Loading...
2021-05-06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 06, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Nathan Wheeler ABSENT Commissioner Lisa Holland ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted COMMUNITY ITEMS 1. Recognition and Remembrance of Commissioner Holland CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved 2. Approve Minutes of the April 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Jaker's Drive-Through Addition (H-2021- 0012) by BRS Architects, Located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 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. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for The Oasis (H-2021-0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. - Approved 6. Public Hearing for Mountain America Credit Union Drive-Through (H-2021-0019) by Mountain America Credit Union, Located on the West Side of N. Ten Mile Road, Approximately 750 Feet South of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district for a financial institution on 1.16 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. - Approved 7. Public Hearing for The Vault (H-2021-0017) by Joshua Evarts, Located at 140 E. Idaho Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drinking establishment. - Approved 8. Public Hearing for Jump Creek North Four-Plex (H-2021-0018) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Gondola Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow 7 fourplex buildings of 28 units total on 2.2 acres in the R-15 zoning district. - Approved 9. Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for June 1, 2021 ADJOURNMENT - 11:16 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 6, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 6, 2021 , was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nathan Wheeler. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Lisa Holland X Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove X Nathan Wheeler X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Okay. Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for May 6, 2021. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall on Zoom and in our hearts. We also have staff from the city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as the city planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. And let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Seal: I move we adopt the agenda. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 5 Page 2 of 95 COMMUNITY ITEMS 1. Recognition and Remembrance of Commissioner Holland McCarvel: It is with heavy hearts that we begin this meeting, as we do so with the incredible loss of our fellow Commissioner Lisa Holland. We welcomed her on this Commission three years ago and as most who knew her, even for a short time, I felt immediate friendship and warmth and looked forward to her smile with every encounter. I always felt she was wise beyond her years with great knowledge and passion for this community. At 34 she had already made a great impact in her work at the Boise Valley Economic Partnership, Kuna economic development and we were lucky to have her perspective as a volunteer in advising Meridian's current Comprehensive Plan and on this Commission. She had a great gift to communicate and make common sense out of complex issues and although we as a community suffer the loss of her vision and passion, it is no measure to the loss her family has experienced by the passing of Lisa, her infant son Milo, and her sister Laurie in a tragic accident. I pray for peace for her family and I know she will forever be remembered in my heart. We are just going to take a few minutes if anybody else has any comments they would like to share before we move on. Pogue: Madam Chair, this is Andrea Pogue. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead. Pogue: So, thank you for your words, because they are exactly what I'm feeling as well and all my love and condolences go out to Lisa's husband and family. She was really taken -- they were taken too soon and they will be sorely missed by so many and I really will miss Lisa profoundly. McCarvel: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: As I have been thinking about this over the last couple of days -- and I miss the fact that I haven't been here for a year, we have been on Zoom. Lisa and I sat next to each other over here and -- to begin with and we didn't necessarily always agree on -- on every -- every item that came before us. I think -- and we would often see things from a different perspective, but I greatly valued her opinions, her perspective, and it was -- it was -- it was so respectful and -- and I think there was just a -- there was a great appreciation of one another and she was truly wonderful to work beside and -- and I will definitely miss her and, likewise, my -- my thoughts and prayers go out to her family and -- and I'm just going to say there was a part of an article that I read on her, it was a friend of hers that was interviewed, and -- and said she loved to -- she lived music, she loved to dance and she loved Jesus and I was -- I was comforted by that, but I know I will miss Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 6 Page 3 of 95 her, I know we will miss her and her presence here was -- was amazing and I just appreciated the time I got to work with her. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I just want to say how -- how thankful I was to have Lisa guide me through the first year of being on P&Z and -- I never knew what to do and I knew I could always -- always turn to Lisa and have her bail me out with a motion or tell me, you know, what -- what had happened before or why something needed to happen and I'm going to really miss her knowledge and her warmth and just -- it's a hard one. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I think you said it best when you said she was wise beyond her years. She was a -- a great mentor in Planning and Zoning for sure and just a great person overall. So, my dealings with her outside of Planning and Zoning she was always open and active and willing to jump in and help out at any major -- any way necessary. So, she will be greatly missed and I will miss our disagreeing, as much as our agreements, because she always helped me to think about things differently. That in turn has just made me a better person overall. She will be missed. McCarvel: If there is no other comments, we will have one more moment of silence before we move on. Tonight I wish this was under better circumstances, but I would like to welcome Commissioner Nathan Wheeler to my left, who fills Seat No. 4, which was formerly held by Commissioner Pitzer and temporarily filled in by Commissioner Steven Yearsley until Nathan was able to join us. So, welcome, Nathan. Wheeler: Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 2. Approve Minutes of the April 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Jaker's Drive-Through Addition (H-2021-0012) by BRS Architects, Located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 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. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 7 Page 4 of 95 McCarvel: The next item on the Consent Agenda -- on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda. We have the approval of minutes for the April 15th, 2021, P&Z meeting, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for H- 2021-0012, Jaker's Drive-Through Addition and MCU-2021-0002, Pine 43 Apartments. Can I get a motion to accept the agenda -- Consent Agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] McCarvel: 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. 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 and present their case and respond to the 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 only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who 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 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 a topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are listening on the 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 don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have any questions for you, you will be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing for the -- and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make a final decision or recommendation to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 $ Page 5 of 95 5. Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for The Oasis (H-2021- 0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. McCarvel: So, at this time we will continue the public hearing for CUP Item H-2021-0004, The Oasis, and as this is a continuance we have two Commissioners that were not here on the original presentation, I just wanted to verify that Commissioner Wheeler and Commissioner Seal, do you feel you are up to speed and ready to step in on the continuance or -- without going back and redoing the original presentation? Seal: I feel that I'm up to speed. It's -- there was a lot of information and I read through all of it. McCarvel: Okay. Great. Wheeler: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. So, do we have any additional staff report on this or -- Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Thank you. I don't have necessarily any additional comments. I did want to just note that these are the reasons for the continuance, so that everybody understands and is clear what was -- the guidance of-- at the time of Commissioner Holland's motion. I'm willing to answer any questions or I guess just generally speaking -- I will let the applicant speak more directly to all of these, but I will give a brief overview of what I know about what has transpired of these three items. First it is staff's understanding that the applicant reached out to the police department and that they generally do not participate in projects on this level or on the requested level until after they are approved. However, the applicant did create a safety plan and a protocol, which the Meridian Police Department has received from my understanding. That is part of the public record, so I hope that everybody was able to review that. Secondly, the applicant did provide a rideshare promotion plan. The circular -- circulation plan that I have seen is the same one that was in the application submittals and showed the circulation plan for the interior of the Wadsworth site. So, again, this is one of the lots within the Wadsworth site. Lastly on the last point regarding the shared parking agreement, no agreement was obtained and, therefore, that has not been submitted to us for review. Therefore, at this point I don't know what new information, other than the safety plan has been presented. So, I am -- understand that the public has been adamant about this use, but as noted previously that the public testimony should only be regarding new information and after that I will stand for any questions or let the applicant speak his peace. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission 191 Item 1. May 6,2021 Page 6 of 95 McCarvel: The applicant is before us and state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Tsai: My name is Brian Tsai at 3085 Ustick Road in Meridian, Idaho. 83646. 1 did submit about five images for the presentation -- I don't know if somebody has a copy of those. Dodson: I can pull those up. Give me just a second. Are you all still seeing my screen? Oh, that's right. I got to stop it and, then, reshare it and -- fun technology. Is that better? Tsai: Yes. Dodson: Okay. Brian, you should be able to just click the arrows to go through the pages. Weatherly: No, that probably won't work, since the presentation is being shared on your screen at -- on your end. Dodson: Oh, you're right. Well, Brian, let me know whenever you want to change it and I will move on. Tsai: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah, go ahead. Tsai: Okay. I would just like to start out by acknowledging the passing of Commissioner Holland. It wasn't until earlier this week that I had heard the news and the names of those involved with the collision were released. Being the first hearing and the first item on the docket back since that tragic event this is, of course, the first one without her and I would like to express my condolences to her family members that are closest to her that have felt the loss. I can only imagine how the members of this Commission feel as well as you have gotten to know her over the few years and, hopefully, not just as a colleague, but as a friend as well. Having said that, there is certainly no easy way to segue into the matter at hand. When I last brought this project before the Commission I was presented with three action items that the Commission Members felt would make the proposal more cohesive towards an approval as the creation of the rideshare promotion program, addressing the parking issues, and the creation of an additional parking capacity and the creation of a safety plan in conjunction with the Meridian Police Department. In this first slide here that you are viewing is a diagram from the latest site plan showing the right-in, right-out configuration of the parking lot and additional areas of bi-directional parking flow. In the event that there is a sudden increase of parking, either ingress or egress, we have implemented procedures to address this within our safety plan, which I will get to later. Otherwise, I would hope that most people who know how to navigate a regular parking lot, as many people do it without an issue almost every single day. In the second slide, if you can go to that one. We have a rideshare flow plan that is also addressed in our safety plan. I have worked with the developers of this site to create this designated ride sharing area where vehicles can easily get in and out of this parking area without affecting the traffic flow for the rest of the site. In addition to that, we have the plan to promote the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 Flo] Page 7 of 95 increased use of the ride sharing services, because the spots are only as good as people who actually use them and this page, which I submitted to the record as well, outlines in detailed capacity thresholds at which the certain plan policies will be implemented as part of the safety plan. It also provides discounts on products or tickets, prices used in conjunction with the ride sharing service and providing security staff as needed to direct the rideshare vehicles into the designated rideshare area parking areas, as well as addressing the concerns of potential congestion within the lot itself, as well as during the ingress and egress process. And that's shown within the slide here. It will be designated I believe on that west side of that building where the pickoff -- or the pickup and drop off area is designated. As far as self enforcing our capacity, as mentioned previously, I'm sure that some people nearby will be monitoring our ingress as well to check for an overcapacity situation, but that is not their job, nor should it be required. That's something that's the responsibility of the business to enforce diligently and as a responsibility to the safety of the patrons. Our entrance scanner is a state of the art system that has never been implemented in any venue in the northwest to my knowledge. I think part of the concern is that after seeing the locations in Boise over the past couple of decades, people have been stuck with the idea that a club or venue of any kind looks to be poorly rated or dirty as some that might be found in other places in town. What they don't see are the upscale locations, like those found in other major cities around the country. Some that can charge thousands of dollars for a single table and still have a wait list. Of course we are not planning to the charge rates like that, but it serves as an example of a distinction to which Idaho has never seen. If we can go to slide four, please. Just skip one and go to the next one. We are not able to produce a documented count from Uber or Lyft, because they have never disclosed their use counts or destinations for the use history of either company. However, many studies have been conducted within documented use from occupants and drivers showing on average an analysis of multiple studies, approximately 40 percent who attend --of people who attend the maximum capacity event will use some type of ride sharing services. Because these same numbers have been documented nationwide, we have no reason to expect our numbers to be any different. That means our previously proposed four-to-one parking ratio would, in reality, become closer to two-to-one with so many patrons using ride sharing or carpooling. Keep in mind that there are many venues around the valley with much higher persons capacities that seemed to operate just fine with absolute zero parking spaces dedicated to their use. And during the last hearing a managing partner of the landowners for Villa Sport called in and offered to work with us on a cross-parking agreement. However, that Friday immediately following the hearing it turns out that was not the case. It was, however, not in their discretion. It was actually within the Villa Sport tenants determination that cross- parking would not be allowed. Despite our best efforts in collaboration with the Land Baron group, the owners of the Villa Sport property itself, we were unable to get the Villa Sport tenants to even consider a cross-parking agreement. In response I entered into discussions with our developers at the Wadsworth Group to add temporary parking at the unimproved sites to the north of our facility. In talking with the city's planning staff I understand we would have to apply for a temporary use permit in order to use unimproved parking, that that would not be counted towards a potential count for permanent parks. A representative of the Wadsworth Group agreed to this use until such time as future pads would be under contract for future developments. In order to meet the requested three- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 Fil Page 8 of 95 to-one parking ratio it would require an additional 41 parking spaces. Once the development is finished they expect to add approximately 70 additional spaces to the site. As a matter of course and compliance I voluntarily proposed an additional reduction of capacity to 400, only fractionally above the required number to meet the three-to-one parking requested threshold, using only the currently proposed paved and fully improved parking spaces. Whereas in reality the conjunction of ride sharing and temporary parking we would have a parking capacity far in excess of the requested ratio. I can imagine that this would be the Commission's preferred method as well, as a reduction in capacity would also serve to reduce the potential for any overcrowding and excess traffic. If we can jump back one slide to number three, please. Because the City of Meridian does not have a statute or code requiring specific requirements for parking of this use -- I often learned in my law enforcement career that anything that wasn't illegal was, therefore, legal. Using the most strict parking regulation as required by the City of Meridian only 38 parking spaces are required. In my last presentation I promised 125 parks to meet the four-to-one ratio requested by the planning staff in the original application. Because the city doesn't have an ordinance with parking requirements for venues or event centers specifically, I looked around at ten other cities around the country, many of which are nearby or have similar populations and have found those who have codes that have parking requirement for venues specifically. You can see in this chart that even at the four-to-one ratio that I have used in these calculations we have anywhere from 31 to 521 percent in excess of what is required across the country. That's more than five times the number of required spaces, depending on the comparison. Ever since the very beginning of this process parking has been the foremost concern. I spent a few weeks trying to find a similar location in the valley that I could use as a real world comparison. I found one that was easily recognizable and because I do some volunteer work nearby I'm often in the area -- if we can go to slide five, please. It's the Boise School District's administration building. It's very similar to our layout, as it's bordered by a major road, has primarily right-in, right-out only parking with no left turn egress and roughly the same amount of parking spaces. For the purposes of our proposal we are talking about a relatively small scale space and many of our patrons won't be leaving all at once after a show. So, I sat at this building a few times with a stopwatch and since most of the workers are salary workers they leave at 5:00 p.m. on the dot every weekday and enter into peak rush hour traffic. The lot is completely empty within on average five minutes, with no -- absolutely no additional congestion on Victory Road, which in comparison is only two lanes at that location. So, if the concern is traffic congestion, tens of thousands of vehicles travel through the Eagle-Ustick intersection every single day. Adding one hundred vehicles all at once would not add a discernible difference, especially at off peak hours, as it could be completely cleared for the facility and the parking lot in one normal traffic signal cycle. And I submitted our safety plan for review with the command staff of the Meridian Police Department. Having myself worked in many major stadiums and NFL games, I can say with absolute certainty that our safety plan is one of the best. I challenge anyone to find anything remotely similar in detail or scope anywhere else in Idaho. It was reviewed by multiple members of the Meridian Police, including a lieutenant that specifically deals in safety operations. They stated -- and I quote -- it was really well thought out and detailed. The only recommendation that they could find to make was an addition to add reflective vest to our outside personnel for identification and I agreed, having experience done such Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F12 Page 9 of 95 thing and immediately ordered reflective vests and added them to our inventory. The safety plan promotes and enforces policies and procedures to maintain a safe atmosphere that is free from illegal activity to the best of our ability. Now, the recent incident that occurred at Wahooz is unfortunate, but it demonstrates that violence occurs anywhere and as the Meridian police acknowledged in a public statement, these are incidents that come with growth to become a large city. It's not related to any one location or business. The safety plan was created in conjunction with many other venue owners in other states across the country, to include addressing exactly when and how procedures will be implemented, responding to illnesses and injuries, security screening, disorderly conduct, fake IDs, potential drug use and fights. The plan includes portions for physical security, implemental -- implementation of adequate architectural lighting for video illumination, patrols of the sidewalk and outside areas, posting and distribution of security personnel, procedures for identification, employee safety coordination, screening of promoters for any past histories, fire safety, criminal incidents and even an extensive active shooter and terrorism protocol. It also includes a 12 -- a two page 12 action item document that facilitates our good neighbor policy, which will be distributed to our neighbors and posted prominently at the door to include urging patrons that are leaving to respect the quiet and cleanliness of the neighborhood. It includes items such as providing adequate lighting at all times, maintaining proper ventilation so doors can remain closed to mitigate any exterior sound, creating patrols to clean any possible litter that's found in the parking and surrounding areas and providing a cell phone number to our immediate neighbors to be answered all operating hours to address concerns of parking or noise. The good neighbor policy would additionally be furnished to Villa Sport despite their unwillingness to even start a discussion regarding cross-parking. As you can see I'm not here to do something half assed. If it's meant to be done, it's meant to be done right and with the safety of our patrons and surrounding community held as a paramount standard. Commissioner Seal, I'm glad you were able to join us. You weren't here on the previous one. I had noted in a previous speech that you believed in the 80- 20 rule, as they call it the Pareto Principle and you are often involved in completing the remaining 20 percent. As you see here we are about 80 percent of the way there and, Commissioner Seal, you are a music supporter and fan yourself. You have attended events at the Egyptian and the Olympic venue and apparently grown quite an impressive beard over the -- over the previous hearings I have watched. So, you can see in the staff reports -- noted that our proposed facility is of a relatively small scale. I just wish I could pick up and go to an alternate location, but in case you haven't tried to lease any commercial space lately, there is already a waiting list just to get space into The Village and we were told by several dozen people before we picked this space this corner was perfectly suited for entertainment, right on the main drag of Eagle Road and situated just north of an existing entertainment hub. What I soon discovered is that the majority -- in fact, almost every single major developer, except for the Wadsworth Group, wouldn't even look at my proposal. They told me in the current state of development for Meridian they would lease exclusively to corporations with a national presence or to chain stores and would not even consider leasing to anyone else. So, you can see it's been a battle just for me to get to this step. But now that I have signed the lease with Wadsworth, I'm bound to this property, including half my liquidity, without even having started our improvements. So, how do we show that this is something that's a long time coming. In the last Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F13 Page 10 of 95 presentation I had mentioned e-mail chains from the Meridian City Council Members, then and present, and their advisory boards that have been asking local promoters for over a decade how a venue could be brought to Meridian. Now to date we have over a thousand followers across our social media pages, despite posting no additional advertisements or photos. And we are not trying to squeeze a stadium where it doesn't belong. I wouldn't say it's trying to fit any type of square peg into a round hole, because the zoning has not changed. The zoning has been the same as far as I can tell over a decade, congruent with the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and the reason that the C-G zoning district is being used as intended is the largest scale of any commercial use. As I mentioned in my previous presentation, all I'm asking for is a chance to start a new business that has been much needed in Meridian for over a decade, at a time when hundreds of thousands of bars and restaurants have already been closed for good due to COVID. I have never failed at anything I have aimed to accomplish in my life, but with so much writing on my project, including my home and personal assets, it's an uneasy feeling to have my entire livelihood in somebody else's hands. I have checked all the boxes extensively and diligently, fulfilled all the requests by the city staff, public sector professionals, law enforcement and of this commission and I can only respectfully ask for your approval tonight. McCarvel: Thank you. Let's see. Do we have any other questions for staff or the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: You had mentioned the Olympic and that was one of the things that was kind of on my mind. How -- how does this facility compare to something like the Olympic? Tsai: I have only kind of breezed through there, so I couldn't tell you specific details, but anyone that's familiar with going to a downtown venue is familiar that there is zero parking anywhere. So, anywhere -- if you want to say just go on a night out or -- or some something that's related to downtown, you know, typically the deal is you allotted 30 minutes or an hour in advance just to park, you know, seven, eight blocks away, it's over on Third Street or somewhere that's closed and, then, you have to walk the remaining seven, eight blocks to get there. Size wise the Olympic is more designed for specifically I guess intimacy, so to speak. The crowds are closer to the stage. They have a lower wattage of a sound system . Similar to us. It's designed for clarity, as opposed to overall sound pressure. So, it's not designed to be as loud as it can possibly be, but -- so, that if you are in the Olympic and enjoying the show, you can see that, but not be -- trying to shout over everybody else. I hope that answers your question, because I'm not overly familiar with the way the Olympic operates. Seal: Well, just in terms of -- I mean overall parking and size and scale. That's more what I'm after. Because to me it seems like this, in my mind anyway, has a lot of similarities to the size and scale of what you are trying to deploy and to me I'm kind of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F14 Page 11 of 95 interested, because we have that venue here, albeit, you know, not as close as I would like it to be for sure, but to me it has a lot of similarities. So, we could, you know, learn something from that. Tsai: I would certainly look into the reason. I can't give you a very concise answer is just because I'm not really familiar with their size and their operational scope. What I can say is that based on the capacity, you know, Boise valley as a whole gets bypassed very often because of the lack of venues of that type, either because of booking conflicts or any type of capacity issues. They might say, oh, well, we wanted to play on this weekend, but you have one venue of that size and they are fully booked, so they could just -- you know, they will drive from Salt Lake City through Boise all the way to the Portland. That's how the -- the usual scheme goes. So, comparison wise it would fill that niche of the tiered capacity that's typically constrained amongst those venues, especially if there is a need for in the city and that -- and by that I mean, you know, if there is a venue that fills a 50 capacity and, then, one that fills the next tier up at a hundred capacity and the next one skips to 500 and, then, a thousand. Well, if you -- if you are the type of musician that can fill those types venues, the next step up is to, you know, go to revolution and the next step up you are going to fill from there is to go from 2,000 up to 20,000. There is not really anything that, you know, fills those needs in between. Seal: Thank you. Tsai: Hopefully that answers your question. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Brian, I just wanted to -- you went through a lot -- first of all, I don't know that I have ever seen any applicant do the background and the homework that you have done on this. I think I mentioned that -- or at least several others mentioned that the first time around. But I didn't -- I wanted to make sure I heard you correctly on a couple of things. Number one is that you have agreed to drop to a 400 capacity? Is that -- did I hear that right? Okay. And you were at 600? Tsai: I believe the fire code had it at six or seven hundred and we dropped it to 500 to meet the parking requirement threshold of four to one. Now with the extra spaces we will have in position that are permanent I'm willing to drop it to 400 and meet closer to that three to one that the Commission requested. Cassinelli: Okay. And then -- and -- and to confirm, it sounds like it was that, but -- but you said the -- the cross-parking agreement that we had asked for you to seek last time, that did not happen; is that correct? Tsai: Correct. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F151 Page 12 of 95 Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: Just one quick clarification on that. With the cross-access agreement for parking, were you actually told no or did you just not going to reply back yet? Tsai: We were actually told no. But that was -- that's been in place for probably over two years now. Since Villa Sport just originally started their proposals they had just -- before, you know, this was even just a plan, they had told other developers flat out that they would not entertain any cross-parking. Wheeler: Okay. Thank you. Tsai: Back in 2018, so -- Wheeler: Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Joe. Dodson: This is Joe. Sorry. Just to -- for Commissioner Wheeler, just a quick background on that. Yeah. The -- there is an existing cross-access agreement between all of these sites for the Villa Sport. The Sadie Creek, which is directly south on this site, and, then, onto the Wadsworth site. But specifically in that I think it was recorded in June of 2020, so almost a year ago, it specifically states that there is no cross-parking. I believe it was one of the Villa Sport owners or developers that was on the call last time and they had noted interest in working with the applicant, but, then, following the hearing it turned out that they -- they couldn't come to an agreement. I don't know what happened on the back end, but I -- it was pretty quick. I would agree with the applicant it was pretty quick that they rescinded that offer to get the cross-parking involved -- or a part of that. So, just wanted to make that clear, that there is an existing agreement, it just prohibits parking -- cross-parking. Tsai: Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F16 Page 13 of 95 McCarvel: Oh, Commissioner Grove. Grove: Just so that we are all on the same page again, because this one is a little thorny, Joe, could you give us just kind of -- the parameters that we are hearing tonight before we go into public testimony in terms of what it is that we are ruling on and -- and also kind of how we are basing our -- what we are basing our decisions on in terms of what is applicable and not? Dodson: Commissioner Grove, that's a great question. So, there is kind of two parts to that, at least for why the product should be approved or denied. Some of them being these reasons I was previously continued, but, then, more specifically these are the required findings in code. These eight findings for conditional use permits. So, you don't have to have all eight, you don't have to not have all eight. So, those are the things that need to be addressed. So, any -- any of these are reasons to be recommended -- or, sorry, this is a CUP, so any of these reasons to be denied or approved, depending on the application. The parameters of this -- the proposal tonight -- again, it is a CUP for a drinking establishment and a music venue slash nightclub. Multiple uses are kind of wrapped into that drinking establishment for the CUP. So, their--originally in the narrative he had mentioned a thousand capacity. I don't -- I don't want to quote him as saying that that is what he was proposing, I just think he was saying that based on the size it could work. But regardless of that, I had recommended in my staff report to limit that to no more than 500 because of the parking and, then, following that the applicant has now stated that he's willing to reduce that even further to 400. So, I hope that answers your -- your question, Commissioner Grove. Grove: Yes. Thank you. Dodson: Absolutely. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. There being none, we will take public testimony and remind everybody that that needs to be limited just to the discussions that were presented in this evening's presentations, so with that are there -- is there anybody who would like to speak on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have several people signed in. First in house is Jerry Soulsby. McCarvel: Okay. Soulsby: My name is Jerry Soulsby. Address here 104 East Fairview in Meridian. I was here the last hearing and two points, mostly following tonight's information. So, regarding the -- the traffic flow, by my experience with the people that attend these facilities -- and I'm part of a community -- a group of people that do a lot of country swing dancing and so for the most part a hundred percent of those that I know mostly cooperative people, zero aggression in those groups meeting. The majority of the people and the families that I'm involved with they are people with children ages, you know, three to 15 years old. They Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F17 Page 14 of 95 are people that are working, they get off work, they go home, they fix dinner, they arrange for childcare and they all go to classes, you know, Wednesday or Thursday nights, Friday or Saturday nights they go down and they -- they practice what they have learned. They are a great community of people. The majority of them are going to be attending a facility like this probably starting around 8:00 o'clock at night, some of them might get there as early as 7:00. The majority of the traffic that will be entering this lot will be after hours, after a majority of the traffic off of Eagle Road in the first place and, then, those that are departing will be leaving after-- nearly all of the traffic is gone on Eagle Road. So, it's not going to be during peak hours or peak traffic times as far as the flow and as Madam Chairman mentioned last time, no matter what you do at this corner it's going to be a business that draws some traffic. A lot of those businesses are going to be during the high traffic count time period. So, this would be the ideal business to have there where the traffic is concentrated after hours. Just wanted to make that point. So, I guess, you know, I'm just going to leave it at that. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next online we have Jeffrey Vrba. Jeff, one moment, please. Vrba: Hello, Madam Chair. Are you able to hear me? McCarvel: We can hear you. Please state your name and address for the record. Vrba: Madam Chair and Honorable Councilmen, this is Jeff Vrba. Address is 3005 North Leblanc Way in Meridian, Idaho. 83646. A couple things that I'm really concerned with is on the November 19th Planning and Zoning meeting that you guys had there was proposed five buildings to go in that lot. Right now they have the one going in, which is the medical center that's going in there and possibly this building here going in. At that time they said there is 125 parking spaces in there -- in that corner lot there. If he's going to be taking up a hundred of those for his business that's leaving 25 spaces for the remainder of the four buildings that may be going in there. Granted I know that the buildings probably aren't going to be opened up much past 11 :00 o'clock at night, but don't know what type of buildings are going in there. So, if you are giving each one of those buildings only two to three spots, what are we going to do? The other thing I'm concerned with is last meeting he mentioned that he has up to 30 staff that will be there -- or possibly being there. So, it's up to 30 cars out of his 170 that we were going to ask him to have a spot for. If he's got bands coming in -- if they are a local band he may have anyplace from two to five cars there, depending on the size of the band and spouses or people that are helping with the stage and that -- if he's got people coming in from -- driving down, like he said to Portland, we have buses that are coming in or campers. Where are these planning on being parked at? The other thing was last meeting, too, he mentioned that on the side where he said the ride share is set up, that now that was going to be the smoking area for the smokers to be able to go out and have their cigarette just before they go back in. So, now all of a sudden that area gets changed again to the ride share area. Also another concern --we are looking at just strictly at the nightclub at night. He did mention that he's going to be using this facility during the daytime hours, too. We Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F18 Page 15 of 95 are -- we are talking 400 people at night. There is no limit on daytime. He could bring up to 700 people in for a cheer competition that might be going on there. In that case there -- the odds are most people aren't going to be using rideshares during the day coming into that. So, there is possible you have to 350 people that are wanting to go in there. They are going to be in -- parking in our neighborhood. My house -- I have three parking spots out in front of my house. That's all I have for my family or whatever else is coming over to visit us. Unless they pull around in the alley behind my house, park in the driveway and, then, have to walk half a block to a block to get around to the front of my house, so they can come in through the front door. We need to make sure that if this facility is approved with you guys that we have something in place that we can protect the homeowners out in this area, to protect our parking area, to protect our noise compliance, to protect us. We were here way before this was even planned to go in. That's something we need to look at. The other thing I would like to say is I want to have all the parking spots for roadways and prior to them going -- getting a conditional use permit. Right now there is only two entrances to the building. To be coming down Eagle Road you have to take a right in there to go in or you have to come down Ustick Road heading east and take a right to go in. There is no way to get in off of Centrepoint without going through our subdivision and we are highly against trying to get more traffic coming through our subdivision here and unknown people coming in at that time. My main concern is even with his facility there -- yes, he will get the parking spots by putting this extra parking in where the three businesses aren't going up yet, but when those three businesses go in we don't know how many parking spots they are going to need. If it's a restaurant going in there may be -- they may need 20 -- 20 to 25 spots. If he's using 125 that are in that area for his business, the new businesses going in there won't have anyplace for their patrons to park. We need to look in the future at the parking for that area, not in the present where he's trying to go through and say we can extend this out that way. Madam Chair and Honorable Councilmen, thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Vrba. Madam Clerk, do we have -- who do we have next? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have others signed in, but no one else indicating a wish to testify. But we do have one raised in online. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: John, one moment, please. John, you have the ability to unmute yourself. Go ahead when you are ready. Hoeger: Okay. Thank you. My name is Jonathan Hoeger. My address is 3664 North Summerpark Place, Meridian, Idaho. I commented the last meeting and I have comments specific to what has happened tonight. Two concerns that I have. The first is the requirement that was given was for him to be able to obtain a cross-parking permit, which has failed to happen. I think that making the adjustment in the top line in terms of the capacity of the facility is sort of a fool's errand. I operate a business. I have 46 employees. I don't know very many businesses that will have profit margins that are large enough that you can just take 40 to 60 percent, depending on what number you are saying Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F19 Page 16 of 95 he started with, 700 or 1000 -- how many businesses can take half of their top line, reduce it, maintain the same debt service because the capital expenditures haven't changed and continue to be a going concern? If that's something that can happen in this business I'm in the wrong business. But I know a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of business owners in town, I don't think this business is going to be feasible with the recommendations that we have made. I also would like to say that the research that he's done, while he's done a lot of work, I don't think he's necessarily done the relevant work. The cities that he's citing are not similar in size, neither are they similar geographic locations. He's choosing large urban centers, like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco all on his list and other places as far away as Florida and Arkansas. These locations don't have similar parking requirements. If he's saying he's 30 percent better than what you see in downtown San Francisco or LA or Chicago, these numbers are irrelevant and they shouldn't be considered by the Council. I think that the last hearing it was clear that he had something that had to get done. He wasn't able to get it done. I'm recommending that the Council deny approval. Appreciate it. McCarvel: Thank you, Hoeger. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have MK. One moment, MK. Kynaston: Hello. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Kynaston: Yes. Michelle Kynaston. 3725 North Neith Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. 1 would just like to add to the comment today that last time we talked the traffic circle was being used as a place to send traffic through, but that traffic circle is not an appropriate use for these kinds of businesses. It was a traffic circle meant for the location that's there right now and it would have to be rebuilt to accommodate the traffic that would be flowing through that neighborhood circle. Second of all, the other clubs that he is trying to compare himself to are not in neighborhoods and he admits he is very much in the middle of a neighborhood and there is no parking garage for anyone to go park in and attend his facility events and he has also made it clear that his people will have to park seven to eight blocks away. Those seven to eight blocks away are in our neighborhoods. They are across dangerous streets and in places where we have our children and we live and raise our kids and expect them to be in a safe place. He has also said that he has conversed with many people in the city and gotten it all approved and desirable by people in the city, but he didn't talk about the people in our neighborhoods and if he did he would discover that handily we do not want it here. We are up to 190 people saying, no, do not bring this in, to the 40 who I don't even know where they live, saying that they want it here. But this affects our lives and our neighborhoods. We would also like him to -- we would like him fact checked, because he has demonstrated an ability to say things that are questionable and we would like to -- the opportunity to challenge what he's saying, particularly on the list of property developments who have denied him. We in -- our greatest win-win here is for him to go somewhere else with -- with his business and not put it right here on this corner in our neighborhood. He said foremost the concern of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F20 Page 17 of 95 everyone is parking and traffic, but that is not true. Our foremost concern is the immorality of it and what it does to make our neighborhood unsafe for our women, for our children, for the City of Meridian, how it has been developed as a family neighborhood and we want to see that maintained and that is our foremost concern. We also feel like the reality of saying he wants a thousand patrons. Okay, now 500. Okay, now 400. Is really just an attempt to get the CUP approved, but there is no way -- and the police force has already declared that there is no way for them to enforce it. So, he can really just say whatever he wants and change it later and that's a great concern to us as well. McCarvel: Thank you. Kynaston: I think that's about it. Thank you so much. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I see no other hands raised online. McCarvel: Thank you. Sir, you may come forward. Yeah. Just come forward and talk in the mic. Yeah. And state your name and address for the record. Sattler: David Sattler. 2060 East Lobelia Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I think there has been a lot already said. I agree with many of the statements that have already been provided. I feel like this is a conditional use permit and I think the question that we have to ask ourself is there a compelling reason for us to grant an exception? And, quite honestly, I think that there isn't. I think that there was an inability to acquire the parking that this Council requested. I think that there is quite clearly a lack of community love for this particular establishment in this particular location. I don't think that anybody here is saying that a music venue is necessarily a bad idea. I think that what you are hearing is that this close to neighborhoods at this particular location isn't a good idea. I think that based on my research that I have done of nightclub zoning best practices, there are distinct designations and regulations and requirements for nightclubs that this applicant has been unable to meet and I think it behooves this board to benefit from those best practices. I think that would be, I guess, my opinion. There really is no compelling reason to grant an exception -- I think the -- the rule is there for a reason and I think granting an exception -- I feel like we are honestly forcing something that -- into a location that just isn't a good fit. With all of the energy and effort between the community and the applicant they have put into this, I feel like there has been a lot of good thought, but I just think it's the wrong location and I thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. If there is no more testimony, would the applicant like to come forward again. Dodson: Madam Chair, real quick? McCarvel: Oh. Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thank you. I just wanted to address one thing, just to -- for clarification of both the public and the applicant and the Commission regarding the potential traffic going Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F21 Page 18 of 95 through the neighborhood. One of our conditions of approval is related to working with the Villa Sport owners to construct the northernmost drive aisle on the Villa Sport site to get them to have another access to that Centrepoint Lane on the south side. So, that would be -- hopefully avoid some of that. So, I just wanted to mention that that was thought of and attempted to be addressed. And the rest I will leave to Brian. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Go ahead, Brian. Tsai: Thank you, Madam Chair and the Commissioners. So, just as -- some of the calls had mentioned that our safety plan -- if you were to go through that entirely it is quite extensive, as I mentioned. It does cover our security staff directing traffic, where they are lawfully allowed to do so, which is in and out of the parking lot to -- you know, if you are leaving a parking lot I would suspect that most people would try to get to the main road, as opposed to trying to duck through a neighborhood and our staff is there to ensure that. Additionally, if there is any concerns, it's not like we will listen to the concern and address it later down the road. The reason that the safety plan implements that cell phone contact for the neighbors and anybody who might be affected adversely is so those issues such as noise or parking could be addressed immediately as they happen, not later down the line, and that, as I mentioned in the original testimony, would be provided to all the neighbors who are within that immediate vicinity. For the notices of this original hearing, I intentionally went farther out than what the city code had required as far as radius, just to ensure I had contacted some of those neighbors that otherwise would not have had an opportunity to voice their opinions. Let's see. The reason that this is still a viable business plan is not just because we are trying to squeeze it through, we are trying to, you know, accommodate as much as we can, but only a percentage of our overall operations, as mentioned in my previous presentation, is reliant solely upon maximum capacity events and the reason for that is because we are not solely a music venue, just like we are not solely an event center. A lot of those venues do operate on tighter margins and capacities, therefore, they have to fill the house every weekend or, you know, that is part of their pertinent business plan. The reason for the cross-parking agreement in the previous request is because of the capacity and not the other way around. We didn't require the cross-parking because that was the prominent factor, it was that we would require the cross-parking based on the request for the three-to-one ratio, which the previous -- that was posed by the Commission previously. We had to go all the way back to the fact that this -- the scale of this business is small. It's in, you know, hundreds and not thousands. We are talking about hundreds of people and not thousands of people, we are talking about a hundred -- less than 200 cars. We are not talking about thousands of cars. What people are imagining now is trying to get out of the fairgrounds or trying to get out of the Canyon County Fair when everybody is trying to leave at the same time and we are doing it at a scale of thousands of cars and that's just not a realistic application for that vision. If we want to talk about facilities that are similar that do music and dancing that are closer to houses that are currently existing -- well, if you look at the Buffalo Club, there is a neighborhood right across the street. It's not hundreds of feet away. If you look at Cowgirls in Kuna, they are right next to houses. They are right across the street. They are not -- I think the -- 328 feet before we even touch the first house. As far as the opposition numbers, it's not really reasonable for someone to say, hey, there is 190 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F22 Page 19 of 95 people against this. If you were to go through letter by letter there is many of those people who have actually written in ten or more times. So, to go back and say, hey, we have counted this person ten times as ten people who have written in in opposition is just not a reasonable assessment. As far as us just being dilly dally with the -- with the actual capacity, I would again mention that state of the art system that does alert us and allow us to crack down on load capacity limitations, not to mention the fact that we are looking at fines from the city, as well as our insurance may even refuse to cover us if we exceed our rated capacity that's approved. Going back to whether or not this community approves. Well, across the valley that we have over that thousand people who have already signed up just to see what we are doing, that are excited to be here. We have pledged over 20,000 dollars in free venue use to the Idaho Humane Society, Marine and Canine Rescue. The reason the cheerleading camp came up is because there was a group that wanted to come and use it for cheerleading competition. All these excessive uses -- we have pledged it to the Meridian Arts and -- Arts and -- Arts Commission. I'm sorry. And, then, also the major-- the majority of all the nonprofits are in support of it and I can even furnish you those messages, because they were excited that they were able to finally now have events in Meridian, as opposed to just be in Boise where their facilities are. As you can see there is no exceptions that are being requested. The only thing that I'm requesting is we have met the parking ratio request of the three to one, which was the original significant concern. Otherwise, we are just using this exact property for the exact general commercial use to which it was originally intended long before any of those houses were built and zoning has not changed. That's all I have, Your Honor. Or Commissioner. McCarvel: Thank you. So, at this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0004? Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Comments? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have got a -- I have actually got a couple of questions for Joe if we could -- if I could. Joe, do you have -- do you have a diagram at full build out what all the traffic flow -- the way the pads are laid out? Everything I see nothing connects. What I want Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F23 Page 20 of 95 to see is the roads connecting up to Centrepoint and, then, that roundabout. Do you have a slide with that by chance? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, I do not. This would be the connection to the south. This would be the corner of the property we are talking about and, then, this is the drive aisle that will connect there. I do know that the -- this drive aisle that also connects with Ustick is part of the construction drawings for the already approved CZC for this site, for this Wadsworth site, so that will be constructed as required. I would have to dig through and pull out some of the old Villa Sport stuff to see what else is going to be there. As for the -- this site, those pad sites up at the north end have not been applied for. There has been no administrative application put in for those yet. So, those are currently unknown. Cassinelli: Is there -- is Centrepoint the only way out or will there be a driveway that will -- that will be a right-in, right-out onto Ustick to the east of Centrepoint? Dodson: Yes, sir. Just this one right here on the -- the west end of the Wadsworth site. Cassinelli: Okay. So, that is not Centrepoint there where your cursor is? Dodson: Correct. No, that's not -- Cassinelli: That's another -- that's another access point? Dodson: Yes. This is their main access point in and out. Cassinelli: Okay. But, then, to get directly onto Eagle Road it's southbound through the project to that roundabout off of -- is it Piccard? Dodson: Yeah. Down Cajun Lane and then -- yes. So, come down here, connect, and, then, out to Eagle. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, if I could another question, a little different one. There --we have talked a little bit about the capacity. The applicant has -- has agreed to go down to the 400, but is there an enforcement instrument or whatever in there that -- I mean because it -- fire code is -- is -- is what will trump everything and I think that's up there in the 700 or so. But if the applicant is just agreeing to 400 for parking, but five or six or seven hundred come in, I mean is there anything that -- that can be done on the -- on the city side to enforce that? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, a great question and we discussed this a little bit at the last hearing in March and, unfortunately, there is not a lot. There are other -- it kind of falls into the same guise or same -- trying to think of the word. Having a brain fart here. Same issue that we have with daycares when we limit those capacities. You know, I don't go in there and count all the kids. We are on a good faith system largely. I know that's not in code and I -- trust me, I understand the frustrations of the public for that. A lot of it is the self policing, as well as community policing. When we start getting complaints and, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F24] Page 21 of 95 then, police have to go out there and, then, hey, you are overcapacity, that's going to, you know, be an issue and you can have -- the applicant can have the CUP revoked for that. That is a thing. That can happen. It's, unfortunately, not something that we can -- short of me standing out there as part of my salary position I can't really guarantee that that will be adhered to, but we run that risk with anything that we limit the capacity on, underneath the fire code. Cassinelli: Thank you. So, if I can follow up that with comments? McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead. Cassinelli: I'm torn on this. I know a couple of things from the last meeting and I think -- and I know Joe did address that question last meeting, but since the number changed I kind of wanted to address it again as far as the capacity. I don't know that the noise and some of the things would be as bad as -- as some of the people might think that they would be. I'm trying to think back in the days that I used to go out and -- and that sort of thing -- it's been a long time ago. You know, even in strip malls -- I can remember clubs that were in strip malls, maybe like Buffalo Club or something, that shared with other businesses and -- and, you know, outside of maybe some trash that would get picked up in the morning, everybody kind of is in that main area in front of the -- of the venue and, then, they are out of there. The problem that I have with this one is that there is -- so much of the traffic is going to be forced through -- I could just see people coming out after drinking, hitting that roundabout and not knowing which way is Eagle Road, you know drive through -- drive around that thing three times and, then, wind up going Cajun and up around some of those other streets. Going up to Centrepoint and turn left, instead of right, thinking that, hey, we can get out -- you know, maybe we can get out to Eagle Road going -- you know, turning left here and -- and wind up running around the neighborhood three times before they finally figure out -- figure it out how to get out of there. Most of these other -- you know, you look at that Buffalo Club, you look at -- at Cowgirls, their -- their access to a main road is -- is right there. Buffalo Club is right on Fairview. You can go left or right out there. There is a side road alongside that development. There is a lot of ways you can get out of there without having to go through -- nothing takes you through a residential neighborhood. We didn't get that cross-access parking and I'm leery about the -- the enforcement of the -- of the capacity. Fire Department can shut the event down if there is -- if they are over fire code on a given night. They can -- they can shut them down and force everybody to leave, but if they have got five or six hundred people in there, because they are over capacity, so to speak, from a parking aspect, you know, there isn't the --there isn't the -- the code enforcement to really cover that as we -- as Joe mentioned. I think this is a great product. I think the city could -- could do well with it. I think it would be -- you know, it would fit ten times better even across the street, either -- either to the -- to the east or to the north where there is better access -- direct access to Ustick, direct access to Eagle Road where -- where with this one, except for the one -- the one right-in, right only -- right-out only to -- on to Ustick, there -- all the access is running through residential and that's my -- that's my--that's my hang up on this one and that -- for those reasons I'm not -- I'm really leery about it. Again, if it was -- and -- and I can appreciate the applicant's trying to find space in this town. It's -- it's difficult. But I -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F25] Page 22 of 95 1 look at it and it's just -- it's -- it's a difficult one, because you have got to -- you almost have to get to it through residential neighborhoods and that's a tough one for me. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I can appreciate the -- the concerns with going through the neighborhood. I -- I don't personally see that as a long term issue I guess. There is no out from that neighborhood in terms of -- you are not going to cut through that neighborhood to get somewhere. So, if you make the mistake one time, you are not doing it again the next time, essentially. So, I mean that to me is somewhat mute long term. Short term maybe. Long term not as much. But looking at what we asked the applicant to go back and get information on, he brought back the first two and he answered the third one, which was the cross-access parking by doing -- not being able to achieve that, but showing another step and, then, looking at the eight things that we have in here for meeting the required findings for the CUP, I'm having a hard time finding a reason, based on what is in front of us, that I could get behind denying based on what we are tasked with grading this against I guess. Would I like to see it somewhere else? Sure. But that's not necessarily what we are being asked to judge this request on. It's -- does it meet these requirements? Yes or no. And for me it -- it meets all of the requirements and he also came back and met or addressed the -- the additional concerns that we had from the previous hearing. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I would like to add onto what Commissioner Grove said. I think the challenge is whenever you live in a neighborhood and there is a piece of dirt in front of your neighborhood, you, as a homeowner, don't have control on what that's going to be. What if it was a hospital? What if it was an In and Out Burger where there is constant flow of traffic? The fact that almost all four corners have a drinking establishment already leads me to believe that -- you know, Winners has football and -- and they can get rowdy over there. There is the Land Ocean New American Grill is going to go in. There is Pinnacle Sports Bar. There is Chili's. And like Commissioner Grove said, he fulfilled the requirement findings for the CUP. The parking is disappointing. I think he will have his challenges to being able to be good neighbors and being able to take care of that without having two companies involved, but that's a challenge that he is going to have to deal with and if he aggravates and upsets his customers, he's not going to be in business very long. So, again, I agree with Commissioner Grove, I'm having a hard time finding the one through eight items that he hasn't addressed or acknowledged. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F26 Page 23 of 95 Seal: Just a quick question for Joe. Is the -- the reason for the CUP is it because -- is it because it's close to residential or is it just because of the type of business? Dodson: The CUP? It's for the drinking establishment period. That's a conditional use within the C-G zoning district. Seal: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't -- there wasn't something tied to the closeness of the residential. Dodson: A proximity thing? No. The only part of the code that could loosely, in my opinion, be tied to that would be the specific use standards for the indoor rec center, which talks about if there is an outdoor music venue. It talks about the outdoor -- meaning outdoor sound, period, can't be within a certain distance of a resident of district. But this is not going to be outdoors. So, that's -- that part is not applicable. The concept of a music venue in general, there is nothing specific in code, unfortunately, that dictates that. Seal: Okay. Another question. I don't remember seeing one. Was there a sound study done as part of this? Dodson: The applicant did provide some sound analysis and noted certain materials that would be used. I'm not a sound engineer, obviously. That's not something typical that we have or do. Seal: Okay. Dodson: I don't know what I would be basing it against, unfortunately. But, obviously, for good sound you want it to stay inside, otherwise, there wouldn't be a point. Internally, you know, to have the good music, so I -- but other than that I do not know, sir. Seal: Okay. We have had stuff submitted before. Generally it's to -- because there is freeway noise or something like that where people have submitted basically engineering sound -- sound plans in order to mitigate the -- the freeway sounds or the sounds of something that's noisy next to them. So, didn't know if this had something along those lines. Dodson: Within his narrative he did provide some information to that, yes. Seal: Okay. Dodson: I just don't know if it was a full sound study. Seal: Got you. I'm really torn on this one. I mean the -- the parking is not ideal. That said when they put the medians in on Eagle Road it kind of made everything not ideal as far as in-out. But I understand why they did it, so -- we have got something that's going to be close to a subdivision -- and to put that into perspective, all the people that are in that subdivision -- I'm sure every single person on Leslie Drive came in here and was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F27 Page 24 of 95 against that proposed subdivision, because they were there first and they didn't want their neighborhood ruined and they didn't want all the people coming in and they didn't want all those little tiny houses in there and all the low income people it was going to bring and that's the way of -- that's the way it is right now. Right now there is a lot of play things that can go into a lot of places and they are not going to make people happy. But it is where you live. Fortunately or unfortunately that's the way that I see this. Everybody's always for something, they always come up and they say I'm not against something like this, I just don't want it in my neighborhood. I want it somewhere else. Which is unfortunate. There is a lot of things I don't want to go in close to my neighborhood. They are going to. It's coming. The growth is unstoppable at this point in time. It's going to happen. No, parking is not ideal. My biggest question -- well, I guess a question for Joe is on the -- the capacity portion of this, the rated capacity versus the enforced capacity, you have touched on the enforcement of it a little bit, but I guess maybe it's more of a question for legal is if they have a rated capacity and we try to enforce a different capacity, can that affect their insurance and everything as the applicant said or is that more conjecture than anything? Because, again, they are going to build a building for a rated capacity and we are going to try to enforce a different capacity on that. Dodson: Commissioner Seal, the -- I don't know about the insurance side of it, but I do know that changing the capacity with the conditional use permit is -- is allowed. I mean that is one of the parameters that is largely used, as you know better than me. Regard on the -- regarding the private side of it and insurance and things like that, I -- I can't speak to that. I don't know if legal can. Baird: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't think it's -- it's one of your decision analysis to worry about his insurance. It's can you enforce the 400 capacity that is under the fire code. The fire department shows up, sees that it's under 500 or whatever their rating is, and they are fine. If the city gets reports, as Joe touched on, that they are potentially exceeding the 400, the city would have to probably send out code enforcement personnel, who generally aren't available on weekends and evenings, but that's the procedure for how that would be enforced and, as Joe mentioned, if the city finds that that 400 capacity is being exceeded, then, the remedy is to commence proceedings to revoke the conditional use permit. So, that kind of gets -- gets to your evaluation criteria. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval and not adversely affect other property in the vicinity, it's -- it's -- what are your conditions of approval and will they be effectively enforced. Seal: Understood. Mine was more to -- to be able to help put teeth into the enforcement. I mean if-- if that's a -- if it was a true statement it might help with, you know, ease people that, yeah, this guy could lose his insurance and it -- you know, we have the ability to -- or the city has the ability, I should say, to enforce lose of the conditional use permit. So, I mean it does already have teeth in it. My worry is, you know, as far as a business perspective why would you build a building that can hold a thousand people and agree to only ever put 400 in it? Why not build a building that can hold 400 people? That's the biggest question I have in a business sense. The other side of this is, unfortunately, you are going to be located very close to residents, affected or not, who are going to make it Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F28 Page 25 of 95 their mission to pick up their pitchforks and axes and call the police every time somebody drives wrong, every time somebody flashes their lights, every time somebody flicks a cigarette butt in the wrong direction and that's what I see happening here and I find that to be unfortunate, because I -- I think a lot of the criteria has been met. I think there are very valid concerns as to the project. Personally I would like to see something like this come into Meridian. I think we are sorely lacking in that area. We are lacking in things like this, as much as we are bike paths. I mean -- so I -- I would like to see this come in. I'm not discounting the concerns that are out there and I do share similar feelings on -- on the parking, on how it's going to work, on -- on how that would turn out. But I think the single biggest problem that we are going to have is people are mad, they are going to -- maybe only short term, but possibly long term, try to make life extremely miserable for you and especially when you are operating in a completely reduced capacity. I just don't know how that's going to work and how much the city is going to have to be involved and how much misery and pain that's going to bring on to people. So, it's concerning. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may provide you some context. So, I'm looking at the code, I'm looking at our ordinance for conditional use permits, and certainly, you're right, your job is tasked to enforce the code. With the conditional use as you could add -- and I will quote it here. It says you -- you can require more restrictive standards then those generally required in this title to -- to safeguard the public interest and so I'm hearing all of this talk and, you are right, you guys are struggling with this decision, because you hear somebody that's passionate about opening a business and you hear the concerns of the neighbors, but the other part of the conditional use is the duration and timing of the use and that's really to me where we are at here. You hear Joe or the city staff wanting to limit the occupancy. Let's say, for example, we do that and all of -- right now when you look at the aerial of this site there is nothing else to construct out there and that's really the concern I think from staff's standpoint is -- and what I'm hearing from the Commission is if we don't have all that connectivity and any parking in place, people are going to park on dirt, people are going to drive through dirt to get to the light, people are going to cut through the neighborhood. That's really the concern here. So, what you have with this conditional use permit is if you feel inclined to approve it you can have that condition that says they are capped at 400 and at such time as Villa Sports happens and everything else develops, if they want to come back and modify that conditional use permit and it's working and, then, he has the ability to make -- to modify those conditions and say, hey, we are working -- we haven't had any complaints, Commission, we think we want to increase our capacity and now we have a shared parking agreement and we want you to allow us to operate the way we envisioned when we first came before you, I don't know, three or four years ago. That's how you can probably mitigate some of these concerns. You can cap them at 400, with the caveat that if they want to expand that in the future they come back to this body through a CUP process, you have the ability that they can't go beyond 400 until they have a shared parking agreement in place with the surrounding developments or you can say, you know, we don't feel you have adequate circulation or parking for this. You can deny this and the applicant has the ability to appeal your decision to City Council. So, there is -- there is different avenues you can take here and, you are right, I have dealt with this site in the past and I have been at neighbors' houses out there talking with them about other Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F29 Page 26 of 95 commercial businesses in the area and we have had to rectify some of those past decisions and I don't want to see that happen here and we want to be sensitive to that. So, to me if you guys are inclined to recommend approval of this tonight, I think I would put some sideboards on it. You can do this in -- in such time as you get cross-parking agreement or you don't get to operate until you get a cross-parking agreement. Certainly you have that ability with the CUP. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: With the CUP,just on protocol, does this go to City Council or are we the defining -- we are the decision maker here? McCarvel: We are the decision maker. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Yeah. We are not making a recommendation, we are saying yes or no. Lorcher: Okay. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Joe. Dodson: The one caveat to that is that applicants or members of the public can appeal decisions to the Council -- McCarvel: Sure. Dodson: -- following the action done by the Commission. It's the one caveat. McCarvel: Okay. Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: I would like to add some comments here, too. I am -- I'm in agreement here with Commissioner Grove and Commissioner Lorcher here on taking a look at the staff report and looking at their findings. That's -- everything seems to be in the line here. They are using terms in here like there is no results and no damage, this -- this proposal here for this use will not be detrimental for any persons, will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities. It seems like there is a lot of things that are just buttoned up for -- for this to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F30 Page 27 of 95 happen and another thing that I took a look at here as I was looking at the -- the out pads, the extra building pads that are, they are around, I know there has been concern about some of those being used -- or the parking kind of spilling over into that area. From -- from my experience it seems that those -- those pads need to carry their own weight of parking and if they can't, then, the -- then the developer of that proposed use will come before this board again and -- or this body again and we take a look at it to see if we want to grant some sort of cross-parking agreement at that time or just the parking requirements. But I see the need for -- or I can hear that people here in this community see a need for such use on this and it seems that the staff has done a thorough job on taking a look at what could cause any sort of issues and you have addressed these things in a very thorough and organized fashion. McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments or discussion? Yeah. I have gone back and forth on this. I -- I love the idea of this. It would certainly be much easier if it was somewhere else and I guess the comment that Bill made was exactly my question is, you know, as this develops out and there is more adjustments as time goes on with additional parking, can they come back, because I really don't see how -- as well thought out as every other thing in your business plan was, that it -- it still functions by keep lowering the capacity. But I guess that's not what we are here to parent over. If he feels he can make it work at 400 and that's what -- and this -- although he didn't bring in a cross-parking agreement, believe -- I think he adhered, I guess, to the spirit of what was intended. I guess -- at this point I guess if somebody's got a motion we can -- or any other comments we can move forward. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I'm still -- still struggling with this one, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Well, keep going. Seal: Right -- right now the -- the capacity limitation is -- is self imposed by the applicant; is that correct, Joe? Dodson: Yes, sir. Seal: So -- Dodson: That -- that 400 number is -- I did not make that -- we did not make that. To Bill's point you can -- you can pick a different one based upon the concerns noted. Seal: Okay. I just want to make sure, because if that's an issue we would have to put that in a motion to -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F31 Page 28 of 95 Dodson: That is correct, sir. Yes. I have a current one in there regarding -- I think it's 500 and I spoke about how I got to that number with the four to one ratio of the -- the number of capacity versus patrons. But, yes, you are right, you would have to -- if it's going to be a different number you have to have it in your motion -- Seal: So, is that -- Dodson: -- along with the -- any of the timing that Bill spoke about. Seal: Is the -- is it limited to -- is that limit on customers or is that limit of the capacity of the building period? Dodson: Great question. In my -- wow, it's been a long week. It's like a -- yeah, in my condition I noted that it does include the employees as well. So, it's going to include, basically, that -- that tenant suite -- patrons, customers, as well as the employees, because they will -- the employees will be the ones that use -- utilize the parking the longest. Seal: I will ask a long question here that probably has a short answer. Since this is -- we are going to limit this to four -- 400 and I don't see it exceeding, I can't imagine that doubling and people being happy about it. Can we limit the amount of space that they are -- can we limit the building to a capacity as far as what it's capable of holding or is that part -- was that already addressed in a development agreement? Dodson: That is not addressed in the development agreement. That is what you guys are doing now. Are you saying that you could have a step process saying that you will have a lower-- lower capacity now in saying that in the future it will never exceed a certain amount? Seal: Just essentially limit the -- limit the building's capacity to a certain number of people by constraining it to a certain size. Dodson: Yes, essentially, that's what you can do through this CUP. Seal: Okay. Because right now we are allowing him -- I mean he could build a building that could hold 2,000 people and we are saying you can only have four people in there -- 400 people in there, so -- Dodson: Well, to be more specific on that, that until this use applies for a TI and that's this specific use, the fire plan reviewers will not be able to give us a dedicated number. How the interior of the tenant suite is laid out is very important to determine that, because as soon as they start adding tables that changes their ratios. If they have how big their dance floor is -- all of those things go into that. I loosely got a number from the fire plan reviewers just based on a preliminary floor plan that I was given and it was a range anywhere from five to 750, depending on if there is additional tables and things like that. So, there is -- there is definitely room to play with what the fire capacity will even be. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F32 Page 29 of 95 think that based upon my conversations it's probably going to be the lower end of that, probably between the five and six hundred. So, fire capacity may limit it more than what has been discussed in this hearing. So, a thousand was never going to be part of the question period and I don't think 750 is either. So, if that helps you guys. I hope that does. Seal: It does. And in the picture you have there, which is that oriented north-south or is that -- do you know? Dodson: It -- south is to the top of the picture. Seal: Okay. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: For our motion I would propose that -- what Commissioner Seal said, to have a capacity, but I think that the applicant should have the ability to come back to increase his capacity if his business model is working and he does get cooperation with the other tenants for parking. Seal: Madam Chair? And -- McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Question for Joe. That -- that's kind of built into the process; correct? Or does that require that we state that in a motion? The ability to come back and ask -- ask for more capacity in the future. Dodson: It is my understanding that they -- regardless of if you note it, that the applicant can just do a mod -- a CUP modification at a future date. However, for whoever is on the Commission in the future date, if there is already a condition noting that this was something that was discussed that might be worth adding. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: But process wise it's not a requirement, no. McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: Well, let me -- let me say that further, now that I'm thinking about it more. The only way that it would be a requirement is if there is a certain timing associated with it, as Bill alluded to. If there is a -- once you get A, then, you can request it, then, yes, that's going to be a requirement of the motion. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F33 Page 30 of 95 Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: So, we can't say just a future date, have it be ambiguous, it has to say when a tenant agreement or parking agreement happens --we have to have something definitive or can it be more vague? McCarvel: No. We -- my understanding -- Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher. McCarvel: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. Yeah. If it's going to be vague, then, in the normal process and the allowance of a future modification is what you should just -- and just -- and just not say anything if it's going to be vague. If there is something specific, the cross-parking as an example, but also part of the CUP you could put a certain sunset date period and say not until after five years can you come back. Those are all things that are in your parameters to add. Lorcher: Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm thinking mentioning it as just a courtesy to a future Commission that it was thought of and we weren't -- they don't have to rehash it all. But I don't think a sunset is necessary. I mean to come back -- Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I think maybe how we could help future is to put in something along the lines of how we have been approaching the percentage essentially of parking. So, not just getting a parking agreement in place with neighbors, but having -- being able to hit that--a certain threshold with that to keep it consistent with what we have discussed might make it a little easier for future commissions to have an idea of where we were coming from. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F34 Page 31 of 95 Seal: If anybody else wants to comment I'm -- I'm ready to make a motion here, but want to make sure that -- I mean, essentially, the capacity is really -- the capacity and their ability to come back at a later date to ask for more parking -- is there anything else in here that somebody is wanting to see if we were going to make a motion on this? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Commissioner Seal, I tried to write something down for the -- for the first time, but -- so, I will defer to your expertise. I just had -- I just had like with the other tenants nothing specific as a -- as a cross-parking agreement, because if the other tenants aren't -- that -- that's not within their business model, they are not willing to do that, then, that limits this applicant any future growth. But it -- as a collective group of tenants together, they have kind of a gentlemen's agreement or a business agreement that they have it, but not necessarily in writing, so maybe not have it saying if it is a cross-parking agreement I have more of parking with the other tenants on the site, as just a general rule. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, there already is an existing cross-parking for all of the tenants and all of the future building sites within this five lot subdivision. So, that cross- parking is already existing. The main crux would be additional parking beyond what is going to be constructed on the site and that's where you could impose saying if you -- you cannot come back -- or I should -- you know, if you get that cross-parking, then, you can increase your capacity, that type of a situation. Beyond the site. Yeah. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Not to keep -- keep going down the road here and, Commissioner Seal, I know you are about ready to go forward, but another question came up for Joe. A member of the public that spoke brought up a point of future tenants in this. If there were something -- a business, perhaps a restaurant or something, that competed hour wise with this that wanting to go in, how would their parking -- I mean most of these businesses, if they close up by 8.00, they are not going to -- you know, their parking is not going to impact the parking here. But if there was something else that had hours 10:00 or 11:00 say, his parking might be -- be impacted by this parking. How is that-- how do you view that down the road? Dodson: Great question, Commissioner Cassinelli, and for the Members of the Commission. That's a good learning thing. One, unfortunately, there --there isn't specific parking requirements for this specific use. You know, a drinking establishment, for example, versus a restaurant. That's all wrapped into one. So, one for 250 -- 250 square Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F35] Page 32 of 95 feet that is the -- all of the future sites and what is already existing will be based on what their proposed use is and the minimum parking required by code. I can't require more, so as long as they are meeting those minimums, then, those sites could be utilized based upon the size of those buildings. If they get to a point where they exceed it, then, we can't approve it and they have to come through us each time. For the hours portion, the applicant -- or the landowner is actually doing some self policing there. For example, the Jamba Juice and that's going to be in the other suite in this building and I have seen the agreement that they are limiting them to close at -- I believe at 7:00 p.m. -- or 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. or something like that. So, as part of their agreement with some of these new tenants that are coming in, so I think that some of that will get quelled and, again, I don't want to speak for the landowners, but I do believe that one of the uses on the other side might be a bank, which does not have late hours and, then, there was word of a coffee shop, but I don't know if that's going to happen and those generally don't go later into the evening either. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair, one -- one thing that I would like to add -- and I don't know if it's going to help anything or not-- and the reason I asked the -- the orientation of the building is I would like to put something in here that the sound direction is concentrated away from the closest -- focused away from the nearest housing. Thank you. That's what I have written down here. Just trying to -- just trying to make sure that -- you know, essentially where the sound -- where the stage is, where the sound is focused, the direction that it's going to be emanating is away from the nearest housing as much as possible. Right now with the orientation of it it's kind of going that direction, so that's a little bit of a concern for me. With the construction that they are proposing I think it's less than an issue, but it is, you know, a way to mitigate some of the concerns that are out there as far as sound. Anybody have any issues with that let me know. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Didn't the tenant or the applicant fulfill the requirements for sound? Wouldn't that be redundant to put it in there specifically or you would just like to have it as an extra reminder? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Seal. Yeah, I kind of have the same thought. I think the building itself was designed as fairly sound proof. Seal: I agree, but there was -- I mean there has been no true sound study done. We are relying on the applicant's analysis of what the sound can and will do. I just think this adds another layer of trying to get along with one's neighbors as well as possible, so -- and, again, I mean if you have been to a venue when you are walking up on it -- if you come Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F36 Page 33 of 95 in from behind the building I will -- you know, use the Revolution Concert House is a great example. If music is going on and you walk up -- or you are in the -- behind the buildings, you don't hear a lot. If you are out in the parking lot you hear everything. So, that's -- you know, I mean the sound direction focus can definitely be -- play into something. So, if it's focused in that direction kind of no matter what it is, the bass is going to escape and it's going to float that direction. So, if you want to challenge that just have some teenager turn up their car driving down your road. McCarvel: I have one of those. Seal: Exactly. So, it was just a concern that kind of -- I mean to me the sound of this needs to blend in with the neighborhood as much as possible, so just a concern. So, with that, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2021, with the following modifications: That the capacity will be limited to 400 people. That the applicant can come back at a later date to ask for an increase in capacity when more permanent parking is available. And that sound direction is focused away from the nearest housing. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Joe. Dodson: Sorry. Sorry. I know. One last thing that I do have an existing condition in there that talks about the cross-parking, but because that was not able to be obtained your motion should include striking that condition. McCarvel: In lieu of the 400 capacity maybe? Okay. What's the condition number on that, Joe? Dodson: 8-A-3.D. Seal: That we strike condition 8-A-3.B. Dodson: D as in David, sir. Seal: Oh, sorry. D as in David. McCarvel: Is there a second? Grove: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F37 Page 34 of 95 McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to -- to approve Item H-2021-0004 with conditions. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion passes. Madam Clerk, do you need a roll call or -- Weatherly: Madam Chair, for the record I want to confirm that was Commissioner Cassinelli who said nay. Cassinelli: That is correct. Weatherly: Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. 6. Public Hearing for Mountain America Credit Union Drive-Through (H- 2021-0019) by Mountain America Credit Union, Located on the West Side of N. Ten Mile Road, Approximately 750 Feet South of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district for a financial institution on 1.16 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is -- and we are just full of CUPs tonight. H-2021-0019, Mountain America Credit Union Drive Through, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, Commissioners, you get to hear me more. am told I have got a radio voice. So, maybe it's nice. I don't even know at this point, but -- as noted, this is Item No. 5, Mountain America Credit Union CUP. The applications before you are a conditional use permit, administrative design review was already approved for the building at staff level, which we allow concurrently with CUPs. The size the property is 1.16 acres, currently zoned C-G and it's on Lot 13 of the Lost Rapids Subdivision, which is part of the Costco site. It is on the west side of North Ten Mile Road and about an eighth mile south of Chinden. And to the north, as noted is more commercial. The two lots directly above are undeveloped and, then, the corner lot is the Costco fuel station. To the south is more C-G zoning and undeveloped, but directly to the south is the other drive though site that was approved by this Commission I believe last month. To the east is Ten Mile Road and, then, to the east of that is R-8 zoning and detached single family uses. To the west is C-G zoning and the Costco site, the larger building lot here. The future land use plan does constitute this site as a commercial designation, which, obviously, allows a plethora of commercial uses. The conditional use permit is requested for a drive-through. It is for a financial institution that is within 300 feet of a restaurant drive though that I noted is directly to the south. As you can see on Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F38 Page 35 of 95 the site plan this is a drive aisle and, then, this site would be the other site that has the drive through. This drive aisle is the main drive aisle off of Ten Mile Road that's not the Lost Rapids public road further to the south, just to be clear. So, there is this public road here and, then, there is a drive aisle right here that is the other main access into the site. So, there is no parking or connection points on this drive aisle, it is just a straight shot. Because it is within 300 feet of the existing --or the approved drive through, it does require a conditional use permit. The project must also comply with the specific use standards for a drive through establishment in 11-4-3-11. Staff believes that the project meets all of the specific use standards. The proposed drive through has three stacking lanes as noted here that are approximately 65 feet plus or minus from the drive aisle entrance here to the site. Furthermore, the proposed drive-up services are attached -- are proposed in a detached structure, so you have the main building here and, then, all of the drive-up facilities are actually detached and interior to the site. They are approximately 95 feet apart. Staff does not perceive that stacking lanes will impede the circulation lanes to their north, especially because of the design of the detached drive through. Stacking lanes are also less than a hundred feet in length and, therefore, do not require an escape lane. The detached drive through is not exceptionally visible from North Ten Mile Road, which is discussed in the standard and Ten Mile is the road on the eastern boundary. However, staff does find that the shared drive aisle that, again, doesn't have any parking or -- or access to it and minimal tree landscaping, does offer adequate surveillance opportunities, as well as a pretty clear line of sight from here into the development. The site plan will be more heavily scrutinized and analyzed with the future certificate of zoning compliance, which is required for all commercial uses. But upon my initial review of the site plan they do meet all of the dimensional standards, parking counts, and fire access and landscaping. The only issue is a small landscaping -- I think they just missed it -- they need trees along the northern landscape boundaries. That's the only issue I saw. As noted, the applicant did apply for administrative design review, which was approved at the staff level for the credit union building. The two main field materials are shown. The dark color is fiber cement and the white is stone. Staff has made specific conditions of approval for the elevations to be addressed prior to submitting for building permit following the CDC approval for the building. Staff does recommend approval of the proposed CUP request with the conditions of approval noted in the staff report and I will stand for questions. McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, before -- could I get a question of staff before they come up? McCarvel: We are -- Cassinelli: Are we? Okay. McCarvel: If that's okay. Cassinelli: Yeah. That's fine. In case I forget it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F39 Page 36 of 95 McCarvel: Okay. Is the applicant with us? Sanders: Yes. McCarvel: Oh, there we go. Please state your name and address for the record. Sanders: Shane Sanders. Sanders and Associate Architects. 2668 Grant Avenue, Ogden, Utah. McCarvel: Thank you. The floor is yours. Sanders: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, appreciate your time this evening. As mentioned, this is a new branch location for Mountain America Credit Union. This will be their second location in Meridian. I think the only -- we agree with all of the comments, except for one I wanted to address with you. Item four in the review states the elevations submitted with the administrative design review application are approved with the following revisions. Show the north and south elevation with additional qualifying modulation per standard 3.1A and 3.113 in the architectural standards manual. The elevations that we had submitted -- it was hard to read a lot of the articulation on the walls. The two in question are the north and south. Carly, can you zoom in on the south? Oh, they have control? Is there any way to zoom in on the south elevation? Dodson: Sure. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I do want to note that the -- the design review is administratively approved, so it's not part of your decision tonight, just to let you all know. Sanders: So, this is an issue we can address with staff? Dodson: That is correct, sir. Sanders: Okay. Well, I can continue or we can just do that offline with staff as we go through the approvals. I don't want to spend a lot of time if we don't need to. McCarvel: Yeah. That's -- that's fine. You can work through it with staff. Sanders: Okay. Dodson: Perfect. McCarvel: Okay. Sanders: That-- this is a rendering that we have included. We -- it just gives you a better -- kind of idea of how it looks three dimensionally. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F40 Page 37 of 95 Sanders: Large shed roof at the middle of the building, which is the lobby--just the larger volume where the lobby is. We have offices on each side of that high section in the middle. I think that's it. McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take questions for the applicant or staff. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Madam Chair. I guess either one can answer this, but do you have a distance between the exit of the drive through -- because that's what we are looking at. So, the exit there to the main entrance coming into the development off of Ten Mile? I mean is it right there on the corner as it looks? Dodson: Off of Ten Mile? So, you mean the drive aisle here and, then, where it is here? Cassinelli: The main -- to the main entrance off of Ten Mile and, then, if you turn to the right or go north on that drive aisle that --the exit to the drive through lanes are right there. Dodson: Yeah. You're talking about here, sir? What this distance is? Cassinelli: Hold on. I'm -- sorry, I wasn't -- yeah. I was on my -- I was on my PC. I wasn't looking at your presentation. Yeah, that distance right there. I mean is -- it's right there; right? Dodson: Based upon the dimensions of the parking spaces it's probably 30'ish feet, 35 feet. Cassinelli: Okay. McCarvel: And that's the exit; correct? Dodson: That is the exit. Yeah. The entrance is over here. McCarvel: Yeah. Sanders: So, it's a single lane egress or exit. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: Was --was that--were there several orientations of that that were discussed? Sanders: Yes. In the original pre-submittal meeting we actually had the drive-up attached to the branch on the north end where that parking is. We couldn't meet the landscape setback requirements on the north and south with it in that location and create enough room for them to turn around and exit back out. So, this was our solution to that is detaching it and moving it more to the inside of the development. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F41 Page 38 of 95 Cassinelli: I mean we are still in -- in public hearing stuff, but I would just share a concern if I could. I was -- and this goes back to just a couple of days ago I was at Costco and I was trying to come out one of the other -- one of the Costco lanes that would be further north there on the left-hand side and I waited for what seemed like 15, 20 cars to come through there and -- before I could get out and when I did I -- I had to go north, because I was going from a regular parking spot in Costco over the -- over to get gas and I had to punch it to squeeze through a couple of cars or I would have been waiting there for about three minutes. My concern with --with the proximity to the entrance there is -- is -- I mean you are going to get a steady flow of cars coming in and they are turning right to go into Costco. People will be waiting there to exit if they -- especially if they want to turn left to get out. I just said, I -- I just envision a backup there and I don't know if that's something, Joe, that you guys looked at, if that was a concern to staff at all. Dodson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, that's not something I looked at too specifically. I think that is a good point. I do think that as all of these sites develop there is going to be an increase of traffic in general. I don't -- I do see your points. I don't think that it's going to be an overly major concern, only because there -- there is other points of ingress and egress out here. Even if you have the site entrance further north you -- same issue that you noted I think can happen there, too. Sanders: Yeah. I think a bigger concern for me would be just kind of the safety pulling out there on that corner, the visibility of cars coming around that corner and we -- we didn't put any trees there, so the sight lines are not obstructed. A driver could see cars coming around the corner. We could add a stop sign there, too, so people coming out of the drive through have to stop and look before they pull into traffic to create a little safer intersection there. So, we are forcing them to stop and look. McCarvel: Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Quick question for staff. On the plat there to the south, it seemed like part of the deliberating we had on that was the lack of sidewalks and where did we land on that? Did we require them to have sidewalks or not? I can't remember. Dodson: Commissioner Seal, I believe you did not add the sidewalks. Rather than the one that was already proposed following the -- the staff report where you made them attach to Ten Mile. Seal: Okay. That's kind of what I remembered, but I wanted to make sure. Dodson: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F42 Page 39 of 95 McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Is there anybody here that wishes to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have no one signed in to testify. McCarvel: Okay. Come forward. Brown: For the record Ken Brown, 3161 East Springwood. I thought that was an interesting discussion about the exit. I bank next door at First Interstate and that distance is even less than this and the elevation is pretty high. The First Interstate sits up high -- Dodson: Can't hear you, Kent. Brown: Sorry. I apologize. But what ends up happening is -- because you are going through the drive aisle people do get stuck there, because it's Main Street -- It's Main Street that runs behind the building -- or the main street's out here and that's -- Dodson: Meridian. Brown: -- Meridian. So, Meridian has a lot of traffic on it and people will spend quite a bit of time there and there never seems to be an issue, it's just the people at the bank just have to be patient and, you know, there are certain times that you go, but it -- I know it's less than 30, 40 feet that -- that that distance is and you really can't see, because you got to come down and around to go out onto Meridian Road. So, it seems like it's just something with the drive aisles that you have to kind of do. It's not like fast food where you got somebody really anxious -- I remember my first experience with the drive-up was watching my mom give money to the bank and give her back a piece of paper and I was going -- you know, I knew what money was, I didn't know what the piece of paper was and so you are kind of patient there, I think, in the bank working aisle. Anyway, just a thought. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Does the applicant have any other comments? Sanders: I would just add that we pushed that drive through north as far as we could to meet the stacking requirements, so we could give them plenty of space as they come out of that drive through and kind of queue up to that stop sign or intersection. So, we have tried to balance both the stacking and the exiting and push that exit as far north as we could, you know, and we looked at landscaping so the views weren't hindered. So, I would just add that. McCarvel: Okay. If there is no other questions or comments, I would take a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0019. Seal: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F43 Page 40 of 95 Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I get it with the stacking and the waiting and stuff, but I guess nobody promised me I was never going to have to wait for a few minutes in life, so, yeah, I'm -- I'm in favor. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal first. Seal: Yeah. I was similarly concerned with, you know, essentially the way that that comes around, but the way that they are stacking in there -- I mean it seems like it's really only going to affect the folks that are using the bank, so I don't think it will have huge impact on those that are trying to use other businesses in there, so, you know, with the small amount of land that's there and how they have it oriented, I think they have done a pretty good job of trying to limit their impact on -- on other businesses in the area. So, I think if they tried to reverse this somehow it probably wouldn't work very well and, then, you would have people competing to come in and out of the same place. So, other than that it's -- you know, glad to see more stuff going in out there and -- I mean that's kind of what it was designed for. Everything that goes in there is just going to add to the traffic, which is never good in a Costco parking lot, so -- unfortunately, but glad to see another business going in out there so soon. McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I will -- Madam Chair, I will agree with Commissioner Seal. That it seems like our credit unions that are in our community have a good formula of how to move their customers, whether they walk indoors or through the drive-throughs. So, I would agree with Commissioner Seal on that as well. McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments or motions? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: All right. I'm just going to go ahead with the motion if that's okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0019 as Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F44 Page 41 of 95 presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 20 -- or May 6, 2021, with no modifications. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2021-0019 with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. You would never think I would oppose a drive-through, but I don't think it's the best design. My opinion. McCarvel: It does -- no, it doesn't surprise me. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, did you get the nay? Weatherly: Madam Chair, for the record that was Commissioner Cassinelli that voted nay; correct? Cassinelli: That is correct. Weatherly: Thank you, sir. And -- great. So, motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. McCarvel: I was on the verge of promising a five minute break if we could get a motion, so we will resume in a few minutes. We will give everybody a break to stand and stretch and do what you need to do. (Recess: 8:11 p.m. to 8:20 p.m.) 7. Public Hearing for The Vault (H-2021-0017) by Joshua Evarts, Located at 140 E. Idaho Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drinking establishment McCarvel: All right. We will resume our meeting for this evening and at this time we would like to open the public hearing for H-2021-0017, The Vault. We will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Greetings, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. I was just mentioning to staff that Joe has a radio voice, I have got a Gilbert Godfrey voice, so I will do the best that I can to not annoy everybody. So, this is a conditional use to allow for a drinking establishment. So, the property is about 2,100 and some change square feet of land, zoned O-T, located at 140 East Idaho Avenue. Adjacent properties is a restaurant, drinking establishment, offices, some single family residences. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this for Old Town. The applicant -- excuse me -- the applicant recently Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F45] Page 42 of 95 submitted an application for a certificate of zoning compliance to expand their patio on the back. They recently submitted an application for a conditional use to allow a drinking establishment. This present business is a cigar bar. They recently began serving wine and beer and accessories to this. The applicant now wants to serve all types of liquors, may or may not be accessory to the cigar bar, that makes it a -- that makes it a drinking establishment and that only is allowed by a conditional use. Again, as I said this is an existing historic building in the OT district. All the parking, sidewalks and landscaping is already there. The outdoor patio was approved and meets all the setback requirements. Doesn't encroach into the right of way. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area as an Old Town. This designation includes the historic downtown, the true community center. These kinds of uses are retail, lodging, theaters, restaurant, service retail, the existing cigar barn, and the expansion to serve alcohol. This is exactly the type of neighborhood hangout that is intended by the Comprehensive Plan and with that the staff does recommend approval. Very simple case. And I will take any questions or comments at this time. McCarvel: Okay. Any -- or I guess ready for the applicant. Evarts: Fantastic. I am Joshua Evarts. I reside at 303 East State Avenue, Old Town Meridian. 83642. 1 appreciate, first of all, staff, Alan, Bill, Keegan, they have been really great in this process. We are kind of an oddball. Thus, I guess, the nature of submitting for a conditional use permit. So, we actually -- we restored the building going back in 2015. It was originally the Bank of Meridian. And after about 18 months of enjoying that as a living room for my wife and 1, we decided we would open it up to the rest of the public. We thought that that would -- it was, actually, the prompting of Mayor Tammy. She was like you really should do something that everybody else gets to enjoy it. So, we agreed. We launched The Vault in September of 2017. Upon opening within a month we actually got our beer and wine license. So, we have actually been serving beer and wine for three and a half years. We didn't go through a conditional use permit at that point. In speaking of Counselor Nary at the city we -- we were the oddball. We didn't know quite what to do. We weren't a bar. We weren't a restaurant. We were this other thing. So, what we -- what we did at that time is with the help of the city we became a retail tobacconist with a retail beer and wine license, with an exception for on-site consumption I believe, Bill, is how that reads. But as we went through COVID 127 closed and the gals were looking to sell their liquor license. We thought it would be a great addition to what we had already been doing for three and a half years, so we purchased that license and began the process of working through state, county, and now with you guys. So, at that point in our preliminary hearings and meetings and talking with Bill, talking with Mr. Nary, we decided that it would be appropriate to go through a formal CUP process and just do that and not -- and not be this oddball thing anymore in downtown. So, conducted all the appropriate hearings and -- and submitted for this conditional use permit tonight. So, I want to speak just quickly to our intent. Laurie and I take very serious this idea of stewardship for downtown Meridian. So, we live on 3rd and State. One hundred percent, other than some small crypto holdings, a hundred percent of our investment is in Old Town Meridian. So, as we have done things like the Heritage Building, The Vault, the Old Town Lofts, we believe in being a good steward for downtown Meridian and making sure that we are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F46 Page 43 of 95 doing our best to maintain safety, create economic development and vitality, and also preserve our history and certainly The Vaults' been a great -- great story there. So, our intent is to curate a menu of cocktails and drinks that match what we do with cigars. We do not maintain late hours. I'm really glad that we led with a cigar lounge and with a beer and wine license for three and a half years, because that established a track record of us being really good stewards of how we handled alcohol to date. So, we are not in what I would call the category of a drinking establishment. It's something that adds color and adds an additional thing that people can experience, so we really are a premium cigar lounge, first and foremost, even from a revenue standpoint. Our revenues for tobacco is -- is 90 plus percent of what we do and the beverages that we offer currently in beer, wine, soda and coffee is a small part of what we do as a business. We are not intending to change that. We really do feel that this is just going to be something that's an additional add on. We have been working through the cocktail menu with a bar master at Sushi Shack right now. She even asked me -- she's like it seems like some of your cocktail prices are high and I said that's fantastic, I said, because I don't want people to be -- this is not a seven dollar rum and coke establishment. So, I want people to pay a premium, because I want to give them a premium experience. I also want to create some cost prohibitors to people enjoying or wanting to enjoy more, even though I will tell you as a staff this is the one thing that we beat into our staff is our tips training. I will not put drunk people out anywhere in the public. It's something we take serious with the Hop Haus and with Sushi Shack. That's just not something, you know, we tolerate. But we want to make sure that we are creating environments that are also conducive to reinforcing the things that we believe, because Laurie and I aren't always there. So, that's a little bit of our heart and what we are looking to do in this. So, with that if you have any questions happy to answer them. McCarvel: Any questions for staff or the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Cassinelli started. Sorry. I didn't acknowledge. Cassinelli: Josh, what's the capacity of the -- Evarts: Forty-nine. Cassinelli: Forty-nine. Evarts: Yes. Cassinelli: Not 494. Evarts: Yeah. Four hundred and ninety-nine, but I can come down to 400 if you want me to. Is it too soon? I feel -- I feel like it's too soon, but I don't know. Not at all. Oasis, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F47 Page 44 of 95 sorry. Yeah. But I can come down to 400. No. Forty-nine. Forty-nine. What I will tell you is we have 32 chairs in there and we -- we typically on a very, very, very busy event we -- you know, we will get to, you know, all 32 chairs and we have eight folding chairs. So, we will get to 40. But the -- you know, the building just -- you know, just gets uncomfortable once you get past 40. So, we just don't have a -- we don't have an issue ever exceeding that really. And we are intending -- I think we bought 16 chairs for the outdoor patio and there is about an additional -- I think 700 square feet that we have -- Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, that's on the patio. But, yeah, that we are not looking to cram people in. Cassinelli: Thank you. Evarts: You are welcome. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Mr. Evarts, thank you very much for preserving Old Town and taking care of the buildings that we already have. We enjoy the Heritage Building quite a bit. I have not been into The Vault, mostly because I'm not a cigar smoker. I had always assumed that you had a liquor license, but it sounds like you had beer and wine and it adds some wonderful color to our downtown area. So, thank you very much. Evarts: Commissioner Lorcher, you are welcome. McCarvel: Any other comments or questions for the applicant or staff? Wheeler: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: Just a quick question here. So, 600 square foot on an addition; right? Evarts: Correct. If that's what it's -- yes. Wheeler: Okay. And, then, how often is that drive aisle -- that alley used back there for vehicles and stuff like that and stuff? Evarts: Yeah. Great question. I don't spend a lot of time looking at that -- on that back driveway. I know that it gets -- during lunchtime there is quite a few people that are -- that are using that primarily to exit. It's tough to get out onto Pine if you are in that little parking lot and you went to Eight Thirty Common for lunch, like you are pretty close to the Main and Pine intersection and it gets a little backed up there. So, unless you are taking a right out on Pine most of the people will bomb out on that alley, but it's -- you know, you have got a home, a business -- I don't -- I have never run into real traffic coming out of there Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F48 Page 45 of 95 and certainly most of Idaho Avenue -- it's not very activated at night, you know, other than there has been an uptick at Polly's, just with Varsity closing, so there has been a little bit more activity in the evening there, but -- but -- but it's -- it's fairly quiet on -- on that alley come -- come closing time at 5:00 when all the professional businesses that are in like the Idaho Building and stuff like that leave. Wheeler: Perfect. That was -- that's all. I just wanted to know if that traffic was there, because you will have a patio there with patrons and I know you want to keep them alive. Evarts: Right. Yeah. I love to keep my patrons alive. It's very important. Good revenue model. Good business practices. McCarvel: Okay. With -- do we have anybody for public testimony on this one? Weatherly: Madam -- sorry, Madam Chair. We have one person signed in in house and that's Tommy Elledge. McCarvel: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Elledge: Thank you. My name is Tommy Elledge. E-1-1-e-d-g-e. Address is 2350 Echo Avenue in Parma. 83660. 1 am in Payette county. Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff, you are right, he is a character. Anyway, down to business. I'm a new citizen of the state of Idaho. One thing that I found quickly when I first got here was The Vault. I am a cigar smoker. I didn't even start smoking cigars until 2019. Working for the railroad for over 47 years, never touched a cigarette, never touched a cigar, but a friend of mine treated me to one on the day that I retired from the railroad and I have enjoyed them ever since. One thing that I do enjoy is friends enjoying themselves. I cannot drink. I am allergic to alcohol. I go into respiratory arrest. I'm always the designated driver. But I have people from California that are planning on coming out here to Idaho on a weekend just for the pleasure of coming out to The Vault to have a drink and enjoy a good cigar. I spend 40 minutes maybe twice a week to come down and enjoy Meridian. Usually I will stop someplace and get lunch. I definitely spend my tax money at The Vault. But I encourage you to vote yes on this proposal. I think it will be a great addition, not only to your community, but to the cigar community at large that I am a member of. Thank you for hearing me and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Any questions? McCarvel: Thank you. Elledge: Thank you. McCarvel: If that's our only public testimony, does the applicant have any additional comments? Okay. Thanks. Thank you. I guess since everybody is adding their comments I will add a comment of thank you for keeping my husband and son occupied during my daughter-in-law's recent baby shower. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0017. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F49 Page 46 of 95 Seal: So moved. Wheeler: I second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing, H-2021-0017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Full support. I think it's a great spot. Great thing. I love the -- as -- as he used it, the word stewardship of Old Town, downtown, and it's exactly what we need. It will just -- there is no -- I don't see a single negative. I'm full support. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I -- same sentiments almost exactly. So, I like -- I like the other stuff that comes in. I like the eclectic things. I like the -- the rare items. So, I'm glad to see that this business is not only successful, but expanding and, you know, venturing into other areas. So, it's great. Great to see that there is an economic focus and drive for downtown and it's starting to thrive again. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I will be super fast. Josh, this will not take you out of the oddball status as you put it. I'm sorry to break it to you. The only downside with this is I want to make sure that there is still something that I can afford when I go in there, so keep something cheap. McCarvel: Do I hear a motion? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will go for it on this one. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve file number H-2021-0017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2021, with no modifications. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F50 Page 47 of 95 Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2021-0017 with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 8. Public Hearing for Jump Creek North Four-Plex (H-2021-0018) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Gondola Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow 7 fourplex buildings of 28 units total on 2.2 acres in the R-15 zoning district. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is H-2021-0018, Jump Creek North Four-plex and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Commissioners, Alan Tiefenbach, planner, City of Meridian. This is a conditional use to allow seven four-plex buildings with 28 units total on about 2.2 acres in the R-15 zone district. The site, as I said, about 2.2 acres of land is zoned R-15. It's located on the west side of North Black Cat Road, midway between McMillan and West Chinden Boulevard. The subject property was annexed and zoned in 2014 as part of the larger Jump Creek Subdivision. The approved preliminary plat, final plat, and the development agreement specifically identified this particular property for a multi-family development. In fact, it was actually seven four-plexes of 28 units. The required landscaping and the infrastructure has already been installed. There has been a traffic study that was done with the preliminary plat. All the road improvements have already been put in. What you will see on that lot line now are -- is the -- all the infrastructure, the sidewalks are there now, there is just basically dirt in the middle where the parking lot is going to be poured and you can see the building pads where the buildings are going to go in. Again, that was all -- already designed with the annexation and the preliminary plat. However, because of the multi-family requirement for our code, you actually have to do a conditional use as another part of the process, so that's what this is about. There is some specific use standards that are required for multi-family projects. Let me go through that. So, this is -- if you look on the left this is what the -- a concept plan for the annexation allowed. If you look on the right this is what's being proposed almost exactly the same, except that hopefully you can -- if you can see my pointer. These buildings here have just been turned on their axis, so they are now facing each other. Other than that it's pretty much exactly the same. The specific use standards for multi-family units, 80 square feet of private common open space per unit, 250 square foot of common open space. So, there is the private open space, like a patio or a porch or a deck and, then, there is the common open space, which would be the landscaped outdoor open space. There is two amenities that are required with this project. There is requirements for a management office, a central mailbox, and maintenance storage for any development that's more than 20 units. Looking at the floor plans for this project it looks like they may not be at that 80 square feet. They are more about 70 square feet. That's one of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F51 Page 48 of 95 recommendations. At the time of certificate of zoning compliance they would need to submit that they are actually meeting that 80 square foot. Again, I'm not positive that they are not. The other thing is that the applicant hasn't provided any information regarding the management office and the maintenance storage, other than it would be built later with the other 44 units of multi-family that's going to be part of the Jump Creek Seven. So, that's the next project, the next multi-family project. That will again come in front of you for conditional use. The Planning Commission --we think that they need to determine whether it's acceptable that the management office and the maintenance storage area should be allowed to be built at a later phase or whether they would prefer that one of the units of this existing -- the 28 units that are now being proposed -- if one of those units should be temporarily used as the maintenance area and the office until the next one builds out. We are not sure when the next one is or if or how long it could take. There is two amenities that are required with this development. All the amenities in the Jump Creek Subdivision -- there were seven of them -- were already approved and most of them have been built. However, when we looked at the development agreement and the annexation, it doesn't really say whether the amenities approved with -- with the whole Jump Creek development included this multi-family project or whether the amenities should be required with this project. We have asked if they were able to give us some kind of legal agreement that can show that the amenities would be shared. That said, there is enough open space there that staff thinks it could even meet the minimum requirements on site, whether it's a shelter or enclosed bike storage or a community garden, I think it's easy enough to go above and beyond and provide amenities that all the -- the -- the residents of this particular project can have. Let's see. So, the code requires two parking spaces per two bedroom units. They have shown all that and there is also to be a covered carport garage. They are meeting all their minimum requirements. However, the elevations that were submitted don't really show much about the carports, so that's going to be something that we are going to ask for at the time of certificate of zoning compliance. So, to summarize all this, staff's recommendations, first of all, is that we think that the site plan and the landscape plan submitted with the CZC should be revised to show a management office, a major storage area and a directory map and here is the landscape plan and I can come back to that. These are elevations of what's being built. So, let me talk, again, about the recommendation. So -- so, we believe that the landscape plan should be revised to show a management office and maintenance storage area and a directory map as is required. But if the maintenance office and the storage area is not part of this development, then, the applicant would need to convert one of the units in the second phase. So, that would be phased -- Jump Creek phase seven, to convert that into multi -- into the maintenance or office storage. However, the staff thinks the Planning Commission should determine whether or not that's acceptable, given that phase seven has not been approved with conditional use yet or whether there should be a temporary arrangement for that maintenance and that office to be within this current project. At the time of the certificate of zoning compliance we also believe they need to submit a common open space exhibit that was not proposed. We believe that they are -- they are probably in excess of it, but we still need to have that as part of the certificate of zoning compliance and, then, also staff believes that there should be two on-site amenities provided. We don't think it was clear with the original approval and that would Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F52 Page 49 of 95 come down to whether the Planning Commission actually thinks that is necessary or not and with that staff would entertain any questions or comments. McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Brown: He talks fast. Alan, do you have some kind of overall that you can -- McCarvel: Name and address for the record. Brown: Thank you very much. I'm going to do better. McCarvel: Is this your first time? Brown: Close. Tiefenbach: This shows the buildings and the parking and the -- all the landscaping. Brown: Yeah. But the site -- if you could show that that would help. The overall site. Tiefenbach: When you say the overall site -- Brown: Jump Creek itself. Tiefenbach: The entire subdivision? Brown: Yeah. Tiefenbach: The whole -- you are talking about you want to see the entire plat? Brown: Yes, please. Tiefenbach: If you -- let me search while you present and I will -- Brown: Okay. For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. McCarvel: Thank you. Brown: And if I was in Caldwell I would say I had been sworn in -- or sworn at. So, when this development was originally done in 2014, the comp plan wanted some higher density, so the plan that was approved and the development agreement was upon it had these apartments that are located here in the north and, then, in the very northwest corner of McMillan and Black Cat is the other portion of the -- the apartments. That's our future phase seven. I'm waiting for a drawing. The architect that was doing that, being fairly young, just recently passed away and so we are trying to find someone in their office to wrap those drawings up and get that submitted and have a conditional use. I was hoping to do both of them. I had the neighborhood meeting for this on -- on both of them at the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F53 Page 50 of 95 same time. So, between the 28 units that are here and the 44 units that is located to the south, it -- within the same Jump Creek development we want to have one management office that -- and maintenance storage for the -- for the entire Jump Creek multi-family development. All of the amenities that are in the single family portion the multi-family residents are allowed to use. So, the other part of -- the reason that they overall would really help is right across the street that entrance street that is on our west side on that site plan, that is the beginning of a four or five acre park with a tot lot area, covered picnic area that's already built and in place there. Big huge ball field that is adjacent. Yes. One of those would show it. So, as you are looking -- Tiefenbach: I'm looking to see if I have a colored elevation here. I'm just looking at the original staff report. This might be as good as we are going to get on the fly, Kent. Brown: So, when we were looking at it we thought that we had all the amenities and that the staff report said that this met the -- these -- the number of units, because the number of units were called out in that original one. So, in -- in that upper right-hand corner -- if he's not going to move it. Alan, don't move it. That's where the 28 units is located. Right across the street from that you can see the common area that's there and, then, that park space. The -- in the middle of that park space is -- is a tot lot and covered picnic area. That also, then, links to everything going down to the south with a walkway. There is a regional pathway that is on our boundary between us and Black Cat. It's a ten foot path that is a part of your regional facility going there. We can put two on-site amenities -- the ones that Alan called out, a covered bike parking and some raised beds. There -- there is plenty of grass and open space within the development. He said that as the Commissioners you -- you like those more attached. We are not opposed to that. We can do that. We can add more. But, specifically, I think for the most part when this plan was done in 2014 this concept of mixing the rentals and the single family ownership ones kind of was a new concept. I think we are seeing more and more of that today. I would say the builder kind of had to think about that or else we would have probably built it sooner. This portion right here, the phase four that we are looking at, has already been platted and that's why those improvements are in and installed and there is individual lots for each one of the four--four-plexes that is in this phase. It's already fenced with a fence around. It's actually a pretty good location, because that spine road that is Gondola that's along our southerly boundary connects into The Oaks property that is to the west of us and continues and, then, on the other side it goes over to -- on the other side of Black Cat there is -- in the Bridgetower development there is the Pleasant Valley Elementary School that's on the other side of Black Cat Road, fairly close to this location also. So, overall this is a good location for that and links well for these people, especially in the environment that we are in today that we see people that are renting and hoping to get into a house, this puts them in neighborhoods that -- where they can see other houses that might come up and they are a part of -- a part of that neighborhood and it kind of goes back to when years ago we designed Tuscany and we put really small cottage type lots in there and yet we had big estate type houses -- estate being 14 -- 1,400 square feet -- not these half acres or anything, but you have a mixture and as people progress in their lives they move back and forth in and out of that. This -- this design kind of does that same thing. We want to have one facility that -- the problem having a designated Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F54 Page 51 of 95 maintenance area for 28 units is that it's -- it's really costly to have that happen. I would say as guys approve a lot of these -- you know, I started talking to some kids that are going to ICOM and -- and said, you know, you are supposed to have a maintenance facility and an office and -- and they don't have one and we know that we are going to have one, but we just want to have one instead of one in the north and one in the south, which makes it really difficult for you to man that with employees or have that really as an office. I will stand for any questions that you might have. McCarvel: Are you open to -- I mean I think the question with the manager office is that -- if that other phase seven doesn't get built out then -- I mean if we put some wording in there that -- like that that -- you know, if that doesn't get built out, then, you are required to have -- Brown: Yes. And we would -- we would do. We -- and -- and I thought that that's the way that Alan had written the condition is we either provide it in phase seven or we provide a temporary one being one of the units, which is generally what -- in most of the apartments that I have done is that you go, okay, Building A, Apartment 101 , is your office for that -- that time period. We could do that as a temporary basis. We are okay with that. McCarvel: And, then, I guess the other question I had is are you open to putting a couple of amenities in? Because I do think -- I mean even though they are right across the street from that other beautiful park area, you know, they are rentals, so they don't necessarily have, you know, the backyard to have their own plant -- I like the idea of the planter bed. I mean something that those people don't have access to that the permanent homes do. So, the shade area and a planter bed or something like that. Brown: I think that the planter bed -- at least as I -- I'm talking about these ICOM students that are college students and they are -- they are busy -- really busy, it seems like they got finals every -- every other week and they are trying to get through there, but having a garden would be a great thing and that's -- I think that that's a really good amenity in apartments personally and, yeah, we are not opposed to putting two amenities in there. Yes, we -- we -- we have a grassy space that's fairly large in the overall site in the northwest side of that -- the unit space, that street in the backs of them there is -- there is a fairly large lawn in there. We could do that that three units back up to. Thank you. Sorry about that again. McCarvel: Okay. Brown: I hate watching myself when I go back and -- terrible. Terrible. McCarvel: We all do. Brown: Any other questions? McCarvel: Yeah. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F55] Page 52 of 95 Seal: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh, in stereo. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Kent, does that -- the parking there between building six and eight, that's not -- there is no plan to extend that in the future to -- Brown: No. Cassinelli: -- whatever is going to develop to the north? Brown: To the north has already been approved. There is a -- that's the other part that I didn't talk about is that we have this spine road that is along our southerly boundary. Along our northerly boundary is another spine road that goes into either Toll Brothers or Coleman to the north. So, yeah, there is -- there is no place to go there and it's already been platted, so -- and they didn't ask for a cross-access, so it's not connecting. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. And, then, I did -- another question for -- Joe, do you are -- or Joe --Alan. Sorry. Do you have -- do you have something you can show us on what is platted to the north? I'm just curious how those -- how those are going to kind of fit together and look. Tiefenbach: When you say to the north, are you saying the subdivision that's platted up to the north? Cassinelli: Yes. Just mentioned that there is a spine road there. Do you -- do you have a -- Brown: I bet Bill can find it. Tiefenbach: Bill, are you able to get that up? I can't get to that from this computer. Parsons: I'm happy to look that up, Alan. That actually platted as Oakmore Subdivision back in '18, 1 believe, when Coleman came back through and resubdivided that and I actually had -- Tiefenbach: You can probably get the preliminary lines up quicker than I can do it. Parsons: Well, they should be able to -- I can pull up the plat or send it to you, Alan, not a problem, but the intent was -- I had actually had Kent -- well, I -- Kent per se, but the CBH and Toll Brothers worked together on realigning that road a little bit better, so it did match up consistently with what they were doing on their south and what was happening on their property. So, it actually replatted the single family lots. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F56] Page 53 of 95 Tiefenbach: You could send it to me in the chat, I can just pull it up in realtime. Parsons: I will if I can dig that up here while -- if Commissioner Cassinelli will give us a few minutes to dig that information up and show you what that looks like. Tiefenbach: It would be quicker if you could do it on the chat. Cassinelli: That would be -- and that would be great. I just-- I'm curious how-- you know, that there is -- it's already been resolved, basically. There is not going to be a weird -- we are not going to have puzzle pieces that aren't going to fit a year from now. Parsons: We are -- that was the whole intent of them working together to make sure that it did align and work better for both groups. Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: So, give me a few seconds and I will pull it up. Cassinelli: Appreciate it. Thank you. Brown: But our intent is is to come back immediately with the conditional use for 44 units in southwest -- or southeast portion of the overall Jump Creek and they are specifically designing an office for this and hopefully others. I talked to him about that and I said, you know, Meridian has this code requirement with this office and I know that that becomes cumbersome to have an employee just for these individual developments, but we are doing a lot of these developments where we only have maybe 40 units or less in them and we need to come up with maybe something creative. Maybe you put some kind of kiosk that's in there that we can get approved as an alternative to putting a physical office where someone can go to, because I -- again, these medical students have become really personal friends and we kind of babysit their kids since we don't have any kids around anymore and they don't have anyplace where they can go and complain to someone and having something that they could go to -- kind of like they do -- they -- they have gone to with the multi -- multi or the storage facilities, something like that, that is technology, you know, taking the place of a physical office. I think that we -- you know, that they could do something like that. But right now they are designing a building that they can add an office to and it's not going to be a unit, it's going to be an office is what they have told me. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Excuse me. Kent, that will exist in that southern portion? Brown: Yes, it -- Cassinelli: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F57 Page 54 of 95 Brown: So, us doing a temporary would be very appropriate, if you are concerned about that, because I know that they want to move forward with construction on this one. All we would have to do is get the -- before you with a conditional use and we could move forward with the one in the south, we don't need to plat it, so I could be here with -- with that one. But it's going to be behind anything that happens to the one in the north. McCarvel: But if everybody stops moving to Boise and that other one doesn't get built out, then, you would be required to have one there. Brown: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Brown: Absolutely. Parsons: So, Commissioner Cassinelli, can you see the graphic up now? Cassinelli: Okay. That's in that last -- that five or -- five or six acres, whatever that is? Parsons: That is correct. So, if you see my cursor here along the south boundary, that's where the multi-family -- or this four-plex project butts up to, Toll Brothers property. Cassinelli: And -- and they both -- they have worked on this together? Brown: We had to kind of align our stub streets with each other and, then, I also did the development to the north of that, which was West Bridge, and it stubs into that one, too, on the other side. So, all the puzzling, as you have talked about, has been taken care of. Cassinelli: Already been figured out. Brown: We were the first ones in and kind of was going way out there -- what was considered way out there in 2014 and end of the recession -- end of the recession and it's not way out there anymore. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just on the -- as I was looking at the -- just the independent side, one of the buildings is pretty close to that -- to the one house, basically, that kind of touches it, disregarding the ones to the -- to the north now, but is -- is a property going to be fenced as it abuts -- Brown: It's already fenced. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F58 Page 55 of 95 Seal: It is already fenced? Okay. Wasn't -- wasn't sure that. And, then, I had -- I mean previously you have been really good at working with the HOAs in areas and getting agreements on everything. Are there actual agreements in the HOAs to allow for people to come in and use those amenities? Brown: Yes, there are. And I can provide that. Alan asked me did I get that and I got that. Seal: Great. Brown: Actually, I saw that the attorney had made a mistake and so we have modified that and just need to get it signed and -- and recorded. But -- but we did make the -- the changing for that wording and -- and my discussion with them was what we have always represented and from the very beginning is that all of these amenities is for the entire development and you can't cut these people out of -- of this overall project. They are a part of the pressure irrigation system and everything else. So, it needs to be a part and so they -- they have made that change. Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? I'm going to take a wild guess that we don't have anybody to testify on this, since I don't see anybody left in the -- Seal: There is one. McCarvel: -- chat and nobody in the room. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we did have several people that signed in. There was one person who was here to indicated a wish to testify, but it doesn't look like they are here anymore. There is Monica online. McCarvel: Oh, I'm sorry, we do have chats down there. Weatherly: No problem. Monica, hang on just a moment. McCarvel: Monica, you are -- you need to unmute and please state your name and address for the record. Gonsalves: Hi. My name is Monica Gonsalves and I live at 5409 North Willowside Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I'm actually a resident here in the subdivision in Jump Creek, so I just wanted to -- looking at the conceptual site plan that was approved with the development, the fencing was completely up across Black Cat. The fencing that they have up currently leaves an opening to Black Cat and multiple mornings when I'm driving out of our subdivision there are children that are standing and trying to cross the street to go to the new elementary school and it's a very big safety hazard seeing these little kiddos running across the street, traffic coming to a halt to let these kids go across the street to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F59 Page 56 of 95 Pleasant View Elementary. My biggest concern having school age children myself is the parking that we are going to be seeing on Black Cat further obstructing any type of view of children standing on the corner trying to get across the street to school in the morning and there is really no safety features in place currently to help these kids get across the street. There is no crosswalks. There is no light. There is nothing in place and it's really the traffic impact and the parking, that's just a huge cause for concern for our family and I know for our community that there is several children in this community -- I see them playing in parks all the time or community spaces, so very big cause for concern. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody else? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's all I see online and in house. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair -- sorry, Kent. A Janice just raised her hand online. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Janice, one moment, please. Janice, you need to unmute and please state your name and address for the record. Borchard: Hi. My name is Janice Borchard. 5277 North Maplestone in Gem Creek. 83646. We have a huge concern with traffic densities in the area. That -- that -- one's a huge one, because we are traversing and seeing all the traffic as people are cutting down Black Cat from Chinden versus going to Ten Mile and we are -- you know. And, then, cutting over McMillan or down on Ustick and, again, also we see the kids cutting across and there are no crosswalks at this point. So, that really really needs to be addressed. And, then, another concern that we have is there are densities down on both corners of McMillan and -- yeah. Huge densities of apartments, multi-family, and -- let us know -- I spoke to him a while back that McMillan is never going to be more than like two lanes and, then, the suicide lane, because of the high voltage and the irrigation. So, we are going to -- and, then, we have Prescott Ridge as a subdivision further to the west of us, you know, surrounding St. Luke's. There are going to be so -- there is going to be so much traffic density into this small little area it's unbelievable, you know, what's going to be impacting this immediate area and that's one thing. And, then, for this particular little group these rental units, are they going to pay HOA dues? Are they going to abide by the same HOA rules? You know, there is a lot of reasons why people buy in communities like we did where there are HOA rules. So, are these folks going to abide by the same kind of rules? So, that -- that's a very huge question also when it comes to rental units in, you know, these single family home areas. So, thank you very much for listening to me and I appreciate your input. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify? Okay. Seeing none, would the applicant like to reply. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F60 Page 57 of 95 Brown: For the record Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. This is on ACHD's capital improvement list. They have been buying right of way along Ten Mile to widen it and to take care of that traffic concern they required us to sell that entire length of public right of way and so that they can improve it and make it larger. The first lady -- was it Monica had talked about these residents parking on Black Cat. That would be like me trying to park on Eagle Road next to my house. You wouldn't last very long and you are not allowed to do that. Currently there is kind of a shoulder there, but that's all intended to go away and it's a part of ACHD's current-- current property. These residents in this development are a part of the HOA for Jump Creek. They are paying dues. They are -- that's a part of what they are -- they are doing and that's -- that's why we had to make that amendment for them to be able to use those facilities, but they are -- they are a part of the HOA. They have landscaping that's around the outside that the -- the overall HOA takes care of and the multi-family portion is paying their percentage of that. The part that is different is that private or parking lot area, those residents take care of that part and if you were to require us to have two amenities within that we wouldn't require the rest of the HOA to pay for those -- those facilities. Like a raised bed, for example, if there was maintenance or something that needed to take place with that. McCarvel: Okay. Brown: Any other questions or -- McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Kent, do you know is -- is there a -- a plan for a HAWK signal in there? Brown: Not that I have heard of, but I think that that's one of the things that the residents are still on and I would encourage you as Commissioners to remind people that they are paying taxes, just like I'm paying taxes, and if they see an issue like that, ACHD is more than willing -- I mean that -- that school opened up this year, so it's -- it's a new thing. Cassinelli: Is there school zone lighting speed -- speed control there on Black Cat? Brown: Not on Black Cat, because they are off like one row of houses or so. They are -- they are at least three or four hundred feet down Gondola to the -- to the east of it. Cassinelli: Okay. Because I know that's even -- you know, Meridian Road has a school zone, even though Meridian Elementary is off a block. So, it's certainly something that -- Brown: That they could -- they could look at doing and what they need to do is -- I used to tell him to talk to Terry Little that was over traffic. I don't know if Terry's -- Terry's old like me, so whether he's still there or not, but they need to talk to the traffic division of ACHD. Baird: Madam Chair, I could add a plug for the Meridian Transportation Commission. Contact Miranda Carson with the police department and express -- have the residents Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F61 Page 58 of 95 express their concerns and have that addressed by the Commission to make a recommendation to ACHD. Brown: Good idea. Baird: We are with you. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Concerns all appreciated and very legitimate, it's just we have nothing to say about it, so -- yeah. Any other questions, comments for staff for the applicant? If not, would, please, entertain a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0018. Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021- 0018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: I think -- yeah, it was something that was already planned for. I don't see any issues, other than the ones we have already addressed with the management office and having those two amenities. Do we think need to address those in a motion or clearly stated in the staff report, I'm not sure. Seal: Madam Chair, the two site amenities shall be provided -- was part of the staff report in there. The other was more of a question on the management office. But it sounds like he is an agreement to add something in there temporarily and, then, probably be temporary in name only, because it sounds like the other is going to provide occupancy -- occupancy about the same time, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Seal: -- that's what it sounds like tome. Unless Alex wants to say otherwise. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: When we -- when we get there do we have to say anything that -- Kent talked about utilizing technology for that, but do we need to make it clear that it will be a staffed office? That's because I think that's what's required, is that not correct, Bill? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F62 Page 59 of 95 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's not necessarily stated that way in the code. It just says provide one. I know some of the other developments there is -- there is an apartment complex -- 48 unit apartment complex in Gramercy where they actually built a 100, 150 square foot office building and it's -- it's basically electronics. Someone comes in and leases from there and that's about it. Once it gets rented up no one is there full time. They just use it as a leasing office to add tenants to the complex, so it's -- you know, there is nothing that says it has to be staffed in the code. It just says provide one. But that's up to you guys if you want it -- want to require that or not in the conditional use. A lot of times you will have tenants that live right -- you know, they are taking care of the apartments and they rent one of their apartments or live in one of the units. That's pretty common these days, too. So, again, it's -- for staff it's really going to come down to the CC&Rs and how this multi-family development plays with the rest of the single family. It really needs to be integrated as one development. The staff report from 2014 didn't state it that way and I -- I worked on the project, so I remember doing that. I think at the time we were very supportive of that integration happening, because of the fact that we didn't see that in many developments in the City of Meridian, so it was something new. At the time that we were coming out of that recession we were seeing a need for more than just single family homes and we had a deficit in multi-family and so I worked with the -- this developer to specifically incorporate some of that into this development at the corner. So, again, that's why we got more open space to support what they are trying to do here. But, again, the code requires those -- those office buildings and maintenance buildings as part of the development and that's something that -- I think I like the approach of it being interim on the one site until such time as they have something more permanent on their southern -- on the southern portion of the site. All contingent on what Mr. Brown testified to as far-- as long as it's all unified and part of the CC&Rs of this development of Jump Creek. To me that -- that's a critical point, because we want that enforcement to be handled under one umbrella, not multiple entities out there not following the same rules. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, can I follow up -- follow-up question on that? So, right now, Bill, are all the -- or Alan, are all the conditions -- the conditions for the temporary management office and maintenance room and -- and the shared amenities with the rest of the development are already in your conditions; is that correct? Tiefenbach: That is correct. We already mentioned that the question was whether the Planning Commission was okay with having the interim office there or whether they want it to be permanent. Cassinelli: Okay. So, a motion approved with your conditions includes that? Tiefenbach: Correct. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Anymore comments or motions? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F63] Page 60 of 95 Tiefenbach: I'm double checking the conditions for you right now to read them for you verbatim if you would like. Here is what it says. It says the site plan -- landscape plan submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance shall be revised to depict the management plan, maintenance storage area and directory map. That's -- that's one. And, then, there is A. If a management office and storage area is not part of this development, the applicant shall convert one of the units in the second phase of the multi- family development currently being filed in Jump Creek for such use. So, the comment that we had for the Planning Commission is whether they wanted to make it clear that there would be an internal one temporarily there until phase seven was built. That part's not stated. Does that make sense? Because the way it reads right now it says a permanent one. It doesn't say temporary until the phase seven is built. McCarvel: Okay. Tiefenbach: So, you would add the interim language to your motion if you wanted to do that. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: So, is phase seven the multi-unit portion of it? Tiefenbach: Yes, ma'am. So, this is the first multi-family and, then, the second portion is phase seven. Lorcher: Okay. Cassinelli: Are we ready? McCarvel: I believe so. Seal: I think we are ready. McCarvel: Motions are always in order. Cassinelli: Okay. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move for approval of file number H-2021-0018 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2021, with the following modifications: We amend the language on the main -- on the management office and maintenance building to -- to allow for an -- to change it to an interim office and maintenance until such time that phase seven is built out and one is permanently installed in phase seven and, then, that unit can be, then, converted and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F64 Page 61 of 95 rented out. That we -- that they add in an amenity, such as a planter bed -- are we just doing one? McCarvel: It's in there that they are required two. Cassinelli: Okay. Two? Okay. That there is the two amenities and that that's required. And just confirmation that -- that the HOA is a part of the main development and all the amenities and those are shared. Tiefenbach: Sir, did you want to mention about staffing or not? I wasn't sure that was discussed. Cassinelli: No. Just go with what the standard -- Seal: Second. Cassinelli: -- language is. McCarvel: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve H-2021-0018. All those in favor say aye. With conditions. Sorry. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 9. Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. McCarvel: Okay. Onto our final item ZOA-2021-0002, UDC Text Amendment. And, Bill, the floor is yours. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I appreciate you recognizing that the product name had changed. That's one of the improvements we have made with all of our updates to our Accella system. So, thank you for that, Madam Chair. If you recall I was here before you guys about a month ago with a UDC text amendment, which was expedited at the request of Council and city and the mayor and at this time I informed you at that hearing that I was going to be coming forward with a longer-- a larger code amendment and it would include multiple sections of the code. So, in tonight's presentation I don't think I'm going to go line by line through every code change. I don't think we have the bandwidth or the time to do that this evening, but I do want to highlight some of the major changes for all of you, because although there is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F65] Page 62 of 95 updates throughout the code, the primary theme of this update before you tonight is really changes to our open space. Not only our -- so, it would be our open space and site amenities, also our multi-family standards, and this also includes our landscape improvements -- or landscape standards as well in the code. So, this is -- some of this is a significant overhaul and a lot of it has come about over the years -- I have been with -- trying to come up with a solution to improve our open space and amenities over the last five years. That's a lot of -- some of the concern or at least a lot of the feedback that we received as part of our Comprehensive Plan update back a year and a half or so ago. People wanted better amenities. They wanted a sense of identity, a sense of place, community identity I guess is the better word and, then, coming up with better or more quality open space and that's what we hope we have achieved here with some of these changes tonight. I know Commissioner Seal was -- was part of that UDC open space committee. Again, thank you for your service on that. It was very instrumental in getting us to this and I also want to introduce Lacy Ooi with us. She's from code enforcement. She is going to be here to answer any questions you may have regarding the first part of the presentation. So, if you had a chance to read the staff report you will notice that broke up all of the code changes into five separate exhibits and I did that purposefully, so that if we have any changes as we go through the public hearing process it's going to be easier for me to modify those documents, rather than cut and paste out of the staff report, insert new documents. Things could get lost in translation if that -- if that was to occur. So, the first exhibit that I'm going to share with you tonight really has to do with what Lacy does in her business. She's -- she's tasked within the UDC to enforce our city code and not only the UDC, but all of the city codes, and so give me a second here, I will go ahead and share those screens and the reason why this came about -- and let me know if you -- guess it didn't open up here. And the reason why these code changes came about so quickly -- typically, as you know, if -- when we go through these code changes we vet those through the UDC focus group, a larger group to get feedback and -- and this is one where it recently came to my attention from not only Lacy's team, but also city attorney's office, where they had a series of court cases that came up, they went to go prosecute and for some reason or other the judge felt we didn't adequately address that in our code and so they -- her and legal quickly came up with some of these code changes. Again, I won't go through all of these, but most of it -- it doesn't really impact development per se. Again, it's just giving them better tools to enforce our code. So, hopefully, all of you have had a chance to look at this. If there is any particular questions on this exhibit -- I want to try to keep this presentation informal this evening. I think there is not a lot of people online or even in the audience tonight, so I think in my experience with all of you, an open discussion on these changes has always been kind of the -- the approach that we have taken, so don't -- don't feel like you can't interject or ask questions as I'm moving through these things very quickly. But I do want to be sensitive and I do want to spend adequate time and make sure that you guys understand what we are trying to do with all of these changes. So, any questions of either staff or even Lacy this evening on some of these procedural changes to the UDC, particularly the definitions or where people can park their RVs on their property, that's a -- that's a hot button these days if you didn't know. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F66 Page 63 of 95 Wheeler: Madam Chair? Just a quick question. Yes. Exactly. That's exactly where I was with the boats and the RV there. So, is this to state that -- that is not that -- is in violation to be able to park a -- or if somebody parks a boat or RVs or UTVs on the side of the street? Parsons: I will go ahead and defer to Lacy. She's the one that deals with it more than we do. We just tell people the code and how they can come into compliance. Wheeler: Okay. Parsons: It's really her group that has to try to -- to work with the residents to get them to come into compliance. So, she can give you all the stories you want on that. Ooi: I'm new here, but I like informal, so if that's okay I'm definitely free to answer -- Wheeler: Very good. Ooi: So, currently you cannot park any recreational type vehicles. So, trailers, boats, campers, anything on your driveway or anywhere in the front of your property. It has to be on the side yard behind a screened fence or in your rear yard. Seal: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: So, the revision is doing what? Ooi: So, the revision would be to allow them to have one of any of the described types of vehicles in their required street yard. So, they could have one boat -- or on their side yard. So, it would allow for one of the recreational type vehicles to be either on their driveway or on their side yard. Wheeler: But not in front of their house in front of the street; is that correct? Ooi: It can already be on the street -- on the roadway they are allowed and that's what happens is that we will go and tell people they can't have them in their driveway, so, then, they all move them onto the roadway, because they can do that for three days. We would encourage them to be off the roadway and actually allowed to have them on the driveway, because when they are cleaning them up, taking them out, packing them up, they don't have a place to be able to do that that they are allowed. So, overactive -- no. Active HOAs will do drive throughs and give us reports of every address -- you know, starting Memorial Day through Labor Day we will get calls for them throughout the entire season every time someone brings them back into their home. Wheeler: That seems sensible. Seal: Madam Chair? Being a trailer owner myself -- and I have one on the side of my house -- how do you -- how do you prevent people from living in them when they are out Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F67 Page 64 of 95 there? I mean that -- that would be my concern. I understand -- I totally understand why people want to do this, but I just want to make sure we are not -- Ooi: So, the code won't actually change that. There is a separate code that addresses living quarters. So, using them as sleeping quarters would still be addressed, things that would still be addressed are also if they are on an unimproved surface, if they are not registered, if they don't have current license plates. So, a lot of these are just really the ones of just average use, when it comes to any of the additional violations that come with them, those ones would still be enforceable based on the way that the rewrite allows. So, there is still a section that says inoperative vehicles. So, if it's not -- you know, if they are piecing it out, even if it's on the front, that would also be restricted. The -- living in a camper, whether it's on the front of their driveway or on the side of their house, is usually a patrol function. So, we send those complaints over for police to make contact with. If it's behind the property we will send them a notice and just hope that they stop, but we utilize the neighbor, whoever the calling party is, to be a witness to that. So, if it's continuing to occur, then, the violation can continue to occur and it will get sent to court for that violation. McCarvel: I think I see in here the neighborhoods can choose to enforce it privately in their CC&Rs. So, this just takes the burden off the city -- Ooi: Right. McCarvel: -- and if you still want an HOA to live in a place where it's not allowed then -- but, then, they have got to enforce it themselves. Ooi: Right. So, the contention that we usually see comes from older neighborhoods that don't have CC&Rs. So, the -- if you look at newer neighborhoods that have CC&Rs, a lot of them restrict the RVs on the driveways anyway or sometimes it gives them a time frame, 48 hours or 72 hours that they can keep them, and if they were to govern those rules they are usually reasonable. But we are oftentimes utilized by their drive-throughs and they will give us the list. So, the way I see it citizens are paying for their HOA dues to a property management company to call us that they are paying taxes to also serve them. So, he would force that burden back to them to enforce the regulations that they put in place. Or older neighborhoods -- this -- this UDC change was put into effect in 2005 and a lot of the older neighborhoods had plats made with permits issued through the city allowing electrical hookups to charge the RVs on pads that don't meet parking standard requirements. So, just today one of my officers got in a confrontation and it was one person working on a motorhome in the driveway, she got called because of the parking on the sidewalk. So, she goes up to go issue a warning or citation for the sidewalk, there is someone there, she makes that contact and homeowners come out, too, and as she's in the middle of a driveway she's got a male and female homeowners come out and all three of them start in on her. So, it makes for a really dangerous situation for something that's not really necessary, where if we could just go and put that citation for blocking the sidewalk, they don't fit it in their driveway if it's not on the sidewalk, so we can cite them for that, get it onto the roadway and have it properly marked. But the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F68 Page 65 of 95 confrontation and the threats that we receive, based on the way that we are constantly having to contact people on private property for this, puts us in huge danger. So, when we can address the other issues or call patrol for assistance, that's a lot better for our code officers that are unarmed. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Having served on the HOA -- I mean the only concern I have about this is because the HOAs were -- I mean a lot of them are so poorly written, the only enforcement that they really have is to call code enforcement. I mean because generally speaking everything is less restrictive -- restrictive or as restrictive as city code, just trying to put more teeth into it. So, my only concern is that if anything's rolled back to where code enforcement isn't an avenue, then, essentially, people just -- they don't care. And we have a couple people in our subdivision that literally don't care. They just -- and it's -- and it's difficult, because, you know, of course, our HOA board is made up of retirees and they are not going to be confrontational at all, so I just -- I want to make sure that we are still leaving that avenue open. The code enforcement can definitely get involved and if it escalates from there, obviously, law enforcement. Ooi: So, to address that one, I have been doing this for 11 years and I can tell you two addresses that for 11 years I have chased their RV around, because as soon as -- here is the way the process works. If I'm going to go up -- and pre-COVID we would usually knock on every single door, now we are a little more cautious or we will just send them a notice and we might see -- like leave a door hanger, but not attempt contact. But we are going to try to make some contact. We are going to come out and take an original photo just to show that it's there. So, let's say the HOA has called us and we are going to come out there. That's the process. So, we are going to go out, we are going to make our initial contact or initial photos and, then, if we have made contact and -- or left a note, hey, you know, to say move this at this time frame. We usually give them a couple of days -- five days or something on trying to --just with a verbal, it usually opens dialog. They will call us and if they don't do anything we are going to come back and we are going to say it's still here and we are going to now send them a notice. We are required to send them a notice of violation. It's going to give them a deadline with reasonable time to comply. So, usually reasonable is ten days. In some cases for people that we have done this for 11 years we think reasonable is a little less than ten days, because they are well informed. But usually we give them ten days and usually a half an hour before the deadline of that 5:00 o'clock tenth day they put it on the street, they will put it on the street for three days, we will clear our call and, then, they will put it back in their driveway, where we, then, have to notify them again. So, as much as it sounds like a better option for HOAs, we are not in any better position. So, I know -- what was that, six months ago, a year ago that we were trying to get the penalties changed. We looked at trying to make it a sizable offense to say this is a problem for us, let's make these penalties sizable. We will try that route and when we talked to the prosecutor's office, they won't send summons for the infractions, because it costs more in court costs to be able to get someone into summons. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F69 Page 66 of 95 So, we didn't have the option of changing it to a more reasonable penalty that we can be able to resolve and when it came down to it, all of the other UDCs that we have penalties that are misdemeanors that go through our process, everything else can work with an end result. A daycare operating without a license. They are either going to get their permit--their home occupation permit or they are going to choose not to or they are going to stop running the operation completely. If they choose not to, we can send that to court. But when the compliance can be resolved every time they move their vehicle and, then, restart every time, we can't get teeth on it, so, then, we re-evaluated -- it's not the UDC that needs to be changed, it's this one code. So, I looked at 2020 stats on this -- 173 calls for service with the parking standards involving 200 vehicles. If these amendments were changed the same call, the same year, if we allowed them to have one -- one recreational vehicle that's licensed with registration -- and to following all the rules. We are not talking vehicles that aren't registered that are in horrible conditions, we are talking just your standard operating -- a guy who has a trailer that works out of his home and brings his trailer every day landscaping, something like that. Our call load would be 71 calls. One hundred and two of those calls would go away. One hundred and two confrontations, one hundred two possible complaints. The people that we contacted today, that was the exact threat, I'm going to Council. I'm going to the Mayor's office. I'm going to talk to your boss. Every single time it's anger and a confrontation. The citizens -- majority of the citizens -- and I'm taking it from a complaint basis; right? There might be a hundred other happy people that don't have to look at that trailer, but what I see is my code officers daily being put in competition positions over something that's being handled on private property that otherwise isn't violating any other code, other than something that's usually coming and going. These ones that we are talking about that are actual problems would still be addressed. What we ended up with is the neighbor wars. He brought the trailer back. The boat's back. Duck hunt -- duck season. I mean we are -- it's constant and so we are just trying to look for a way that takes some of that threat away. I know that people have gone to Council, I know that people talk to the Mayor, it's constantly one of those things where citizens aren't happy with the code. So, it's just time to come up with some sort of in between. Seal: Okay. That makes sense. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or -- do you have anything else, Bill? Parsons: I was just going to add -- kind of piggyback on what Lacy was saying is that this is really-- I think this one's coming more from Council than anything, too. It's -- they have talked about this round and around in many City Council meetings and I know Councilman Cavener is very passionate about doing something with this section of code. So, hopefully, will -- as this kind of transitions through the public hearing process I'm hoping we will garner some support on this, just to help our team members here. Seal: Bill, one -- one thing I will say is with the HOAs that are out there -- and overactive is probably the right word, not active. There will likely be some kickback on this from the HOAs, because they want it more restrictive, not less restrictive, and I think this is going to make it less restricted. With the wording that's in there I think it protects -- it protects Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F70 Page 67 of 95 from just having, you know, a piece of junk basically laying beside your house, so it may -- it enforces to keep it registered, to keep it running, to keep it -- you know, something that you are going to have. But, again, I -- in the -- some of the HOAs in the way that they go about things, they generally want to be more restrictive. Ours, for instance, you can't -- our HOAs literally say that if you are a permanent resident you can't park on the street. Yeah. You have to park in your garage or in your driveway, you can't park on the street, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I mean I deal with the HOA as well and, then, thinking if--you know, maybe you resort to fining, instead of involving the city. It's like -- it's just -- you know, after one or two notices and you start getting fined and a lien on the property and -- I mean -- Seal: Oh, yeah. We have got lots of liens and the fines are a sticky situation, because, then, of course, you have to have somebody to collect the fine and now you are talking money. Ooi: One of the other things that was added in here -- there was previously a loophole -- and let me tell you, people will find the loopholes and they learn how to work it in a way that we can't counter it. So, when we added -- you know, one of the things we added in was a gross vehicle weight. So, if you are going to say that one recreational or any of these other type vehicles are allowed, we added in the gross vehicle weight of 16,000 pounds, because, really, an F-350 is over 12,000 pounds, which is allowed on the road, but it's-- you know, you can't actually park an F-350 on a road, because it's over the gross vehicle weight. But to add that, because we get the dump -- like semi trucks coming in on driveways, so we added the gross vehicle weight, so that we did have a restriction and, then, the other thing we added was listing those specialized vehicles, UTVs, ATVs, which we included the jet skis -- I have two properties that hoard jet skis and they are not a vehicle, so they -- they -- and they aren't junk and so there is this thing where I have these properties with probably eight jet skis on their properties, so by adding this it also gives us a little bit more authority to be able to enforce against these other things that people do on the front of their properties. Seal: I do not envy your job. Ooi: Neither do I. Cassinelli: I muted myself, instead of unmuting. So, does -- does the 16,000 pounds agree with the RV or is there a conflict there? Ooi: They will be separate, because the recreational vehicles are listed as allowed. Like currently you can't park a vehicle on the roadway that's over 12,000 pounds, except RVs are exempt. So, the same thing is by listing them as allowed -- allowing one recreational vehicle, one camper trailer, then, those will be allowed. But a vehicle, which is defined by the state of Idaho, can't be over 16,000 pounds. So, it will be automobiles and pickup Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F71 Page 68 of 95 trucks, anything that's a vessel that can be registered, then, it would have to be registered under 16,000 pounds to meet the gross vehicle weight -- weight rating corrected. Cassinelli: But -- Ooi: Yeah. Okay. Cassinelli: But an RV, even if it's over 16,000 pounds, is allowed? Ooi: Yes. Because it's listed as allowed. Cassinelli: Okay. Does that need to be -- it says both. Does it need to be changed at all to say -- with the exception of approved vehicles above or something? Ooi: I don't think so. I think that's what that headshake means. Cassinelli Okay. Ooi: Okay. Baird: Okay. Emily wrote it, so we are good. Ooi: Okay. Seal: A question on the -- I mean, essentially, you are talking about anything with a T plate; right? Ooi: So -- Seal: And I ask because, I have a truck with a T plate that sits in the driveway. Ooi: Yeah. So, right now it's not allowed anyway. Anything over 12,000 pounds isn't currently allowed in your driveway. Seal: So, don't -- so don't drive by. Cassinelli: Can we get your address? Ooi: Yeah. Cassinelli: Not to dox you, but -- Ooi: Right. So, I'm trying to look at this and not get completely sidetracked, but we tried to list it when we described them as vehicles that could be licensed and registered would be listed first and, then, those specialty vehicles were listed afterwards. So, what we are looking for is that license that it's current and invalid. So, that's the intent is to have current Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F72 Page 69 of 95 and valid vehicles. We don't go out looking for vehicles that are over 16,000 pounds rated. You would have to run the license plate for that. So, we are responding to a complaint. So, sometimes those come in when people try -- like running a home occupation and maybe they are like remodel something or restoration companies and they have these large cargo box vans. So, unless they are doing like interstate travel, they really can usually rate them under that and we don't have any enforcement on that. So, you are choosing to rate your vehicle you are going to end up with a T plate -- Seal: Yeah. Ooi: -- because you are choosing to rate it higher than that. But you probably wouldn't -- you wouldn't receive that call. Seal: Okay. McCarvel: Any other comments from staff or any other presentation? Parsons: If there is -- if there is no other questions for Lacy, I would certainly ask -- she doesn't have to stay. She's more than welcome to leave, unless you guys have other questions, but I think I can handle it from here. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Parsons: All right. Ooi: Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. Thank you forjoining us. Lacy. So, the -- the next round of changes are really ones that I handle throughout the year. As you know, I take care of -- I keep a running list of code changes throughout the year. These are the ones that I take -- meet with the UDC focus group and get input from every -- all of our stakeholders before we bring those to you. So, I'm very familiar with these code changes. Some of the ones that you heard last month were going to be part of this presentation tonight, but, again, because of that request of expediting those, I went ahead and removed those from the list here. You can see here these -- these range from Lacy's changes from Chapter 1, all the way to Chapter 7 of the code -- of the UDC anyways. So, we want to -- some of the changes tonight to discuss with you -- you can see here that we are raising -- and I would also mention to the Commission that we say what we are trying to fix and why we are fixing that. So, I think that's the importance of this table here. One, we are changing code, but why are we changing code, and we try to do that regularly. Some of the code changes you have tonight couldn't get to that level of detail, just because a rewrite -- we are in the process of rewriting an entire ordinance and that's in regards to the open space and site amenity. So, be hard to give you commentary for every code change that we did, but I can tell you that not only were these changes and the open space changes that we are going to discuss a little bit later, they were fully vetted through a very talented group of people. And, again, we appreciate their time in participating in that, because it Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F73] Page 70 of 95 is a huge effort to do that and take your time out of your busy schedules to participate in these activities. So, it's something that we do take very very serious. I also had the pleasure of sharing these changes with the BCA, which is the Building Contractors of Southwest Idaho is -- that's the technical term, but I like to get in front of our developers or even our home builders and just share what's coming down the pipeline and -- and you can see with the public comments submitted from them today that they like to be involved and active as well in the process. So, I will go ahead and move quickly through some of these. I think some -- I will highlight some of the more prominent changes for you. I think it's obvious what we are trying to do on some of these. Remember, one of the changes that we are trying to do is -- that's particularly of interest to our development community is probably 11-313-14C, right here at the end of this first page here, and it has to do with certificate of occupancy for subdivisions. So, a lot of you don't get involved in this, but what will happen is you all approve subdivisions and, then, there is the construction period and during that construction period there is ways of getting the plat recorded without actually building anything. You can just put up the money for that to guarantee those improvements are met and still record a plat. It doesn't mean you can get a building permit, it just means you have a recorded document and what we are finding with the high level of demand for homes -- a few years ago was the delay in getting just help -- you couldn't get any contractor to help you, because there wasn't the workforce and now we are seeing there is a delay in building materials, because of the number of homes going up and so typically in my world or planning's world is we don't let anyone move into their homes until the subdivision is one hundred percent complete. That means all amenities in, all landscaping in, fencing in per the approved plans and what we have noticed is we have had to make exceptions these last several years, because they just can't get materials to finish the work, but we have always collected what we call a surety to do that work and so in working with our development partners we came up with this solution to allow them to continue to get C of O's, let people move in, the intention upon us having C of O, with the expectation that those improvements would be done at -- at the end of -- 90 days after the first C of O was issued for the development. I can tell you some of that -- that 90 day was still pretty tight for some of the feedback that we received with the group. They were -- they were wanting us to push that to almost 180 days, because they said what if -- what if we need people moving in in November and that may not get you far enough into spring to get the materials to do that work, because of the weather here in Idaho. So, we went ahead and said, well, we are going to stick with 90 for now, but it's something that we need to track in our process as we go through as part of our process improvements. Is this adequate? I don't know. Again, staff is guessing that 90 days might be sufficient, but maybe 120, 160, 180, may be prudent at this point, so -- and I will go ahead and go through all of this and, then, we can go back to some of these and have questions on it, as a transition. I think another one of particular interest for this body is the parking for multi-family. You can see we are actually making some changes this time. We are classifying studios as providing one and, then, we are also having a requirement for guest parking and this is pretty similar to what we saw from our -- our neighbor to the east in Boise. So, I took that right out of their code that they -- the developer would have to provide guest parking, one per ten dwelling units -- for every ten dwelling units. The other change on this sheet is our flex space standards. We are starting to see an uptick in flex space throughout the community and the need for that and currently we don't allow Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F74 Page 71 of 95 rolling doors or loading docks in those districts and so we have -- we have met with the development community, we understand their concern, and as long as they can screen it or put it behind the building there may be cases where it's appropriate and that's why we are adding that it can be, as long as it's not visible from the street. We don't want them in front of the building, but it might work in behind the building. So, that's one change we have going forward. Another one -- this one may be of interest to Commissioner Cassinelli -- concerns with public hearing signs. When we started meeting with the UDC focus group we had a vision that the city may take over posting of properties and as we had the larger discussion with the group we realized there is a lot of liability the city would have to take on if we were to take that -- provide that service to our -- our applicants and so we decided to remove that portion of the language from the code, but we did try to reinforce that signs need to be fastened securely and they have to provide documentation with photos, a map of where they placed the signs, so that we can at least have an accurate record that it was done. I know this body's heard on a regular basis where people have gone in and kicked over signs or the wind blowing them over or something happened to the sign as it was going through the public hearing process that led you to question what had happened and what --why this occurred. We don't have a real answer. All we can really do is go to the public record and let you know that we received the affidavit, we have the proof of posting and they met code requirements. We don't physically go out to the site and verify that it's been posted. This is a new change also underneath the public hearing process. What we see throughout -- at least from my perspective and the team's perspective, when we transition between Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council sometimes there is not always enough time for the applicant to get us revised plans and so it's really hard for us to update our staff report or articulate the changes to both, either you or the City Council. So, I wanted to make sure that whatever we do if you guys require changes to plans or City Council, that we have some kind of time frame built into the code, so that we could adequately analyze those changes and bring back a formal recommendation on those changes to you and have modified conditions of approval should you want to act on that once you see the revised plans and I think, again, some of the feedback that I had on this particular code change or addition is just adding more time to the development process and, unfortunately, sometimes when -- and this body sees it time and time again -- sometimes we have developments that just aren't ready yet and we have to condition the heck out of it and, ultimately, we are continuing anyways, going back and getting a redesign and, then, bringing it back with -- with modified conditions. But to me this just kind of puts a finer plan to what the expectations are moving forward. I would also let you know with some of the software updates that we are going to be implementing here in the next couple months, we will actually be able to send an e-mail back to the applicant saying you need to upload revised plans or you are not going to your hearing and that will only -- that will help staff -- my -- my staff to understand that they have to review the plans and it will also inform the city clerk that there is other plans that need to be uploaded to the public record. So, it should be a pretty interesting tool. We will see how this all plays out and I'm looking forward to some of the changes that are coming your way here in the next couple months. Here is some of the surety agreements. Again, this kind of coincides with some of the changes that we had up above, that 180 day window, or at least giving the developer some flexibility to get people moving into their homes quicker if we have a surety in place. So Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F75 Page 72 of 95 that coincides. And, then, the last modification on this table is just the density formula for PUD standards. I think this body is very aware that we do not-- no longer regulate density in the UDC. It's a function of the Comprehensive Plan now and so we found this one interesting hold over in the code and so we just decided to go ahead and get it cleaned up while we were doing this round of updates currently. So, again, overall I think a lot of the feedback from the -- the committee -- UDC focus group was positive. They do endorse some of the -- a majority of these changes. But, again, as I noted earlier, they would like that window to be extended from 90 days to potentially 120 to 160 days. With that I will kind of just stand for questions for this section of the code changes this evening. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Bill, I have a stupid question. It's late enough at night that I can have a stupid question I think, but is there a place on the city's website where you can easily find what public notices are -- are currently out in the public, where it -- you don't have to -- I drive by things and I see public notices and, then, I'm like, oh, yeah, I will remember -- time to figure out what that is, but it doesn't -- I never remember and -- I don't know. Is there an easy way to just quickly see what those things are about? Parsons: Well, we have -- we have implemented, so -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner, there is not an easy -- we don't have a database that does that. What we do is when we accept an application we actually have mapping -- a mapping system on our website where residents, if they do see a sign, they have the ability to go to our website, click on a map and see what that project is. That's how we track that. And, then, if -- if all the publishing information the clerk's keep on the project folder on laserfiche, so that's where we have all of that information. But there is no database per se that shows where all the postings are and where the projects are. For the public to have easy access, except for that map that I -- and we call it the active hearing level map and it's on our website now and it's actually been -- I have -- I know I have tried to guide residents through that as much as possible, because it really does keep them informed as to what's happening in your area. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: And, Bill, we got -- on the noticings, if the city is going to take it over, is that going to be fee driven? Parsons: Well, we are not going to. That's what I said. We had toyed with it, but we decided not to, because of the liability, getting people -- property owner's permission, having -- having to go onto somebody else's property, just -- it didn't seem warranted. Based on feedback from the UDC focus group, they did note that Boise reverted -- Boise used to do that and they actually changed their code, went back and put it back on the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F76 Page 73 of 95 applicant to do it. So, I don't know if there is any value add to that. But certainly we don't want to proceed -- at least staff doesn't want to proceed with that without knowing all of the obstacles or things that we may have to take on by doing that and, yes, we would have to go and create a fee to do that and analyze what that would cost the city to do and we would pass that onto the -- to the applicant as part of the application process. Seal: Okay. Yeah. That's just -- as things are coming about and the city is trying to expand what it's able to offer -- or capable of offering as far as technology and ease of use, fees for something like that could definitely contribute to that, so -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Bill, a couple of questions. On the multi-family parking, are those numbers -- are those increased from what's been required in the past? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, no. Well, the -- the ones in the middle for one, two, three, and four plus bedrooms, those are what currently are in code and, then, the underlying are the new addition to the parking standards. So, we have added -- or better defined what parking is going to be required, because we are starting to even see more studios come online and -- and so working with the development community and hearing what we have heard from all of you saying you don't -- you meet the minimums, but you don't have any -- where is the guests going to park? So, this is kind of staff's best guess as saying, hey, this -- this could provide that additional parking that we keep hearing over and over from -- not only you, but City Council. Cassinelli: When you got these numbers -- you say you -- you got these from Boise? Parsons: The guest spaces I did. But as far as the studio, that came from the UDC focus group. We all kind of agreed that, you know, there is really no bedroom with a studio, but it acts like a one bedroom, so it made sense to assess a one bedroom per dwelling for a studio. Cassinelli: Is the -- on the guest is -- did you -- did you just pull it out of their standards or did you talk to somebody over there? Is that -- and do they -- is that enough, one in ten? Parsons: I did not speak with any staff members over at the city of Boise. Again, I just went to their code, because I remember researching this -- I don't know, 18 months ago, and saw that standard in there and -- and, then, I kind of took one of our larger multi- families and I times it by that and I go, okay, that seems to be a reasonable amount. I mean if you have a 240 unit apartment it's pretty easy math; right? You get 24 guest stalls. That seemed to be a good visitor overflow parking number. It might even be excessive, but -- Cassinelli: But on a smaller unit that may not be enough. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F77 Page 74 of 95 Parsons: You got it. Or it may not be necessary. But, again, that's what the conditional use permit is for. That kind of goes back to our earlier discussion this evening is that you have the ability to prescribe something more with a CUP. So, if you don't feel it's -- it's appropriate or you feel more parking is required, that's certainly your purview. Cassinelli: And, Madam Chair, if I may, another question. McCarvel: Sure. Cassinelli: Bill, on the -- on the roll-up doors on the flex space, what -- is there a -- is there a mechanism there for-- if it's -- if it's kind of a --you know, a modern industrial type of this base with a -- with a -- you know, with a -- I don't know, whatever you want to call it -- some, you know, kind of a cool architectural design, it's got cool roll-up doors, not your industrial roll-up doors. Is there something that -- you know, the alternative compliance or whatever that the applicant can -- can get that in -- you know, can get a -- even a fully visible one that's -- one that's not screened, but if it-- if it's -- if it complements the project. Can we -- can they put that in? Parsons: Currently that -- that is -- there is nothing available for them to do that, except to comply. We -- and we specifically -- and the reason -- what -- what you are not seeing here is the definition of a flex space building and in our minds a lot of people think it's just an industrial building, but, really, if you look at the definition of a flex base building in our code, it speaks to a high quality building. So, it's meant to be -- look commercial from the street and, then, act like an industrial building from the rear and so we intentionally made it that way, where we didn't want the roll up, because we didn't want to hurt the design aesthetic of the building and allow those in front and so we did that intentionally a few years ago when we did our flex space standards. Cassinelli: So -- okay. So, this is -- you are not talking about like a live-work -- Parsons: Correct. Cassinelli: -- type of environment. Parsons: We are not talking flex space. It's basically -- it's office warehouse type buildings where you can have multi-tenant buildings where 30 percent is office, they have a retail showroom and, then, they have warehousing in the back to store the materials or do manufacturing or something. Cassinelli: Okay. Yeah. Parsons: No, it's not a vertically integrated building. That's something totally different. Cassinelli: Okay. Got you. Wheeler: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F78 Page 75 of 95 McCarvel: Commissioner Wheeler? Wheeler: Yes. Commissioner Cassinelli, yeah, that's like what we also call in the industry -- it's called incubator space and so these people come in to like what you can see in like Ten Mile and Franklin spaces, they just have those -- those spots that they can be there for a little bit or what you see like Alder Construction or Van Auker built, those kinds of spots like that I think is what he's trying to address there; is that correct? Parsons: That is correct. Wheeler: Okay. McCarvel: Thank you. Parsons: That's what I mean, we are actually -- in this particular case we are actually relaxing the standards, because of what we have heard, you know, some of these bigger buildings, some -- particularly in our ME zone, if you look at the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and look at mixed employment, that ME, it does, it encourage some industrial users and buildings could be one to four stories, so you just -- you don't know -- you know, but at the same time you don't want loading docks in front of a building, you know, it just -- it hurts the aesthetics and same with the roll up doors, but certainly if a restaurant was to go in a building and put a roll-up door for -- to connect to their patio, we don't -- that's -- again, that's a completely different use, we would allow something like that as part of their design. All right. Any other questions on this change before I move on to the next one? And does the Commission want Kent to chime in on any of these changes before we get to the staff presentation? McCarvel: Yeah. Come on up. Brown: Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. To help understand the parking, Boise has a lot less parking. They encourage you -- I can get more units if I put less parking on a general rule doing units, do a two bedroom, they require one and a quarter parking spaces per unit. I have a theory is that they are trying to promote mass transit and by overparking they -- they meet that need. But they do -- the provision that Bill pulled out is exactly the one per ten guest parking. That's -- that's in their standard. Cities -- Kuna, Ada county, they all require two. Most of them require a guest parking along the lines of the -- the two unit -- or the one per ten. That's kind of standard with Nampa and -- who else? I think Kuna. But for the most part we normally see two units. My clients that I do multi-family for, say that that meets most of their needs. Surprisingly, their renters, they find that they have a lot of people that are just renting one unit. I mean they are -- they are renting a two bedroom, but there is only one person. They might have the really nice car that they take when they go out to eat and they have another car -- they could have that, but for the most part a lot of people are professional adults and they -- they just -- they need the one bedroom, but they have to rent two, so -- because there is not a lot of one bedrooms out there. The sign posting -- the reason that you wouldn't want the city to do it is a number of the developments that we did when I was working for the city of Boise and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F79 Page 76 of 95 since then --you have militant neighborhood associations in Boise, they have empowered the neighborhoods to a point that they will tear down your signs, they will tear down the four-by-four signs. They disappear off the site. One of the things that you should understand is my clients are generally paying around 500 dollars per sign for a sign to be posted. It's -- it's a pretty expensive thing to do. I think one of the things that Meridian has done well is that they have changed the lettering heights and sizes, where I go do one in Eagle -- if I do the type that they are talking about I can't even see it when I park in front of it to know what -- what's all there. But that's kind of normal for the sign posting. There are some companies that just do posting, that have kind of come along. Nampa is in the process of adding that posting to their process. They haven't had in the past. Kuna -- to take care of the mom and pops, they rent signs, so they have a generic sign that they can put in P&Z and City Council and the dates and, then, they rent it to somebody that is doing the daycare or something like that, that they allow the -- the people to use, figuring that a resident can't afford a 500 dollar sign. I have posted sites where they are spending close to 2,000 dollars with all the locations that staff asked us to post with every stub street, so -- anyway, hopefully that helps. McCarvel: Any other questions or comments for this section? Parsons: Perfect. Now I will move onto exhibit three of five. So, this next one is really the -- now we are starting to transition into a lot of our landscape, open space changes and I just have to commend Brian, he is the one that really spearheaded these changes to the landscape ordinance. I -- I provided comment, but he worked closely with our Parks Department and others to -- to try to enhance what we already have. So, this isn't a total rewrite, it's just really to make things clearer and make sure that we are getting attractive landscaping in our developments and, again, I won't go through all of the changes, but I did want to highlight a couple of them. And one change that I will have for you this evening that I need you to include in your motion is -- I was able to get with Matt Perkins -- so, as -- when I -- when I sent out the staff report on Friday, I realized that the city arborist had not provided us a list of trees to include into our ordinance and you can see here it just kind of has a holder -- a placeholder here and so he was able to provide that to me beginning of the week here and so in your motion tonight I just would want you to include that -- that we include that -- the two lists that he gave me. So, he gave me a list for waterwise and, then, he also gave me a list that goes -- goes along as a companion document to the Treasure Valley tree selection guide and I will make sure that that gets added as we transition through the hearing -- to the City Council hearing. So, you can see here we removed a lot of our waterwise in trying to improve upon that, to make it clear. We certainly want people to do that in our valley. We -- I would much rather see xeriscape and some of those things than a lot large expansion of lawns that are around a lot of these commercial businesses. It's just a lot of maintenance and a lot of water. This is nothing new to the code. Again, we are just reinforcing it with different trees and different species to try to encourage that to happen more often and, again, a lot of these are changes to that that speaks to that, you know, irrigation standards. One thing that's going to be interesting is -- this is where -- and I did also share these changes with our UDC focus group once we had a draft of the changes and, then, you -- you -- the Commission is very aware of all the developments around you. You live here, you are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F80 Page 77 of 95 passionate about what you do, and you want to -- you want to see better -- higher quality development and so what we have tried to do with this particular section is enhance what the developers need to do with -- particularly in regards to their street scape buffers and their--their--their landscape buffers along arterials and collector roadways and how they are supposed -- supposed to plant that and what that's supposed to look like. There will also be a couple -- a series of graphics that go along to give the end user an idea what this actually means. So, it really specifies tree canopy. It really encourages more of a mix of shrubs and plantings and boulders, rather than just having a strip of sod and one tree for every 35 linear feet. So, again, we are trying to reinforce that and that really kind of comes down into these -- this section here and the exhibits were part of the public record as well. I transmitted that with the application. So, you guys were aware of that. And, then, here is some of the -- again, some of the explanation of eliminating grasses and, you know, how much coverage you should provide for that. It goes along with those graphics. And, then, a lot of you probably know, we -- we -- certain roadways in our community have what we call entryway corridors and along those corridors we require a 35 foot buffer, rather than a 25, and I -- you know, to be honest with you, I can't see where 35 looks any better than 25, but those are the areas that should be elevated or be distinguished from other landscape buffers in our city and that's what we are trying to do here as well. And, again, the rest of these are just cleanups in language and verbiage in the code, removing some things and just kind of reinforcing some -- some better principles. But I did want to point out one change to all of you and this kind of coincides to which -- which this -- we will see how -- what the appetite of the Council is on this particular one. It's really tree mitigation. This has really been -- you have probably seen this more and more these days with these five acre lots where they are -- they are never covered with trees, because there is just a home on there and the residents have lived there forever and now we have a project where someone wants to come in and subdivide it and they have hundreds of caliper inches that they just can't mitigate for on a site and so I'm working with the city's attorney's office and the city's arborist to develop basically an in lieu fee. It's almost like a tree bank where if you can't mitigate the inches on your property there is -- maybe you can pay towards a fund to offset those -- those inches and, then, place them elsewhere throughout the city in our parks, along pathways. And, again, I don't know if Council has traction for that, but I know planning and, of course, the parks department are pretty excited about this. We don't have any fees developed at this point. That will certainly be the next step. I have actually asked the city arborist to reach out to -- my understanding is the city of Boise has something similar to this and he came from the city of Boise, so I actually asked him to reach out to his counterpart over there and get some more information on this particular topic, because I'm curious to see how-- how this shapes up or how they administer this program. Grove: Real quick. Are there limits on that? Parsons: As far as what limits? Grove: Let's say that there is a hundred caliper that had to be addressed or something and instead of doing any trees whatsoever, like they decided to just pay the fees, so that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F81 Page 78 of 95 there was no trees. I guess my question is like is there -- could that be abused if there is not limits put in place? Parsons: Well, I think we have to look at the beginning part of the code where it says we are going to mitigate trees. Obviously, we want them to preserve the trees, that's the goal, and we have given them a lot of tools and flexibility to do that through alternative compliance. I don't think that would be the case, to be honest with you. I think all of us can appreciate keeping mature trees. I know Kent is probably a big fan of it, too. I know he's done -- been part of that in some of his developments. But the intent is not to mitigate anything, the intent is to try to keep and preserve that. But where you can't, then, you would have this option. I don't know why staff would want to support that. If someone had -- I can give you an example where we had that project off of McDermott, Lupine Cove, where they had 1 ,400 caliper inches to mitigate, you are not going to get -- you are never going to get that many trees on a five acre property and so, essentially, where else are we going to put these trees? We have no other tools or mechanism to do that. So, the arborist went out there, did the best he could to mitigate what he could and, then, said, okay, this is a -- this seems to be a fair plan, let's move on. Most of the time we get a plan, we have them show us that, we required trees in their front yards and their rear yards, more in the common open space, where ever we can get trees we try to accomplish that to make up for those caliper inches. So, the intent of this code is not just to put up a hundred thousand dollars and move on. It really is our first -- our first line of defense is really mitigate, you know, to preserve where we can. Seal: Like the -- there is a property on Black Cat I'm thinking of that just has -- I mean there is -- there is a tree every three feet on the whole five acres up there. So, this kind of speaks to that where there is just no way that's ever going to be a reality. Grove: That's a conservator. I think it -- that has like a special thing on it, though. That parcel does that you are talking about on Black Cat. Seal: Yeah. I know. Grove: There is a special thing where it can't be changed, but -- I guess my question, Bill, is -- is just making sure there is not a loophole that we are going to have to worry about later, so -- Parsons: Well, certainly, if-- again we don't know what that fee is, but when I have talked with the city arborist he informed me it costs the city -- I think he said roughly 250 dollars to install a two inch caliper tree. So, if you have to plant a tree, you got to -- if you have to mitigate for 400 -- say a hundred caliper inches and you do that in two inch caliper trees, it's going to get very expensive. I don't know why if someone would put up 250,000 dollars or -- to -- to try to make up that amount. But is it possible? Sure. And, again, think more than likely someone would want to work with us and come up with a mitigation plan that worked for both parties and, again, this is a new concept for the City of Meridian. I don't know how this is going to play out and, again, I don't even have a fee to share it with you this evening. But I'm hoping as we transition to City Council we would have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F82 Page 79 of 95 something figured out at that point and -- or at least lay out steps for a program for Council so they can understand what -- what this means. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, I'm a little curious on that. Not that I don't like trees and things, but when you -- get when you -- when you look at the -- at the natural landscape of the valley here it's -- it's desert and the trees are there -- you know, especially some this old growth or whatever, a homeowner planted that at some point -- you know, a farmer probably put that around his house, but the rest of -- you know, the rest of his 80 acres or whatever was -- was bare and only because of the irrigation canals is there any vegetation on that land. So, if a -- if a developer comes in -- and I mean typically they are going to put trees in, they are not going to not put trees in. If you are trying to mitigate for, you know, a bunch of trees that a farmer put in around his house 50 years ago, it's going to be difficult to do. I mean it's -- so it's -- I kind of question why -- you know, we are trying to get -- replace something that was put in there -- I don't want to say artificially, but that was put in there -- to begin with it's not natural in this environment. Does that make sense? Parsons: Yeah. No, I completely understand and that's typically where we get all these mitigations happening is because the farmer has sold their property and now we are mitigating that 50 year old tree or a hundred year old tree, because it's been there this whole time providing shade or -- but, again, there is -- there is certain tree species that are evasive and the arborist has the right to make that call, whether it's a trash tree or a prohibited tree or -- and so a lot of times you would be surprised, you might see a nice tree, but it may not be -- it may be a cottonwood, for example, that we don't mitigate for, because it may be a prohibited tree because of how invasive the root systems are or how much water it takes to grow that tree and so that's -- that's the other part of the code that you don't see. It's here, but that goes into account that sometimes trees don't -- there is certain circumstances where trees don't always require mitigation and that's in this code as well. But -- yeah, but when you are talking 80 acres, you can spread a lot of trees across 80 acres. It's really getting difficult on these -- these smaller properties, these in- fills, where we have to get tools that are --that give us flexibility or can do things elsewhere in the city and that's really what we are trying to get at. McCarvel: Thank you. Parsons: Here is one where we don't really have any specifications for our pathways. Public work -- or we do, but we don't technically get any specified drawings for that. So, parks department has requested that we have some kind of requirement that they would go out and verify that multi-use pathways that are constructed as part of a project will provide specs that, you know, provide documentation that they meet those requirements. And, then, the last one has to do with -- well, I think I already touched on that one, so -- here is that physical inspection that I was -- was talking to you. Any questions on this section? Or any words of wisdom to the Council as we move -- we move forward? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F83] Page 80 of 95 Cassinelli: I have another question. On the -- the limitation on grass areas, we are not -- I just want to be clear, that's not sacrificing open space for concrete and what -- Parsons: Not necessarily. It's sacrificing grass for just more planter beds. So, if you have had an example to look at that, but our code does allow hardscape in -- in street buffers, particularly with our commercial developments for patios and things of that nature, so it's integrated. But the intent -- like I said, if we -- I could pull up the graphics for you, but the intent is really just to get more decorative buffers and include a mix of materials along that and there is multiple ways to do that based on those graphics that we have prepared. We just don't want just one tree every linear -- 35 linear feet and all grass, you know, it's -- you really want to get some attractive beds, shrubs, and for the most part you see the developers doing that along the arterials. You really do. So, it's really nothing new from what they are already doing, it's just defining that a little bit differently in the code and making it clear that that's the expectation. But you might get more rocker barch for sure, you know -- or bark -- perma park or mulch. Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing if it's done right. Cassinelli: No. I just want to make sure that it doesn't mean more concrete. Parsons: No, it's not going to mean they can just pave a bunch -- put a bunch of concrete in there and just have these planters -- tree planters everywhere. There is still a -- there is still a -- in the code there is still a vegetation requirement. So, the way the code reads is all the vegetation has to touch at 70 percent maturity if they use the waterwise, then, it's 40 percent. So, that's how we -- that's why when you see a land -- when you guys see a landscape plan in front of you, the landscape architect is presenting that to you at maturity. The trees are full growth. But when you -- that's why when you drive by and you go, wow, I remember that buffer being a lot less thick than that. It's like, no, that's because the trees are this big and he showed you the trees at full maturity, so it looks fuller on paper than it does when they actually install it. So, yeah, there is -- there is minimum vegetation coverage in the code to combat that same issue you had, Bill. Or Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: That's all right. It's almost 11:00. You can go with Bill. Parsons: All right. Let's get to -- let's get to the meat of the -- the meeting tonight. So, again, this one -- I'm not going to go -- this is a complete -- almost overhaul of the code section. It really is. But I'm going to really highlight the major differences in the code from what you see in today's code and what may get adopted in the future and what the changes are. A lot of this is reinforced -- as you guys recall in part of that Comprehensive Plan update, the residents -- and you hear it every time at the hearing where a lot of residents want better open space --consolidated open space, better amenities, you know, sense of place, all of these things that go into the visioning of a Comprehensive Plan and so what we have tried to do here -- or at least the UDC -- and what was it -- the open space committee I think is the formal name of the group and what they try to do is really rewrite this code to align with the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. This is something that we were even asked by City Council to do once they adopted it and so a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F84 Page 81 of 95 lot of this is -- again, you can see a lot of verbiage linking things back to Comprehensive Plan policies. This particular case we actually removed the multi-family standards from the open space standards and made them their own separate -- so we kind of bisected those two from each other, because it was not clear on when this section applied to multi- families and when it didn't. So, we wanted to make sure that we had a clear line of what's required for subdivisions and what's required for multi-family developments and so the biggest change that came out of this group is currently we require ten percent open space for developments five acres or larger and as part of this group we went back and said, well, let's set the standards based on the zone and you can see in here how that's going to play out. So, if you develop an R-2 zone, the expectation you have a minimum ten percent open space. R-4 is 12 and, then, it's a sliding scale as you increase the zoning and the -- the idea behind this was -- is you increase the zoning, you increase the density, right, so you need more open space to coincide with the density that you are wanting to do. Cassinelli: Is that regardless of the size of the -- I like that. Parsons: That's -- that's how it's going to play out with this code. You are correct. Regardless if it's three units to the acre -- Cassinelli: Or if it's -- I mean if it's a three acre parcel, if they are under that then -- Parsons: Yeah, they don't -- they don't comply with these standards. It's -- it's really five acres or more. That -- that has not changed. Cassinelli: Oh, that is still the same? Parsons: Yes. You still have to have a minimum acreage to get there, so -- and, then, we have added some graphics to kind of explain that and we have also expanded what could count as open space -- qualified open space. So, we have defined that a little better in the code. There -- there have been instances where staff and a developer have been at kind of a disagreement on how to interpret our own code and you have probably seen that play out in the hearings. So, I would --this is definitely how we are going to -- moving forward how we are going to interpret the code. I mean there is some spots in the code that are ambiguous and will be left to interpretation and we could -- we have conveyed to that group that you need to -- where you think there may be ambiguity in the plan, you need to explain that in your narrative to not only staff, but to you all, so you know what the intent is for the development and I think being part of that open space committee, they were very -- at least out of a lot of the developers that were on that committee said that. We have to do a better job of explaining our project and what we are doing and what our amenities are and that's a key to any project, in my opinion. You have got to just be able to tell us what you are doing and not leave it to us to interpret, because we are going to go to the code and we are going to say this is what code says and I don't see how you meeting the code, because you haven't explained it to us. So, in this particular case here -- I mean we have minimum areas that count. Here is the 50 by 100 and, then, also this is the one where we probably got the most pushback is having the unit's front on the open Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F85] Page 82 of 95 space or that 50 percent threshold of having front yards on 50 percent of the perimeter and to better explain that we actually do some graphics in the code for you, so you can see how that looked and many different ways to do that. In the letter from the -- from BCA, they actually wanted to reduce that down to 25 percent. It was one of their recommended changes. So, here is community garden. Ponds and water features. We always have that. Again, none of these are really -- these are things we already have in code, we are just further defining them and how they can be qualified and count towards your open space and putting some dimensions to them and I like the fact that we actually added graphics. I think that a picture says a thousand words; right? That really tells what --what the expectation is for the open space. Here is one here where we count a hundred percent of the buffer. So, just -- again, just clarifying it and, then, some new -- some -- just, again, enhancing what we already have. So, anything you see that struck out here is something that's already -- being removed, we already have it in code and anything underlined is new or text changes. Again, nothing new as far as what's required for open space, just further defining it and requiring more based on your zone. And, then, the -- the next part of these changes is the amenities. Currently in code we have a pretty limited list in code and so this is where we spent a lot of time with the UDC -- or at least the open space committee and, again, we devised --we actually came up with a lot more amenities, but, then, we assigned a point to each one of those amenities and each amenity has different points and so this is how you would tally them. So, for each five acres you are going to get a point based on your acreage here and so, then, what you would do is you go down to amenity list and you get to pick from this -- all of these different amenities and depending on the size of your development you can have many amenities to get to your points or you can have one great amenity to get to your points and that's something that I have heard for the last, I don't know, five years having to deal with trying to amend this section of code is we always hear that not every amenity is created equal. Not all open space is created equal and that's true. Obviously, if you do a clubhouse in your development, that's an additional expense or cost to not only an HOA, but also to the developer and, again, I can't testify whether or not these are the right point totals for how we should assess the point for these -- these amenities, but right now this is what we came up with and I think Commissioner Seal can attest to -- we spent quite a bit of time on how to grade these amenities, because it's -- we all -- there was -- I mean developers will tell you, the clubhouses is half a million dollars, a million dollars to build, and you are giving me six points. I mean we -- we heard every argument under the sun why some of these weren't apples to apples. Cassinelli: How did you come up with a dog waystation? Point five. Parsons: I was just being polite. We have -- yeah. We have them in our sub -- my subdivision, too. I mean it's appreciated. I don't think people use them, but it's appreciate when you see them, but -- I think it came out of-- you know, a lot of times -- you guys see this all the time and we are starting to see more and more dog parks. It's a very popular amenity. Seal: Part of it, too, was based out of some of the feedback they got on people want the dog -- the dog parks, but they don't want the trash receptacles there, because it's -- it's a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F86] Page 83 of 95 mess that nobody deals with. So, it just -- it just becomes a mess. You know, it's like -- like anything else. You bring it in, you pack it out type of thing. So, because if you -- if you leave a receptacle there people are going to, obviously, abuse that in a lot of ways. So, I think that's why there is a little bit of separation in there where you still have a dog park, you just don't have to have a trash can there. Parsons: Yeah. And so a lot of these quality of life amenities, recreation activity amenities, these are all things in the code already, we just, again, expanded upon the list and added more, to be honest. I mean I think that's -- that's the good thing is hopefully this will give the development community more flexibility. That's really the goal here. The other good thing about it is we actually had -- when we were talking about the overall open space for developers -- residential subdivisions, we actually had I believe some of the committee members actually ran this -- this code against their current approvals and they came back and said it really didn't change what we already had approved. We already had -- it matched up what you are doing here, city, so we don't really have any concerns with it. Seal: That was definitely some of the feedback that was appreciated for sure and I think it's going to help, you know, weed out the minimalists, the ones that are just trying to squeak by. They are probably going to struggle with some of this in trying to come up with something. There is a huge list of amenities that are in here and there is a lot of things that you can do to be creative about it, it's just trying to remove, you know, some of the things that are just way too easy to attain and calling it an amenity and put in some stuff that has some -- Cassinelli: Park bench. Seal: Yeah. You know, exactly. I mean we have seen some stuff that's been submitted where it just doesn't meet the intent and I think part of this was just -- you know. Cassinelli: Bill, is that swimming pool with changing facilities or they get -- they don't get four for the swimming pool and, then, six for the restrooms? Parsons: No. That's correct. They would get a total of six. So, in the subdivision that I live in we have a pool and a building that has, essentially, restrooms. Cassinelli: But that should say -- shouldn't it say swimming pool with changing -- Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, I think we will probably wordsmith some of this a little bit more, but I'm certainly open -- is there any amenity here you don't see that you -- the other thing I don't want to lose sight of, though, even though we are kind of revamping this code or overhauling it, there is still the alternative compliance process. That's built into this. So, if someone has something unique or different, they can come forward with that. You know, they can -- they can come to staff and say, hey, we think we have something better. We want -- we still -- we want to do eight percent open space, but we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F87 Page 84 of 95 are willing to do this amenity package. What do you think, city? Does this work? Yes or no. Grove: I have a question on that. How -- is there -- have you outlined like a plan on how you will be able to assess -- or assign value points on things that aren't on the list and what that process will look like through the alternative compliance? Parsons: No, we didn't and that -- that's a very good point. I think -- if someone came to me today and asked me to do alternative compliance, I would -- I would steer them to this code and I would say pick off this list and tell me what you are going to do -- what's your amenity package to offset the open space, because that's what we kept hearing. A lot of the steer committee members kept saying I'm big on amenities, I'm not so big on open space. So, if I'm going to come forward with a -- lack of a better word -- a premier amenity package, then, show me that or explain that in your narrative. But to me at least it has to be equal to or better than what's on this list. That -- that's what alternative compliance is is it's not to get you out of code, alternative compliance is to do something that we don't have here and we -- we like it -- I mean if you have to tell us how it's -- it's equal to or better than. That's the finding we really have to make. Where is the innovation? Do you meet the requirements to even be eligible for alternative compliance and that's where a lot of times, as -- as staff we don't see that -- we don't see applicants explaining that very well. They just say we want this and it's like you didn't tell me anything. You didn't give me enough to say whether or not I could support it and that's -- again, that was the conversation we had with this committee, is like if you are going to do something you got to tell us what you are going to do and explain it, so that we can articulate that to you all as you are making decisions on projects. Cassinelli: Bill, you wrote by -- up above stormwater retention pond, does it -- does that -- does that count as qualified open space? Parsons: Yes, it does. Again, it comes down to -- well, you can see we have kind of wordsmithed it, but it has to be -- it has to be part of a larger open space and that -- that was changed a while ago. I -- I think I did that code change a couple of years ago where we allowed storm ponds in -- in subdivisions, but they didn't have to -- they could just be standalone open space if they were designed appropriately and, then, a few years ago I did a code change that said if you are going to do storm ponds, then, at least it has to be on a lot that's 20,000 square feet. So, that way it's not entirely a storm pond, that someone could still use it as a recreation and use it as open space and try to make -- at least get people thinking that you should really design that as part of your open space, not just a random lot in the middle of a subdivision that collects water or has sand in the bottom of it and that's what we have seen in past developments. So, now we have -- Grove: I know we don't want to get into the weeds necessarily, but one of the ones that -- and maybe I'm missing, but it came up tonight and it's come up quite a few times over the last year is community gardens and treating that as an amenity and how -- how we look at things like that moving forward. I don't want to go line by line necessarily, but just looking at -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F88] Page 85 of 95 Seal: Are you sure that's in there? Parsons: Yeah. I thought it was. Seal: I still can't get them to add a bike park. You know, I tried. Alternative compliance I guess. Parsons: The other thing that we did, too, is we reinforced that it needs to be high quality amenities. So, commercial grade, which we don't have that in the code right now. So, we definitely want them to develop things and design things that are meant to last. I think that's the key. Cassinelli: Thank you for doing the tot lot at one point. Wheeler: Bill, one of the things that Discovery Park showed to me was this -- as an amenity was a sandbox or like the sand play area and I didn't see anything listed in there about that. So, is that something -- or where do you think that might fall under if -- what you guys are thinking? Parsons: I don't know. I mean that's a good question. Usually sand in our world means it's the bottom of a retention pond. We discount that as open space. But, again, it comes down to playground. If you look down here playground? Wheeler: Yes. Parsons: To me that's where you are getting swing sets or multiple play areas -- Wheeler: Okay. Parsons: -- being designed. So, maybe that's the opportunity they could do something like that. But I know we have -- in the past, Commissioner Wheeler, we have had people that have put volleyball courts in the bottom of those basins and try to count that as an amenity and that's not what we want to do. All right. Any other questions here? Kent, any commentary on this? Brown: Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. I recently helped Nampa -- Nampa is in the process of looking at their open space and I actually brought them over and they are looking at trying to come up with things for density also and I took them to Tuscany as one of the ones that we went to. They have a pool and changing room and, then, a pathway that goes through one section and, then, they have the storm drain pond and the storm drain pond looks like a dry creek bed and it's got boulders and, you know, I said -- so, in Nampa you make us make these sterile ACHD type ponds and I said, you know, ACHD actually came up with different criteria, so that we could make these look nice and usable and, then, I drove them through Woodbridge and Woodbridge has theirs all sodded and, then, they got a big boulder that's on the side and in the spring they will get water down on the bottom, grass kind of gets kind of mushy for a little bit, but, then, the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F89 Page 86 of 95 rest of the time it's just grass and so you are able to count that. Went over into the other part of Tuscany and I said -- so, you got a pool and changing room and a tot lot and they are all over at this one end and, then, the park kind of goes real narrow and P&Z asked us to put in a parking area and this is as close as they could get to the pool, but I says if you go over here this storm drain pond is where -- if I was a little boy that's where I would be playing and we looked in there and, sure enough, there was a little kid in there and he's jumping off the rocks, not in the safe area, you know, landing in the stuff and I think that that's one of the things that Bill's done that makes that look really -- and I had a hard time when I worked for -- for the city of having people say that you could count the ditch that's next door to your open space. You know, we are having a pathway there and not counting it. Caldwell actually -- if it has water in it you can't count it and developers are creative, now they are putting the pathway in a lot and the bottom of the ditch in another lot, so that you can count a portion of it, because they are saying if there is any part of it that has a drain or whatever in it you can't count on it and -- but I think this is a step in the right direction definitely, because in the past it's been a struggle to use the limited number of amenities and try to go, well, how does this fit this particular development that we are doing, whether it's a rental or it's a senior development or something -- you know, the one that always was kind of thrown in my face and it's still on the list is public art. We are going, okay, we will put one of Bill's benches and we will put a cow on it, you know, and say that's public art. Bill would say no. He didn't like that idea. But I think that this is needed. I thought it was really interesting in the fact that if you were to look at Tuscany, it doesn't meet your current open space requirements. But you don't feel like it's tight in there. It's -- it's because of how it's laid out with these linear pathways, a little bit of landscaping in front of it in areas where it gets tighter and I think that that's a much needed thing and I think that that's a nice thing to progress. When you get more dense than you need, you know, some more open space. Just a thought. Thanks. I'm going to go home. McCarvel: We will be right behind you. Parsons: Before I transition away from this I did just want to point you to the BCA letter that was submitted today and a lot of the comments had to do with us requiring more open space, you know, given the fact that we have affordable housing issues, things are going up, your trends -- in their letter they speak to transition -- you know, paying higher HOA dues and fees and all of that and that just contributes to the issue that we are dealing with now and, then, they also had comments regarding the irregular shaped lots and that's -- that's one of the things that I have seen over-- over time is you just have these remnant lots leftover in developments and they just seem to be out of place and I think this Commission has seen that time and time again, too, it's like, okay, how many lots can we get on here and, then, the rest is open space and that's what the project looks like and so that's really what we are trying to -- to avoid here with this code is really try to get people to go -- put thought into your design. Obviously, you have to lay roads out, you got to plot lots, you have to do drainage. I think all of us get those concepts and you have waterways you have other impediments on the site that you have to work around. But, again, our code is meant to try to do that and, hopefully, we try to get -- we are getting more and more flexible with our code to allow those things to occur. And, then, this -- this last --the one other part that I like about this section of code is we start defining things. You know, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F90 Page 87 of 95 we -- this is how it counts. You have to have these elements as part of it. Which I think is -- is good, because right now we don't have anything like that, you know. And there it's going back to Kent's point, public art, what does that mean? That's -- we struggle with that, too. But it really is meant to be something decorative and nice. It's a custom piece. It's not just put your subdivision name on it and put it upon a big rock and you put out at your front entrance and call it art. No. That's a sign. That's not art. Seal: Yeah. And I think the -- I mean the -- one of the major focuses we had on all of this section here is just basically focusing on quality, not quantity, trying to figure out how to ensure that, you know, the minimalists that are coming in still have something to shoot for, but at the same time really emphasizing quality of open space, of activities, of even coordinating with other entities to provide something. Parsons: And we try to be open to all demographics. Not every subdivision is alike; right? If it's going to be older -- I mean that's what a subdivision does. You have younger population and older population and -- as those neighborhoods transition in a community and I think that's -- that's the one thing that I took away from it, too, is they are trying to make it inclusive for everybody and I think that's a good thing for Meridian and I think Commissioner Holland would agree. And, then, here is your dog parks and I will -- what that's supposed to look like. So, again, a lot of this is just kind of expanding and providing some parameters on that -- those amenities and I -- again, I hope it -- I hope we get some pretty cool things coming through once we get this adopted. So, anyways, I'm going to go ahead and digress on this and see if there is any changes here. Is the Commission comfortable with the open space -- direction we are going with the open space as far as the percentages and what we are doing as far as the added amenities and how we have defined those? Again, I think there has been several months of work gone into this thing. We have spent quite a bit of time on it. Seal: Well, what -- where is the section that has the paths? What ended up becoming of how paths are designated and awarded and -- Parsons: Pathways? Seal: Giving an example, there is a section from Ten Mile that goes clear through to Linder that's like the greenbelt. I mean it's beautiful. Wide walking path, nice amenity over there and everything and that's something that, you know, we want to kind of aspire to is being able to do that, because at both ends of it it just ends. You don't go anywhere else. But I mean when you are on it it's absolutely beautiful. It's breathtaking to ride through there. I -- unfortunately, I live there and I -- I get to, you know, ride my bike on it all the time, but I just -- the pathways part of it was a little contentious, just because of -- I mean I think there is -- in the developer community a lot of people want to just -- they want the city to go for it, spend money and connect it all and just get it done instead of having to rely on the developers to do that, so -- but I think we came up with some pretty good -- I don't know exactly how it all worded it out in there, but I think it came out pretty good to where there is pretty good incentives in there for starting to make that happen more aggressively. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6, 2021 F91 Page 88 of 95 Grove: I really like the point system. Kudos for getting that off the ground and moving forward with it. I think that's a really cool way to improve things. Seal: That was also contentious, mainly because it -- the other side of that is it makes things more complicated. But that's okay. Parsons: All right. Let me move on to Exhibit 5 here if there is no other comments or questions on this section. And so this one has to do with multi-family. So, this is one that Brian took -- kind of took on and, then, I helped kind of massage it to the finish line here. Of course with Caleb helping out as well. So, again, as I mentioned to you, this -- the way the code works currently is right now in the multi-family section of our code we require a certain amount of open space based on the square footage of the multi-family dwelling unit, but if that multi-family project exceeds five acres then, we are double dipping the development community. So, basically, we are telling them that they have to provide the open spaces and amenities in 11-4-3-27 and, then, if you are over five acres, then, you have to provide the ten percent open space and the other additional amenity requirements of 3.G and so it wasn't -- I wouldn't say it wasn't being applied consistently, but definitely there was some confusion among city staff on that particular requirement. So, if -- if a multi-family development was to come into a C-G zone, for example, a commercial zone, we would not apply the five percent, because it's not a residential zone. So, we would only apply the multi-family standards. So, technically, we -- that's where we started seeing uptick of people wanting to develop multi-family in our C-G zones, because, one, it's allowed through a conditional use, but, two, you are going to get more density. There is no density requirement and you get to do less amenities and open space if it was over five acres. I'm not saying that's the only reason, but there is some advantages to developing in the commercial zone versus a residential district and so what we wanted to do with this is, again, we have actually separated this from 11-3-G, so now this has its own specific open space requirements based on square footage -- or based on the size of the development. Again, I won't go into all the changes, I just want to primarily get to the one that -- that I spent the most time with meeting with stakeholders. So -- and that's -- and that's this particular one here is where it's currently -- we are requiring, again, if the development exceeds five acres they are going to do ten percent and, then, in addition to that ten percent they are still going to have to provide that square footage based on the size of the dwelling unit and, then, we have also added this component into it where you have more than 20 units you have got to provide a consolidated open space of at least 50 by 100 in order for -- as part of the development. So, there is kind of a three prong approach to this, so whether you are five acres or not you are still doing this 50 by 100 area and the other open space and if you are a larger multi-family development you are providing ten percent, plus that open space, plus the 50 by 100 area. But the caveat is -- and, again, we have ground truthed some of this with some other multi-family developments that we have provided and on average the larger multi-family developments are exceeding these requirements. They really are. And we actually had the numbers to prove that. But one thing that came out was from the developer -- they don't mind providing the open space, what they really want it -- they said, okay, we are okay with open space, this is typically what we provide, but why can't we be like the residential where we cap off at 15 percent? So, I went back in and went ahead and set Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F92 Page 89 of 95 up here -- I added this -- and in no case shall multi-family development exceed a total of 15 percent common open space. So -- so whether they get the combination of the three or one or the other, it in no way can -- the max open space we are going to get with multi- family developments is going to be 15 percent, which is consistent with 11-3G. Grove: A question on that. Parsons: What's that? Grove: They can't exceed 15 percent if they want to? Parsons: They can. Yeah. Exactly. The intent is if they don't want to the minimum is going to be -- if they go through -- if they have -- let's say, for example, they have a 20 acre multi-family development and they -- they provide the ten percent and the code has -- well, if we crunch the numbers and they needed ten percent and they had 300 units and we times that by 250 and it was over 15 percent, we -- we couldn't -- they could go forward with that, but they could say, sorry, your code says we only have to provide 15 percent. So, we are not going to provide -- you know, they will -- and how they do that they would have to work with staff. I don't know if that's right for the Commission, I don't know if you want 20 percent or 50. There is no real ratio here. It really -- a lot of this really comes down to design and how they lay out the site and what site constraints that they have. But the intent is not to do the -- yeah, the intent is to cap it at 15 percent or, again, the developer can choose to do more and, then, again we -- we also opened it up to alternative compliance, which we typically haven't done and, then, as you come through you can see we haven't really expanded on those -- those amenities like we have in the -- in 3-G. But that -- that's really the biggest change with the multi-family is just that we have removed it and, then, pretty much capped open space at 15 percent, unless otherwise wanted -- you know, in case they want more. McCarvel: I was going to say, does that maybe need to be reworded and just put shall not be required? Parsons: Yeah. Maybe -- that's -- what I mean, it's -- it's something that we probably want to look at that. McCarvel: Because I mean the way it reads to the -- Parsons: I agree. McCarvel: I agree with Commissioner Grove, it sounds like, okay, you can't put more than 15 percent in here. Parsons: Yeah. That's not the intent, though. So, that's -- that's a good point. We definitely want to -- McCarvel: Shall not be required to have -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F93 Page 90 of 95 Parsons: Right. McCarvel: -- over 15 percent. Parsons: Well, I even want to put a book end if this and this equals this -- 15 percent is the number; right? So, yes, definitely needs some wordsmithing there and I can definitely work with that as we transition to City Council. But, I agree, that seems a little strange the way it's worded in there. But are there any amenities -- I think -- I thought I also added something including but not limited to the open space, because I wanted to make sure that this -- I really liked the idea of having more options for multi-family, to be honest with you, as far as amenities. Any comments on that as far as having -- increasing this amenity list? Grove: So, I might have missed what you just said, but are you -- are we doing the point system on this one, too, or no? Parsons: And I don't know if we do the point system. I'm just curious whether or not the Commission wants to see some of those other amenities added to this list as part of multi- family developments. We have not discussed the point system for multi-family. That's -- that's a whole different animal. Lorcher: Don't you think it should be the same? Have the same list for both? Seal: Yeah. And I don't know that that would -- I don't know that all of them are relevant between the two. Lorcher: Oh. Seal: Some of them to me were probably more relevant to multi-family than single family in there. You know, some of the play areas -- play area with splashpad, for instance, instead of a pool, where you could probably have, you know, a couple of those in a smaller area, instead of providing a pool and a clubhouse and things like, where people are probably going to be more apt to use that. Parsons: Yeah. The other one -- well, we have walking trails, so that covers the -- Seal: Right. Parsons: -- multi-use pathways. I don't know. It's something we can look at. Lorcher: Yeah. If you had the same it would be just consistent, so that way if you were talking to a developer that was doing the single family houses versus multi-family, then, you are always talking about the same list, even if it doesn't have points. Seal: Well, in developments like we just looked at where there is multi-family -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F94 Page 91 of 95 Lorcher: And single family. Seal: I mean, then, you know, where they -- it's -- it's a hybrid kind of model in there, that having some consistency in there might be good. But, again, I'm -- you know, I'm struggling to figure -- to find an example of what's not relevant to multi-family versus single family, but I know that was part of the communication and I, for one, I'm really happy to see the open grassy area removed from this, so -- I think that was one of the common themes is we don't -- you know, let's quit letting people just put in these giant grassy areas and call it common open space and move on. So, trying to get the quality out of it. Cassinelli: From that standpoint I know one thing that's -- we have seen lately a few times is the use of MEWS and -- which I think all of us like. I don't know if there is a way to incorporate that into there as a -- not a requirement, but I think that's in the multi- family and -- I don't even know if it's multi-family attached. It's in the attached where you put the MEWS in and that counts -- that counts differently for open space. Actually, it just counts as open space when it's a MEW. Parsons: Yes. Correct. If it's 20 by 20 it would -- Seal: Right. Parsons: -- count. That is correct. Seal: Yeah. And that's -- I think that's in there specifically to try and encourage that, you know, more kind of an alley load if I'm facing -- you know. Parsons: Yeah. Seal: And, again, a lot of the open space, you know, coming into a park like where you are -- you have more of a sense of community where instead of looking over someone's back fence into a park, the front side -- you know, basically that front side is looking into that common open space, kind of all eyes on it. So, I think the MEWS are what does that. Parsons: Yeah. Seal: I think. It's late, so I'm not a hundred percent sure. Parsons: Well, the way that multi-family standards read it -- you want all of the units running on the open space for CPTED reasons. You want eyes on that, so -- Wheeler: Bill, a couple things I had as a thought was one is on the open grassy area. I know it's kind of just a quick little sod drop and go, but one thing it does --just something to consider is that it does leave open for kicking a soccer ball, throwing a baseball, football. So, sometimes just those quick little things that low income families Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F95 Page 92 of 95 might be able to -- be able to provide on something like that might be something just to reconsider and maybe have something in there that might say with playground equipment or with some other sort of thing attached to it, so, you're right, it's just not a patch of lawn. That's something just to consider. And, then, when it comes down to using the same list for both of them, there is nothing -- maybe an idea is to put them -- make the list and, then, have also like checkboxes off on the side with some columns that would say be permitted for multi-family and residential and that way there was just a way that in the code -- that you could take a look and say this type of amenity would be used for -- could -- could be used for both, you know, because you have a column -- I'm thinking a spreadsheet in my head, right, list of amenities, residential, multi-family, and, then, you just check boxes, so that it can be clarified which one would account for what. Parsons: Yeah. I think that's a good -- good option. We could look at some of those and see if we can expand on this list for sure. Seal: Yeah. And the grassy areas are still there, they are just not counted as -- as an amenity. You don't get any -- like if they were -- if they were given points and stuff, you are not given a point for just a large grassy area to be an amenity, but they are counted towards open space. So, they are -- they are still there, they are just not incentivized to be an amenity, so --just trying to limit the amount of times those are just put in, you know, because you get -- in a subdivision you get two or three of those and there is nothing there with it or, you know, there is very little there with it and it's -- oh, it's an amenity. Well, no, it's just a great big place that the HOA now has to pay to mow. Parsons: Well, you can -- you can -- one of the things that I was -- that I wanted to make sure we could give you the ability to look at these is, one, we have that area of 50 by 100, but you can see in the second sentence here, if you can see my cursor here, it says the area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the development as determined by the decision making body. So, even if they have 50 by 100, you guys can be like, you have 300 apartments here, you need a bigger grassy area. We want that thing a 100 by 100 or whatever that number is and that gives us all the flexibility to say, no, you know, you have got a lot of density here, we want to see more and that gives you that purview -- because I -- again, I don't know what the magic number is. You know, open space means different things to different people. It really does. There is no fine science to this. Again, I have been dealing with this for five years trying to find ways to increase open space, but still be, you know, equitable and do a common sense approach to it, not just saying we want flexibility, we don't want every development to be cookie cutter or the same. Seal: Well, I think, you know, part of the hope is -- especially with the alternative compliance really be -- to really be emphasized in here was making sure that we leave the door open for things to come in. I mean they are -- a little fun was made of the amphitheater that was put in, but that -- I mean that one really knocked my socks off. We had a subdivision going with an amphitheater that was part of the multi-family mixed use. I mean it was a really cool integration of that product -- project and they had to go Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F96 Page 93 of 95 through alternative compliance in order to get that to go in there. I mean the comment is, you know, we can't all afford to put an amphitheater in there, but at the same time it was like, you know, wow, that kind of knocked my socks off. Wasn't expecting that at all. So, you know, really emphasizing alternative compliance is there. If you want to come in and knock our socks off, feel free. I mean, yeah, you may not -- you may end up with no grass in your subdivision, but something that makes us all go, oh, that's cool. I wish I lived there. Parsons: All right. Well, that concludes my presentation, unless you guys have any other questions. Again, only comments we received so far on the application was from the BCA highlighting a couple of those -- their concerns in here. But, again, they want to continue to be a good partner to the city and appreciate us keeping them involved in the process and overall in the staff report -- and I think in large part we do have a lot of consensus with these changes. It wasn't really a lot of, no, I don't want to do that. So, overall I think these -- these changes will be supported. I anticipate that, you know, Council is the decision making body, so I anticipate there will probably be more public testimony at the City Council from various groups. But, again, I just want to thank all of you for what you do. I know -- thank you for staying late this evening and I will just conclude my presentation and stand for any additional questions you might have. McCarvel: Any additional questions for staff? Any additional discussion or are we open for a motion? Seal: Do we have to -- do we still have to close public testimony officially? Parsons: Is there anyone here -- McCarvel: Yeah. Do we -- okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair, no one has indicated a wish to testify on this matter. McCarvel: Given that, does the applicant have any additional comments? Parsons: I do not. McCarvel: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on ZOA-2021-0002? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Lorcher: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing ZOA-2021- 0002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F97 Page 94 of 95 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Cassinelli: I have a lot of questions here for -- for Bill. I'm going to put my glasses on. I'm going to make a motion. McCarvel: Please do. Seal: You have to read the staff recommendation when you -- before you do it, though. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: What's that? Seal: Make sure to read the staff recommendation part. Cassinelli: Yeah. With the trees? Seal: Yep. Cassinelli: Yeah. Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, which there was a lot of, I move to recommend approval of file number ZOA- 2021-0002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2021 , to include the two tree species tables provided by the city arborist. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of ZOA-2021- 0002, with recommend -- with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Who would like the honors? One more -- Seal: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Wheeler: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. May 6,2021 F98 Page 95 of 95 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:16 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 5 1 20 12021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 3 E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the April 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 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 Item 3. 44 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Jaker's Drive-Through Addition (H- 2021-0012) by BRS Architects, Located at 3268 E. Pine Ave. Item 3. F45 CITY OF MERIDIAN w IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment within Three-Hundred Feet(300') of a Residential Use and Zoning District on 1.37-Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District for Jakers Drive-Through,by BRS Architects. Case No(s).H-2021-0012 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. April 15,2021 (Findings on May 6,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15,2021,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). JAKERS DRIVE-THROUGH—CUP H-2021-0012 Page 1 Item 3. F 6 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of April 15,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning&Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15,2021,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of April 15,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). JAKERS DRIVE-THROUGH—CUP H-2021-0012 Page 2 Item 3. 47 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 6th day of May ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 5-6-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). JAKERS DRIVE-THROUGH—CUP H-2021-0012 Page 3 Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A C� E IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT f D A H 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/15/2021 Legend DATE: Continued from: 41112021 1`Jlj t Lflcfl liar 0 00, TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0012 Ll JIM Jakers Drive-Through—CUP,DES LOCATION: 3268 E. Pine Ave.,in the NW 1/4 of Section 9,Township 3N.,Range IE. - I I 1 �I I I 'I i I I 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 Jill" 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 3. F49 EXHIBIT A A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend IyF let P,o'ec- Lcca=or I Project Lncafan 1 wool 4 IU R O$ic e fi E IN E A E E I N"E J11 E U —6 P 4 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend ffLegend 4 0Project Lacafian - -� IetProject Lccafiar L + i City LinvtrF f ' — Planned Parcels E�ci RUT R= :4�77VF -L - -8 L~f C-G L-0 L-0 R1��. _ s III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Mark Anderson— 1010 S.Allante Pl., Ste. 100,Eagle, ID 83709 B. Owner: Adam Crane,Vintage Properties,LLLP—3755 N. Hill Rd., King Hill,ID 83633 Page 2 Item 3. FEXHIBIT A 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 3. EXHIBIT A 51 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 VII and UDC standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 15,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Mark Anderson,BRS Architects b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 4 Item 3. EXHIBIT A F52] VII. EXHIBITS A. Site/Landscape Plan(dated: 2/5/2021) KEYED N= T- T C 0 0 0 93 iuALs mmmL) 0 o 0 0 0 '17 LU .—WE n7.2 ■ CARRA9BA5 SD1.0 Page 5 Item 3. F53] EXHIBIT A B. Building Elevations(dated: 2/5/21) &Photos J/ KEYED NOTES C7 LEGEND � �., xcnmrcnu�•....�,�...,.K.,,.,,,,,� .o� � �..•mo.o,...�....osa...�..w. x ,m ILL _,emu•u ;aa�ua ,....®�...�...,��.-a..�a �rz,�..�.�.� 4 -_FLAN 0 a u Q qQ r IV nZ CEILING PLAN = z LU � o o � a p W ESi SHED ELEVATIONS(EAST SHED SIM.) TYPICAL WALL SECTION p p em A1.1 Page 6 Item 3. F54] EXHIBIT A w- P g s � 4 SOtFH ELEVATION EXAMPLE OF GOLD TRIM WALL VIEW LOOKING EAST zs�J a�wm� tr G 0 s za =AST EL=VATIOV VIEW LOOKING NORTH NORT:�=LEVATION H 0 L Q a LU NC Y Q 4 -fF n e� �y sre cr{oms 'dIEW LOOKING WEST WEST ELEVATION VIEW LOOKING SOUTH AZ.1 Page 7 — Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A 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 VII.B 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 as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223674&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty C. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancio2.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224330&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.otylWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=223529&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed 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. The Commission 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 3. F56] EXHIBIT A 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 9 Item 4. 57 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 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. Item 4. F58 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Modification to the Conditional Use Permit 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 for Pine 43 Apartments,by Pivot North Design. Case No(s).MCU-2021-0002 For the Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: April 15,2021 (Findings on May 6, 2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 15,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).PINE 43 APARTMENTS—MCU-2021-0002 Page 1 Item 4. 59 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of April 15,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit modification is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of April 15, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of April 15,2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).PINE 43 APARTMENTS—MCU-2021-0002 Page 2 Item 4. 60 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 6th day of May ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 5-6-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).PINE 43 APARTMENTS—MCU-2021-0002 Page 3 Item 4. ■ EXHIBIT A C� E IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT f D A H 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/15/2021 Legend 0 DATE: + Proleot Lflcfltor TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner -- 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: MCU-2021-0002 i Pine 43 Apartments—MCU I LOCATION: 2255 E. Fairview Ave., in the NW 1/4 of Section 8,T.3N.,R.IE. 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 1 St phase);FP-2021-0006 Page 1 1 1 1 Milli a-c ■::■ - - 1 • - ■X■Ell uu111 l .III '� v Iluml _ p 1 w —FAI 1ylIEW . . FiAI VIEW �/ ■ -� ,{� �;•r�1 �- it �AI.1 � " .��•s.,•1 i Ilhu5ml �- -X11,1,11:5 Y 'I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I.II IIIIN�•2_■ • 1.111.1.' 1■�! ■--■ ::b 4 • ul lul lii�i ii ON ON ulullll11111 N + ■ I� .11111 � # ' .1 � +II II II IIII IIII III * 1111111 Ell 10 NEW Enn ■_ i II111151-11 •• 5 Mill " SI Ii�7111111 i 1 1 ufy. �;E�III I�1-'��"""L�I■ = NNE y■ �NII � h� . 1 1 , . , Item 4. F63 EXHIBIT A 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.£)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.£,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 4. F64 EXHIBIT A 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 rL-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 11- 3B-IOCS; 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 4. F65 EXHIBIT A 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.IE);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 4. F66 EXHIBIT A 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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 15,2021.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject MCU request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Gary Sorensen,Applicant's Representative b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Brian Wenzel,Applicant's Representative e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. In favor of the proposed change from garages to carports as it will provide more parking for the development and the increase in common open space area and amenities. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 6 Item 4. F67 EXHIBIT A VII. EXHIBITS A. Approved Site Plan(dated: 1/5/2018) - PERIGN 549ATINJ WE CMTA 160' f Lam.JI `,`.� ••'+ Bl COMAAEA r 9PEMmEPAZE IS Imp- r . it I SffE DEYaQPMEYi.1M3JfTEE . r �_ - L — J' F - _DUiEzrK-YEOHQTS if r f LECEhb �SffE P.AIJ•FNAbE2 �:•• 1 I I _+���� _ ^.,,��J I o.,.... - .e.. .9..'.' Page 7 Item 4. F68 EXHIBIT A B. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 2/23/2021) 0�O �5! IV =r� 2 F� ' .`• 1 134{ y i35Wd-SLM3WLVVdV EV3Nld - IL ;NOLL7f1ll15N0}71Q!101�IMaLLtl71dI00W LW713d 3Sf1lhH01110N0} 77, rXJ I };. ..... �•ka off •�I = �. LLLZ I-� _......................................................................................................................................................... Page 8 Item 4. F69 EXHIBIT A C. Approved Landscape Plan&Open Space Plan(dated: 1/5/2018) GENERAL BHEETMOTEB i -- FE 6XER PERIC* LEG=yo SANATIRJ - W GEMERAL SHEETMQTEB J - .. W -.... few i74 I +�- - • _ _ 44lIdITwLedYW2 h r � U:y :uuuuu� c I SHEET KEYED MOTES T IllIryryryry,,,, � 4 `� ✓1:� I � LEOEM -- i II . R,r II I R/N 'Al' PLVIfIMfl PLANj AS TREE PR4TEC7I0H —C.UP2 2 Page 9 Item 4. F70] EXHIBIT A 8 T E OhTA y sew— �EN1[E$ _pE$ICH eu LOIMI.AREA SAIATIN� OPEN 2PhCE aT Ai�a1�_ r C 3F==T NEYEO FODYEE ,00p II: C I M-� LEGEND fJ. mIImTIfQI1QID'IIIIIiDI�L'�IIl`� �II I �- _y_'_______-_____ --- h1 LPEM 3PhLE 3�F 4L+ I CUP1.3 Page 10 ' ••• • • . • ' • T MWOM' MITORWIMEMKIIIIIII IIr _ 1 1 ■ r 4 i �p o � ■ I�Fk�y � LEAop V i f L_ - ■ `ir Item 4. F72 EXHIBIT A (D 07 u 953'Hd�S1N9W101'�'d'�'FF3HId + _ � � Tifi�,fF-13€,K9u53�11r3Wd4T3h34 HF]�€i4 all - , I Icy I I I � Jf E I � e � 1 t j I H Ulm a w Page 12 Item 4. F73 EXHIBIT A as ! e 'n DAM LIP I`�' ,=a �,;,;u ro 11 3WHd-51N3V9AVdV E9 3 N Id d TUN/F.-135 AMIAR 1N3Wd013A30 N91S30 0 O—F1- t � I,I � i; i i l l __• 3 - Ys'l�9ii6 ' l3�ai�lsli6 � r a 00 O �: IN I�iEin�9a =F:i�see:ie�:�s! a Og �li:Ei!1Fe:fll8l8FiE�ig��3E •, r ,,f � � > � i--- - - - ' 7 J L- -"•� d J l\ � - o _ a Page 13 Item 4. F74 EXHIBIT A /Ny j YBg �S Y g gg uN7 - /n�� ff 2 ¢F�lLL� ' 113SVMd•S1N3W1WdVE73NI4 ; g LZ�tC�fi-135 M31R3k!1N 3 NIdOl3R39 N91539 o � r — e T° p•Sk y � 1 f I!E 1 I EE1e1eI �l+ i Me �!Fleig�6i ff 1 '- �a o c I NI _ — f E it .1lt. a a'� i � � n 9 i LLJ '- -------1 — f Ii, m d J N U 4 10�0�0��i410 01141I O IIIIC y `w Page 14 — Item 4. F75 EXHIBIT A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1135tlHd•S1N3W111tldtlE43Nld � g T4WE—13S M431AR IN 3 M013AK WNS30 1 o . alEr il�o p yr�ilE 1 I I�-. Ln sedtlsi9 3iiicsli:l6!'2�.1 a r OT B CY: y ❑ � � Q 5 s! -MM HISS.@SQ...2 O O b O o D Q � — e el I I I 5_ 0 b b �f I Q - —0 o~b LC "Qf Il ia I � b oa�4�Qlb 1b .l W Page 15 »m* F76 EXHIBIT ���` �' � , ,_H-SiN__V=,m ,Z/ZZ/wmmlAR aHmm___ - �m, |�q| � ;.. . || _ |i| |�. @dmmfi| \ e i!I )/ �| h� ■ gII'l -...'..||:|�.■. |•�:...;. � ¢ Hmmammmmm .i & \ � ) 2 , e . _ Z _ Wit • ° ° ° a - §� Page 16 EXHIBIT A m .................................................. .......................................................................................... -v PE NIP m -PON ij -------------.............. ----------- ..............I............ ............. ...... Page 17 Item 4. F78 EXHIBIT A [ CIA - U *Concept only—exact system to be determined in the future Page 18 EXHIBIT A El E. Approved Conceptual Building Elevations 000 FORKER PERICH SADATINJ - - -- �. ■r■ i... .. CONCEPT I Ru MULTIFAMILY lfR; lliiul�- I�1 � -Y Illiilil �l1�: Ili 1 �r y uwr.�i F ■ ti ■ Page 19 Item 4. F80 EXHIBIT A Elevations approved for construction in Phase 1: rEf(RER PERICN SA0ATINJ `° B "�'a.oa9 sus�e,,nur�oEm ous cl 13 �nw'°`i� __f6ra aJ9 1r�EJ'�llll['lYPE 2-F#PHER SSE o,sw� �18U1➢ING TYPE ® ® ® _ ® Ulm H O� o— �:o ® om a IL B1911tMINGlYPE2-FISR CZG SNBMPTTAL El El 13 El ® ® ® mar Aar :s .��g E%7HigR ® ELEVATIDlS pig ( T9N�lRGTYPE2-�K �. ,...�. ..�., ,...., CZC4.3 Page 20 Item 4. F81 EXHIBIT A F. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations&Perspective Drawings for Multi-Family&Clubhouse Structures NOT APPROVED—SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL VERT.FIRER DEMENTRDARDIRATTEN SIDING 2 TEMRES FOR NTEREST 5� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ?� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -- ------� a X-0 1.WEST(WEBB WAY)ELEVATION 2.S OUTH ELEVATION sraic i=m' ALUM.STOREFRONT va r.�= NNri��� PAINTED METAL AWNING PAINTED METAL DOWNSPODi AOPHPITSHINGLE ROOF PANTED METP1 RNLING VERT FBER CEMENT DOARDI BATTEN SIDING 2 RIZFIBE FDR INTEREST BOAR[WHIE C CONCRETE HORIZ.FIRER CEMEM IPP SIDING (YRIERE OCCDRS) 5F C J10 ° 3.EAST ELEVATION xmw.I 4.NORTH ELEVATION Ale= C 13 TYP.BUILDING(BUILDING 3)ELEVATIONS 04.06 21 Pine 43 Multifamily F'I.BS.i 11RndiagID RIVOT FORTH PNa JOB,,,-,.2 architecture uuM.s`oREFRONT VERnGALWOOD CLABDING VERTICAL AffTAL SIDING DIMENSICNALWOODSNTs METALSIGNAGE,SEE LAIM]SCAPE DRAWINGS I O 1.WEST(WEBB WAY)ELEVATION 2.SOUTH ELEVATION PNNTFI]METPIAWMING VERTICAL WDDD CIAOOING METAL ROOF Aluu sToBEFRONT N� 3.EAST ELEVATION 4.NORTH ELEVATION(POOL DECK) �Ir RFraIaN - - O 14 AMENITY BUILDING ELEVATIONS wNy�nz� Pine 43 Multifamily Pint Subdivision,Mandian,ID PIVOT FORTH PNa JOB ft 20-052 architecture Page 21 Item 4. F82] EXHIBIT A i r w VIEW 1 AERIAL LOOKING EAST FROM WEBS WAY 6 NBYPlaV1 -" �] 07 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS o-a.os.zari Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision,Mendian,ID PIVOT NORTH PNa J DB#24052 arci�itect a re f MIL. - . }; - Will LOOKINGNE TOLMEPIl BUILDING n PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Pine 43 Multifamily PIVOT NORTH Page 22 Item 4. F83 EXHIBIT A ri VkY11,LO0pNO EAST TO VEHICUURENTRY FROM WEBS WAY09 S PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Pine 43 Multifamily Poe3W3 w MrnAn I° PIVOT FORTH PNa JCQk�OMS archltzcture do VIE W L LO II SECONOAKY OPEN SPACE PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Pine 43 Multifamily �;10 i— e1 w ID PIVOT NORTH e�cNitecL��e r � _ VIEWS.LOOKING NOUN TO AMEN"POOL DECK Li Q PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Pine 43 Multifamily PI..Subd .mend. PIVOT FORTH PNa JOB k2 52 arcM1itecture Page 23 Item 4. F84 EXHIBIT A Potential Color Schemes: NOTE.COLOR SCHEME SHOWS ARTISTS INTERPRETATION OF POTENTIAL COLOR PALATTE.POTENTIAL RECOLORING OF PHASE 1 WILL BE REVIEWED WITH CITY ■ ■ ■ ■ i 11 PINE 43 PHASE 4 COLOR 1 PINE 43 PHASE 4 COLOR 2 I� 9 i PINE 43 PHASE 1 EXISTING BUILDING PINE 43 PHASE 1-EXISTING BUILDING 1 El i PINE 43 PHASE 1-BUILDING 2 E - I POTENTIAL RE-COLOR INOOF PHASE 1(JASPER APARTMENYS) PINE 43 PHASE I-BUILDING 1 TO MORE-CLOSELY ALIGN Wild PROPOSED PHASE 4 PROJECT USE SIMILAR COLORS IN DISTINCT WAYS FOR COHESIVE ALIGNMENT 04 ELEVATION CONCEPT-PHASE 1 FIELD OCLOR OF PHASE 4 BECOMES ACCFJR DF PHASE I,VICE VERSA 61.Q92Q21 Pine 43 Multifamily Pine Subdivision,Meridian,ID PINE 43 PHASE I COLOR STUDY RIVOT NORTH 'Na JOB#20-052 arch itectu ne Page 24 Item 4. F85] EXHIBIT A 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 as set 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 11-3B-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-I005. Coordinate with Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements (208-371-1755). £ 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 II 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 4. F86 EXHIBIT A 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- 27B.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-613. 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 4. F87 EXHIBIT A B. PUBLIC WORKS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. A manhole will be required at the 90-degree sewer bend in sewer located East of Building 7. 2. Sewer services are private and should not be within utility easements,remove the easement around the sewer service located North of Building 7. 3. Upsize the water line South of Building 7 to an 8" main and connect the Clubhouse water meter and fire line from that main extension. 4. Provide a water utility easement near the Southeast corner of Building 1 to the East property line for a future water connection to the East. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) hgps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223662&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224331&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C hty E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224004&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. Page 27 Item 4. F88 EXHIBIT A 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 28 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Hearings Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 6, 2021 FLUM The Oasis Proposed– FLUM Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 6, 2021 district.T zone -Conditional use permit to allow a drinking establishment in an existing building in the O AERIALZONINGFLUM district.15 zoning -Conditional Use Permit to allow 7 fourplex buildings of 28 units total on 2.2 acres in the R AERIALZONINGFLUM degrees. fourplex on the east side of the aisle. Two of the fourplexes have also been rotated on their axis 90 aisle, whereas what was submitted indicates three fourplexes on the west of the drive aisle, and a The approved development agreement concept plan reflects two fourplexes on either side of a drive northern side of the property is slightly reconfigured.elevations included with the development agreement except that one of the fourplexes on the The proposal as submitted generally conforms to the site plan, landscape plan and conceptual parking lot sidewalks have been installed. with this project would include asphalt driveways, parking lots, and site landscaping. The internal The required infrastructure and landscaping has already been installed; improvements associated development.family -The approved preliminary plat, final plat specifically identifies the subject property for a multiThe subject property was annexed and zoned in 2014 as part of the Jump Creek Subdivision. degrees. fourplex on the east side of the aisle. Two of the fourplexes have also been rotated on their axis 90 aisle, whereas what was submitted indicates three fourplexes on the west of the drive aisle, and a The approved development agreement concept plan reflects two fourplexes on either side of a drive Commission should determine whether this is acceptