 ,pg 1q 1g-7� Page 13 Item 4. F123] B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 1/27/2021) PFAEUMIHARY PLAT gg ARTEMISIA SUBDIVISIO 3g wapgixx,lonxo I'�g � pp7ptl 6�e �2021�mr J t PFAMECT SFM j -------------------------------------------------------------------------- v 7,TT. «• p F. � xm��n<•u ys+nee� �O ------------ I �� a1"---------------I mnau_"aw�� .tea. PREL Page 14 Item 4. F124] C. Landscape Plan(date: 3/1/2021) LANOSCAPENOTES� I U tgw/A ig I II 0 GENERAL NOTES. � mrt '•�`�,� ffFH lIIIIIIIII''III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�lI III�II�II�I III !I —=® 4111 i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllll IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII t I I j 001 i am $F I AS Of11� �` ARE ' � IRE -=_- �__ - _ _ pLANOSCAPE CALCULATIONS A TWO i ARE SOUR 9 i / h- CWRALL LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE .-....-�-^•��r�•n-ter.-r-m _ :r. Ify I 0 _ s 7 owl d �.» d BUILDING 1 BUILCING 2 p I. 0 MFTCHLINE-SEE SHEET L1.10 I � HLINE EMEESHEE r L1-10 Page 15 Item 4. F125] PLaNrscnEouLE — — - —_-- - ---- ----_- -----IAM1TCHIIE-SEE SHEET L1.10 E-5 .I•g H�INEE5HE- —f- joI I��A - — — s — -- _ I - ,€ T 4,¢ 77_71 ---------- _ .--- ------- q t� Ook •• •I I a 41 1W.eWERLAND RR. - �-6 _ —®---m-- --- L _ .—_ �J PL0.NTSCHENNLE RUT $3sYlEl = la'm I0 &� m I MATCH' ESME LI 3D ' —f-i-----MAT ChP�*9E'E7HEETLIAO - - Page 16 Item 4. 126 o PLANT SCHEDULE I I ❑� �_ MATCH�B��SH�fL13C_ I I FSFE M.L1LlA 10 L i =� . . . . . . . TEN i C G U L LMILELim - - a EL�:VATIGN FLrN VIEW log :,� SIGN-DETAIL ° I y LANDSCAPE PLAN:AREA FOUR e© FL140 o LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS k = w»o.�xs uw ; 32 Nmmiiivneo uu'--ua,wr,rc.auv ' w �� i x.�m:LL"'"��a°.'i'.«�w.A"��r✓x� m a+ss"'°-.��®ro.��..®wn. M17�li ' ` TIff RJWINO DETAL v COIF6iOIB liff PI-ANIYO LrEfIV< ,n xwP r.e + ° ..n i eewnw uxrex I — o.em.�xr... � i x nxamw ns,exn annex evn y�,l';6 nLLa wnxvi uu.nxn rwve - .na-en.. i ii i i.. a�epe �8NP1B%_ANRtl�ETALLO'� I' _ I.. � Vwwr ,i ii ixi iii n..iw..r iw i - ii y..l u.i n o W m a 0 0 0 ~Lzoo Page 17 Item 4. F127] D. Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 2/2/2021) SG HELEVATION `vvW w @iY—• � J �• W 7 Z =ORiH ELEVATION d`�p S Y 0 5 a z W Y 0 w _ o avwR— Iv r1EA5T ELEVATION d�� .... ._ \WEST ELEVATION .+ RlEltl]It tClIXi ElEV0.T1M8 KENDALL OVERLAND KE , " LL SOUTH VIEW FUDoW IRIDIAN JUNIN Wpm% Page 18 Item 4. 128 KENDALL OVERLAND SOUTH VIEW ! SERVICE e ear KENDALL OVERLAND SOUTH VIEW ! SERVICE 3 KENDALL OVERLAND SOUTH WEST VIEW ! Page 19 Item 4. F129] KENDALL OVERLAND C NORTH VIEW E'' .r KNMALL41M KENDALL OVERLAND C � NORTH VIEW Iff''' I(EN00.L. i'M .� KENDALL OVERLAND C NORTH EAST VIEW Page 20 Item 4. Fl 30 KENDALLOVERLAND SOUTH EAST VIEW I ''' ' ' Page 21 Item 4. 131 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION I. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations submitted with the annexation application contained herein. b. Prior to development of the commercial/office portion of the development,the development agreement shall be amended to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the land use,transportation and design elements of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP), including but not limited to the following: (1) Provide minimum 6-foot wide parkways/planting strips and detached minimum 5- foot wide sidewalks along all streets within the development(Pedestrian&Bicycle System,pg. 3-27). The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees is 8- feet; the minimum with of parkway planters for Class I and III trees is 10 feet. Planter widths for Class II trees may be reduced to 6-feet if root barriers are installed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. (2) Sidewalks/pathways shall include dedicated crosswalks at the intersection with all streets within commercial activity centers and shall be distinguished from surrounding paving(Crosswalks,pg. 3-28). (3) Street furnishings such as seating,newspaper racks,bollards,trash receptacles, bicycle racks and other elements important to the functioning of an effective pedestrian environment shall be provided(Street Furniture,pgs. 3-28—3-29). (4) Exterior lighting should be used to provide illumination for the security and safety of entry drives,parking, service and loading areas,pathways, courtyards and plazas, without intruding on adjacent properties. Site lighting should be architecturally compatible and consistent in design between sites. (Lighting,pg. 3-30). (5) Future development along Overland Rd. and internal local streets should incorporate street-oriented design consistent with the TMISAP for commercial developments. (6) Building orientation and setbacks should be close to the street with the main entrance of buildings oriented to the street(Street-Oriented Design,pg. 3-33). (7) A continuous unbroken frontage along required build-to lines to a minimum height of 30-feet should be constructed for at least 75%of the property frontage. Adjustments to this requirement may be allowed, such as modest setbacks to accommodate additional sidewalk space for caf6 seating,or breaks in frontage for the creation of pocket parks. New Buildings at street intersections should"hold the corners"and avoid introducing additional building setbacks unless a new public space is specified. Page 22 Item 4. F132] At least 40%of the linear dimension of the street level frontages shall be in windows or doorways; street level windows shall be clear or tinted visually permeable glass (mirrored or reflective glass is prohibited). Window sills shall be located no higher than 3'6"above adjacent exterior grade;headers shall be located no lower than 8'0" above adjacent exterior grade.No wall frontage shall continue uninterrupted by a window or a functional public access doorway for a linear distance of greater than 12'. The principal doorway for public entry into a building shall be from the fronting street. Corner entrances may be provided on corner lot buildings (Commercial and Mixed-Use Buildings,pg. 3-33).No parking should be placed between a building and the fronting primary or secondary street(Commercial Activity Centers,pg. 3-37). (8) The space between a building facade and the adjacent sidewalk or walkway should be appropriately landscaped with a combination of lawn,groundcover, shrubs and appropriate trees (Building Facades,pg. 3-38). (9) Low-rise buildings of 2-4 stories over much of the area is desired(Building Heights, pg. 3-38). (10) Buildings should be designed with clearly delineated bases,bodies and tops(Base, Body and Top,pg. 3-39). (11) Comply with the general recommendations for Activity Centers noted on pg. 3-40. (12) Awnings shall be provided on building facades for climate protection for pedestrians and shall extend a minimum of 5-feet from the facade of the fronting structure—8- feet is preferable in wider pedestrian environments(Awnings,pg. 3-45). (13) Signs should be designed to contribute to the overall character,identity and way finding system. The colors,materials, sizes, shapes and lighting of signs should be compatible with the architecture of the buildings and the businesses they identify (Signs,pg. 3-46). (14) High quality public art should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes,public buildings,parks,transit,infrastructure, and other public projects(Public Art,pg. 3- 47). (15) Open civic spaces should be provided in commercial activity centers/mixed use environments and should be located adjacent to an accessible from at least one primary street(3-48). c. Minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkways shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalks along Overland and Linder Roads to the main building entrances in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. d. Internal pedestrian walkways shall be provided between buildings within the site for pedestrian connectivity. Internal walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. e. All future structures constructed on this site shall comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. f. The final plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits for any structures beyond those on the Kendall Ford site(i.e. Lot 1,Block 1). The Kendall Ford site is allowed to develop and obtain building permits prior to recordation of the plat. Page 23 Item 4. F133] g. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-38: Vehicle Sales or Rental and Service is required. h. If fencing is proposed for security around the Kendall Ford site,it shall be of a higher quality than chain-link(i.e.wrought iron). 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd. b. Include a note granting cross-access/ingress-egress easements between all lots in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Include a calculations table on the plan that demonstrate compliance with the standards for street buffer(11-3B-7C),pathway(11-3B-12C)and parkway(11-3B-7C)landscaping; include required vs. provided number of trees. b. Include mitigation information for any existing trees that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-10C.5. Contact the City Arborist, Matt Perkins,prior to removing any trees from the site to determine mitigation requirements. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. 5. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. 6. A 14-foot wide public use easement for the multi-use pathway along S. Linder Rd. shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s).If the pathway will be located entirely within the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 This project has been granted permission to sewer the northern portion of the property outside of its designated sewer shed. 1.1.2 The applicant shall provide a deposit for the future construction of an 8-inch sewer main along the North portion of property. The deposit shall be 125%of the construction bid. The deposit must be provided to the City prior to signature of the final plat. 1.1.3 The applicant shall provide a sewer utility easement for the future construction of an 8-inch sewer main along the North portion of the property. The easement shall be 20-foot-wide and free from any permanent structure including buildings,fences,trees,bushes, etc. There must also be a point of access provided for future access to the main. 1.1.4 Provide a valve to the North and West side of the water tee located in the future Linder Road overpass. 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 Page 24 Item 4. F134] feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 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 Page 25 Item 4. 135 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 I-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 26 Item 4. F136] https://weblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=224777&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=225351&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=225372&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=226077&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES hgps://weblink.meridianciU.oLP WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=224816&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=225900&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv 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 C-G and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of a mix of commercial/office uses which will provide for the retail and service needs of the community consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. 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 Page 27 Item 4. ■ 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. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See 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, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 28 ARTEMISIA SUBDIVISION April 15, 2021Public HearingMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission ANNEXATION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT Artemisia Subdivision Vicinity Map– Artemisia Aerial View–Subdivison Artemisia Subdivision Preliminary Plat– Artemisia Landscape Plan–Subdivison Artemisia Landscape Plan–Subdivison Artemisia Landscape Plan–Subdivison Artemisia Landscape Plan–Subdivison Artemisia Landscape Plan–Subdivison KENDALL VIEWSOUTH OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWSOUTH OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWSOUTH OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWWESTSOUTH OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWWEST OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWWESTNORTH OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWNORTH OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWEASTNORTH OVERLAND KENDALL VIEWEASTSOUTH OVERLAND Applicant Presentation Item 5. Ll 38 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 2.15 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. Item 5. 139 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: April 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 2.15 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 15, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO X, 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/15/2021 Legend DATE: leiPrcject Lucaffi:n - - TO: Planning&Zoning Commission LL, FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development - Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2021-0013 Roberts Annexation -- EE LOCATION: 1630 E. Paradise Ln - -- E:3 rF t=fTfiTF1 rs� t=��------- I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a proposal to annex 1.77 acres of land from the R-1 zone in Ada County to R-2 zone to construct a new single-family residence. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.77 acres Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residence Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 2(to be consolidated into parcel with a future PBA application) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 1 house with detached shop and RV garage of units) Density(gross&net) 0.56 du/acre Open Space(acres,total N/A [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities N/A Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 9,2021,2 attendees. attendees: History(previous approvals) Heritage Subdivision No 2 Page 1 Item 5. 141 A. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District No comments Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Property will be accessed from E Paradise Lane(local). Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service N/A Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross N/A Access Existing Road Network E.Paradise Ln Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is existing curb and gutter on east side of N.Locust Buffers Grove Rd.E.Paradise Ln is a rural local road with no sidewalk on either side. Proposed Road Improvements None required Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1 mile to Champion Park size) Distance to other key services Fire Service No comments Police Service No comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer 1,400 feet+/- Services • Sewer Shed North Slough Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.08 • Project Consistent with No.Property will be on septic until utilities are WW Master Plan/Facility available in the area. Plan • Comments • Flow is committed • Sewer is currently in N.Locust Road about 1,400 feet away from property. City Engineer has approved a waiver to allow septic service until the sewer line is extended. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Water is located in N Locust Grove Road.Water main must be extended into Paradise Ln to the east property line.Applicant requested a waiver to only have to connect service line rather than extending the water main.City Engineer denied this waiver. Page 2 1 1ski P,TmEl MIS ■IF �i � 'i t� ■gl■■■■,1■ IIIIII = 11 1 NI nl� I ' - ' . _..,.. -.-,.. �. � . IIi IIIHIIIII ZCCr 11 11■ _ �7r' . = = 1111 HIM - 12 III — IIII� ■ SON II �H 11■1 I 1 n �.� I�rLFK)iLLA IL -LI �:N� = 11 uull 11 mm ■ I■■■■ ■ IIIIII.�1= 11 1 NI nl I ■ I■■■■ ■■f _ rlllll �= 11 1 NI nl� i 1 IIIHIIIII - 2 11 11■ 1 Ill�liifi 20— -- ---- 11 n■ � MEN1111111 ■� _ gill gllll INII I I III or _ ■IIII IIII� INlli I 111 ■N - ■� �_ ■ ■ oil tt i — Item 5. F143] III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Benjamin Semple,Rodney Evans and Partners— 1014 S. La Pointe St., Ste 3,Boise ID 83706 B. Owner Denton Roberts—4461 N. Diamond Creek Ave,Meridian,ID, 83646 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification published in newspaper 3/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 3/24/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/2/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 3/24/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The property is comprised of two lots presently zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada County, of which the southern lot until recently had contained a 4,000 sq. ft.residence. The applicant demolished this single-family residence in anticipation of building a newer 6,000 sf ft+/-house with detached shop/ RV garage. The applicant contacted Ada County to merge the lots together and construct the larger house and was told because the property directly abutted City limits, it would need to be annexed. There is a 5-foot drainage,utility construction and maintenance easement platted between the subject lots(Lots 2&3,Block 1 of the Heritage Subdivision No 2). Following this annexation and prior to building permit,the easement will need to be vacated as part of the consolidation of lots. The nearest available sewer main is located in N. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1,400 feet north of the subject property. The applicant has received City Engineer and Public Works Director approval for a utilities waiver from UDC I I-3A-21 to not connect to City sewer at this time. Staff finds that making a singular property owner pay for extending a sewer main 1,400 feet for one residence is neither fair nor necessary. However,the development agreement will require connecting to City sewer if and when a sewer main is extended in the future. The applicant will need to apply to Central District Health(CDH)for a temporary septic system. The applicant will be required to extend a water main from the intersection of N. Locust Grove Rd and E. Paradise Ln along Paradise Lane to the eastern property line to serve adjacent properties in the future. The applicant has also requested a waiver from this requirement, stating it would be cost prohibitive and not necessary as adjacent properties to the east and south are remaining in Unincorporated Ada County and already have wells providing water. Instead,the applicant prefers to only be required to connect a service line from the main to the new home. The City Engineer denied this waiver request. Page 4 Item 5. F144] A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. As mentioned above, all development is to be connected to the City of Meridian water and sewer system,unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has approved the waiver for the new house to be served by individual septic system until a sewer line is extended south down N. Locust Grove Rd. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /e compplan) The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the property for Low Density Residential(LDR). This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. With one existing home proposed on 1.77 acres,the requested R-2 zone is consistent with the FLUM. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City" (2. 01. 01 G). The purpose of the proposed development is to annex and zone the property to R-2 to consolidate two lots into one and build a single-family residence. Ada County directed the applicant to annex because the property is directly adjacent to the City limits. The property is surrounded by single family detached homes on greater than one acre lots. This annexation will not change the existing character of the surrounding development and will add an additional single-family home for the City of Meridian. • Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G). Stafffinds that the existing conditions in this area create conditions that do not allow for this property owner to connect to City sewer services as required by code at the present. Public Works, Meridian Police Department and Meridian Fire have no objections to this one house residential project. No other services should be affected as the existing access is to remain. • 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. (3.03.0) The property can be provided fire and police service. Neither agency expressed any comments on this proposal.As mentioned above, the applicant was granted a waiver from the requirement to hook to sewer until the sewer main is extended. The applicant's request to not have to extend the water main all the way up E. Paradise Ln to the east property line was denied. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. E. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2A-2) Single family residences are a principally permitted use in the R-2 zone district. Page 5 Item 5. 145 F. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-13 allows only one single family residence per property.No future subdivision may occur until this property is connected to both water and sewer. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The R-2 zone requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 sq. ft., 80' of street frontage, street setbacks of 20 from a local street,25' from an arterial, side setbacks of 7.5 per story, and rear setbacks of 15'. The concept plan as submitted indicates the proposed home meets these requirements. H Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Existing access occurs from E. Paradise Ln, a rural local street with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Future access will continue from E. Paradise Ln.ACHD noted they had no comments on this proposal. I. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-6 requires at least 2 parking spaces per single family dwelling unit,with additional parking spaces required for residences with more than 2 bedrooms. Parking will be ascertained at time of building permit. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There is existing sidewalk on the east side of N. Locust Grove Rd. Otherwise,the Heritage Subdivision Filing One and Two reflects rural character and it does not appear any of the right of way within this subdivision contains sidewalks(E. Paradise Ln.,E Star Ln.,N. Spangle Dr., E. Freedom Ln). However,UDC 11-3A-17 does require sidewalks along both sides of the street, or only one side of the street when the average lot frontage is more than 150'. ACHD has not commented on this application regarding any additional improvements. The Planning Commission and City Council should determine whether requiring sidewalk along the property frontage should be required with the development agreement. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Per UDC 11-3B-2,a landscape plan shall be required for all development,redevelopment, additions, or site modifications except detached single-family and secondary dwellings. Therefore,a landscape plan is not required. L. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): No ditches or waterways traverse the property. This application was referred to both Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District and Parkins-Nourse Irrigation Association.Neither expressed concerns with this application. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): Any new fencing will be required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-7. N. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Water is located along N. Locust Road to the N. Locust Grove Rd/E Paradise Ln intersection. The applicant is required to extend the water main along Paradise Ln to the east property line to serve future properties. The applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement with the explanation that this would be cost-prohibitive, and not serve any other properties in the vicinity, as the remaining adjacent properties to the east and south are remaining in Ada County and already have wells. The applicant requests to connect only their property to the main via a service line. The City Engineer denied this waiver. Page 6 Item 5. F146] Sewer is currently in N. Locust Road about 1,400 feet north of the property. The applicant has requested a waiver from UDC 11-3A-21 to not connect to City sewer at this time. The City Engineer has approved this waiver request. Staff recommends the development agreement require connection to public sewer when a main is extended along N. Locust Grove Rd near the adjacent to the subject property. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Staff has not requested architectural elevations with this application. The applicant proposes one single family residence. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the comments noted in Section VIII. and per the Findings in Section IX. Page 7 Item 5. F147] VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 2/26/2021) M tl'6]GT G i1Lp0]' , •ln IM�l..LIIR.MY ------ ----------— _--_--___----___—__—_— —_--_—_—__—_ I I I I r,.xr w I I ,I. I Pu9a{rtEP i - I I F5A yL'l Yl Yl CI ,,CICICI i x ;ff ff ff ff ftTNM Wk}_ :{fy4f{ i ysfff ff ff ff{fi+lit ss s 1lilGIl 3'1'333'13'13'13'A 3'A 3'A 3'A 3' Sii'SS MEt I Y I 3� in'M I ioi ::'cktlt:icj6g6.: �aaaaR3��a4i:v4 ,�4:4: ; �a�aaaaaa i4 4.o u w LOT LIFE TO 9E ROAMED I �'fq9� .�5!!�rx. .. , } a YI I ' 's'�c:sc:cc:ce fc:c' •ie' � ,tea•-diiEOG I s.Oi;S"15-0j4 .q JO L'i�i i{t I � MAM I rtauruox.a I t'xizari �I w 4^. e ^ ^{ d a:dc:dai'ia '. t.i'h I a a I _______ _______ _ a�aa ayayaya#a'a%t,�K KY } 44eeuec.e�{l rAr44.4�a�a ram i I I 1 .�. rysitf l s I aw•on r�a ',k yty'l�"Y4.it :sit M�I]M G 3]LJ600' RARADI9E LN Page 8 Item 5. ■ B. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit(date: 2/3/2021) ANNEXATION ROBERTS PARCEL LEGAL DECRIPTIOIN Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Heritage Subdivision No. 2,situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range I East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as folfows: COMMENCING at the Corner of Sections 30, 29, 32, & 31 monumented by a found aluminum cap as described in CP&F Instrument No. 111099263 at the intersection of E, McMillan Road and N. locust Grove Road, from which the Quarter Corner common to 5ec:tions.32 and 31 monuirnented by a found aluminum cap as described in CP&F Instrument No. 102102462 at the intersection of E. Leighfield Drive and N. Locust Grove Road bears, South 00"33'0-S" Vest, 2,659.05 feet, thence South 00'33'08" Nest, 1,988.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGI NNING; Thence along the Northerly Bounda ry of Lot 2, South 89'31'13" East, 287.63 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot 4- Thence along the Westerly Boundary of Lot 4, South 00"32'52" West, 325.00 feet to the Center Line of E. Paradise Lane,- Thence along said Center Line, North 89'31'13" West, 287_65 feet to the to the Center Line of N. Locust Grov-e Road and the Westerly Boundary of Section 32; Thence North 00#33'08° East, 325.00 feet to the POINT OF Bi GINNII NCI_ Containing 2.146 acres, more or less. End of description Prepared By: F Ronald lul_ Hodge ` 7 4r OF Page 9 --r3l) 219- — — I —— --/ — — - E 'I . ANNEXATION MAP _�IWHI.pn Road 31 32 77 LEGEND AININLYATION LINE —S�C-T 70 N y -T-T—MERIDIAN CITY UMITS Got, ANNEXATION AREA 45 T-r-'5 Jr 1- FRID11"MY UMITS -TT-— — --LT F-17 T T I I I I E 1 1 14 L-Li -L 9 -1 T- r -F T-i-t-v@ I I I I I lu L -L L-J-L J 00-1 -Parodis* DIAN CITY LIMITS. - -32=L-clofiga-urly—e 00 oucPSIC)TI c"ll NQT�E-.7HIS A VISUAL REFERENCE ONLY. Page 10 Item 5. F_15o] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan for the single-family dwelling included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. When the sewer line is extended to the N. Locust Grove Rd/E. Paradise Lane intersection,the existing septic system shall be abandoned and the applicant shall connect the new residence to City sewer and pay any applicable sewer assessment fees at the time of connection. c. The existing well shall be abandoned,unless used to irrigate the property. The new residence shall connect to City water and pay any applicable water assessment fees with the building permit. d. The applicant shall extend an 8-inch water main from the intersection of Locust Grove and Paradise Lane along Paradise Lane to the eastern property line. f. Prior to building permit,the applicant shall vacate the 5-foot drainage,utility construction and maintenance easement platted between the subject lots(Lots 2&3,Block 1 of the Heritage Subdivision No 2) and merge Lots 1 &2,Block 1 through a parcel boundary adjustment. B. PUBLIC WORKS 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sewer is approximately 1,400 feet North on Locust Grove, it is a requirement of annexation to connect to both City sewer and water. Any deferral or waiver to this requirement must be provided in writing from the City Engineer. 2.1.2 Water must be extended into Paradise Lane to the East property line. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 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. 2.2.2 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. Page 11 Item 5. 551 2.2.3 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. 2.2.4 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. 2.2.5 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. 2.2.6 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. 2.2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.2.8 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. 2.2.9 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. 2.2.10 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. 2.2.11 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. Page 12 Item 5. F152 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 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. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.17 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. 2.2.18 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. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 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. 2.2.21 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. 2.2.22 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. 2.2.23 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. Page 13 Item 5. F153 C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224605&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianci(y.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223933&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridianciby.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224834&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- F. PARKINS NOURSE IRRIGATION ASSOCATION https://weblink.meridianciby.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224834&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- 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; If the applicant extends City utilities as recommended by the Public Works Department, Staff finds annexation of the subject site with an R-2 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan LDR FL UM designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the size of the proposed house and lot will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts will be compatible with the low-density rural character. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with City/Agency comments and recommended development agreement provisions in Section VIII Page 14 Item 6. Ll 54 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. Item 6. 155 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Bill Parsons Meeting Date: April 15, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. 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 15, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) For Against Neutral Want to Testify PRINTED FULL NAME g v YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 4/15/2021 4 DATE: ' 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 16 55 26 FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor --Ti 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: ZOA-2021-0001 — UDC Text Amendment Legend �. LOCATION: City wide AOCI County — 69 Line Future Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Meridian Planning Division has applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC)text amendment to update certain sections of the City's code as follows: • Standards in the Old Town District(O-T)in Chapter 2; • Ditches,Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; • Comprehensive Map Amendments in Chapter 5; and • Common Driveway Standards in Chapter 6. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite#102 Meridian, ID 83642 Page 1 Item 6. F157 III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 3/26/2021 Notification mailed to property owners within 300' NA Public Service Announcement 3/26/2021 Nextdoor posting 3/26/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) A. Comprehensive Plan Text(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): 3.01.01B -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate the community's needs and growth trends. Many of the requested code changes below reflect the desire of the Community and maintain the integrity of the plan. 3.04.01B—Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. This round of code changes is being expedited to implement the vison of the Comprehensive Plan. In general, the proposed changes support the redevelopment of downtown, minimize conflicts with other agencies, limit CP"s to twice a year and improve the design standards of common driveways. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(LLD In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5,the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code(UDC). The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections that pertain to the following: • Standards in the Old Town District(O-T) in Chapter 2; • Ditches,Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; • Comprehensive Map Amendments in Chapter 5; and • Common Driveway Standards in Chapter 6. The Planning Division is expediting these few changes at the request of the Mayor and City Council in order to support redevelopment in downtown; eliminate code conflicts with the applicable irrigation districts; limit the submittal dates of CPAM applications to twice a year to maintain the integrity of the plan and further improve on the design standards for common driveways. Staff has received comments from some members of the UDC Focus Group regarding the proposed changes (see public record). Exhibit V11 below includes a table of the requested changes/additions and supporting commentary explaining the purpose of the change to the UDC. Many of these changes have been vetted with City Council before the application submittal and the draft changes were shared with the UDC Focus Group and others to solicit feedback. As of the print date of the staff report,Planning staff has not presented the proposed changes to the BCA however,the changes will be shared with the BCA at their April 13'meeting. Page 2 Item 6. Fl-581 In summary, Staff believes the changes proposed with this application supports the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV and V, modifications in Section VII and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VIII. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 3 Item 6. F159] VII. EXHIBITS A. Table of Proposed Text Changes Proposed UDC Text Amendments UMSection Topic Reason Im Charge Proposed Charge 11-2D-4 Increase OT height Allow for taller buildings in city core area oFee Old The standards for development in the Old Town District are set Forth in this section as follows: maximum Town District A. Building Height:Maximum building height is seventy-five feet(75').Minimum building height For new construction in the city care as defined in Chapter 1,is thiriy-five Feet(353 with a maximum height not to exceed one hundred feet(100�. B. Number of stories.Minimum number of stories For new construction is two[2)and/or asset Forth in the"City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual 11-3A-6 Ditches,laterals,canals Recently came to the City's attention that fencing may A.Purpose.The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural and man-made or drainage courses not always be desired along open waterways by the waterways,including but not limited be ditches,canals,laterals,sloughs and drains where public safety' irrigation district,specifically as it relates to not a concern as well as improve,protect and incorporate creek corridors(Five Mile,Eight Mile,Nine maintenance of their facility.Staff is amending this section of code to ensure the UDC does not conflict with Mile,Ten Mile,South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains)as an amenity in all residential,commercial irrigation district standards as requested by the City and industrial designs.When piping and fencing is proposed,the Following standards shall apply_ Council. B.Piping. Surrounding property owners don't need to be noticed as the easement on the building lot(s)doesn't affect 1.Natural waterways intersecting,crossing,or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a them—a Council waiver is sufficient This would allow natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered.See also subsection(C)[1)oFthis section. the applicant to request a waiver during the final plat process and not require a public hearing. 2 Irrigation ditches,laterals,canals,sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space,as defined in section 11-IA-1 of this title.See also subsection[C)(2)of this section. 3.Except as allowed above,all other irrigation ditches,laterals,sloughs or canals,intersecting,crossing or lying within the area being developed.shall be piped,or otherwise covered.This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a.The decision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch,lateral.canal,slough or drain,if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. C-Fencing. 1.Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway.In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety,larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director. 2_Ditches,laterals,canals,sloughs and drains do not require Fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Director that said ditch,lateral,canal,sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development,to he a water amenity or linear open space.If designed as a water amenity.c6onstruction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the Starve of Idaho shall be submitted to both the Director and the authorized representative of the water facility For approval. 3.Except as allowed above,all other open irrigation ditches,laterals.canals,sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision Fence at least six(6)feet in height and having an 11-gauge,two(2)inch mesh or other construction,equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch,lateral,canal,slough or drain, which Fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch,lateral,canal,slough or drain. D.Improvements.Improvements related to piping,fencing or any encroachment as outlined in subsections(A),(B),and(C)of this section requires written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity. E.Easements.In Residential Districts.irrigation easements wider than ten feet(1"shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet(20')wide and outside of a fenced area,unless med4ied otirerwise waived by City Council Page 4 Item 6. F160] 11- D-7C_3 CPAM amendments With adoption ora new Comprehensive Plan,limit the The City Council shall not consider amendments to the land use map ofthe adopted comprehensive Plm frequency to which it can be amended.Make it clear that more than twice per calendar year.The application deadlines for amendments to the land use map Map amendments will be processed no more than every component of the comprehensive plan shall be June 15 and December 15 of every year. 6 months—cut-0ffs. 11-6C-3D Common driveways Commission.Council and PW is having concerns with the D. Common Driveways: number of units taking access from a common driveway. This impacts the extension of services,parking and trash 1. Maximum Dwelling Units Served:Common driveways shall serve a maximum of six(6)dwelling service.Staff is not proposing to reduce the number dwellings served,but to expand on the requirements units. when a greater number of units take access from a common driveway.This will allow the City Engineer to 2. Width standards:Common driveways shall be a minimum of twenty(20)feet in width_unless a require a wider common driveway,if an applicant is greater width is required by the City Engineer.All common driveways shall be on a common lot required to extend City mains underneath the driveway, consistent with other easement requirements of the City. 3. Maximum length.Common driveways shall be a maximum of one hundred fifty(150)feet in length or less,unless otherwise approved by the Meridian City Fire Department. 4. Improvement standards.Common driveways shall be paved with a surface with the capability of supporting fire vehicles and equipment S. Abutting properties.All properties that abut a common driveway shall take access from the driveway:however,if an abutting property has the required minimum street frontage.that property is not required to take access from the common driveway.in this situation,the abutting property's driveway shall be on the opposite side of the shared property line;away from the common driveway.Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs.]awn or other ve"tative groundcover. 6. Turning radius.Common driveways shall be straight or provide a twenty-eight-foot inside and fortymeight-foot outside turning radius. 7. Depictions_For any plats using a common driveway,the setbacks,fendng,building envelope, landscaping and orientation of the lots and structures shall be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. VIII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-513-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code,the Council shall make the following findings: A.The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved as submitted. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments,public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s)when making this finding. Page 5 Item 6. 161 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Reason for Change Proposed Change 11-2D-4 Increase OT height Allow for taller buildings in city core area of the Old The standards for development in the Old Town District are set forth in this section as follows: maximum Town District A. Building Height: Maximum building height is seventy-five feet (75'). Minimum building height for new construction in the city core as defined in Chapter 1, is thirty-five feet (351 with a maximum height not to exceed one hundred feet (100'). B. Number of stories. Minimum number of stories for new construction is two (2) and/or as set forth in the "City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual". DATE: 03/23/2021 Item 6. F162] 11-3A-6 Ditches, laterals, canals Recently came to the City's attention that fencing may A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural and man-made or drainage courses not always be desired along open waterways by the waterways, including but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is irrigation district, specifically as it relates to not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine section of codee to ensure the UDC does not conflict with maintenance their facility. Staff is amending this Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial irrigation district standards as requested by the City and industrial designs.When piping and fencing is proposed, the following standards shall apply. Council. B. Piping. Surrounding property owners don't need to be noticed as the easement on the building lot(s) doesn't affect 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a them - a Council waiver is sufficient. This would allow natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection (C)(1) of this section. the applicant to request a waiver during the final plat 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity process and not require a public hearing. or linear open space, as defined in section 11-1A-1 of this title. See also subsection (C)(2) of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The decision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. C. Fencing. 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council, Director and/or Public Works Director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity or linear open space. If designed as a water amenity, construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho shall be submitted to both the Director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six (6) feet in height and having an 11-gauge,two (2) inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain. D. Improvements. Improvements related to piping, fencing or any encroachment as outlined in subsections(A), (B), and (C) of this section requires written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity. E. Easements. In Residential Districts, irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area, unless mid otherwise waived by City Council at^ publie hearing with HA_*J_r^*^ S rding property DATE: 03/23/2021 Item 6. F163] 11-513-7C.3 CPAM amendments With adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, limit the The City Council shall not consider amendments to the land use map of the adopted comprehensive plan frequency to which it can be amended. Make it clear that more than twice per calendar year. The application deadlines for amendments to the land use map Map amendments will be processed no more than every component of the comprehensive plan shall be June 15 and December 15 of every year. 6 months - cut-offs. 11-6C-3D Common driveways Commission, Council and PW is having concerns with the D. Common Driveways: number of units taking access from a common driveway. This impacts the extension of services, parking and trash 1. Maximum Dwelling Units Served: Common driveways shall serve a maximum of six (6) dwelling service. Staff is not proposing to reduce the number dwellings served, but to expand on the requirements units. when a greater number of units take access from a common driveway. This will allow the City Engineer to 2. Width standards: Common driveways shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width:, unless a require a wider common driveway, if an applicant is greater width is required by the City Engineer.All common driveways shall be on a common lot. required to extend City mains underneath the driveway, consistent with other easement requirements of the City. 3. Maximum length. Common driveways shall be a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Meridian City Fire Department. 4. Improvement standards. Common driveways shall be paved with a surface with the capability of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. S. Abutting properties.All properties that abut a common driveway shall take access from the driveway; however, if an abutting property has the required minimum street frontage, that property is not required to take access from the common driveway. In this situation,the abutting property's driveway shall be on the opposite side of the shared property line; away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited, unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. 6. Turning radius. Common driveways shall be straight or provide a twenty-eight-foot inside and forty-eight-foot outside turning radius. 7. Depictions. For any plats using a common driveway, the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, landscaping and orientation of the lots and structures shall be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. DATE: 03/23/2021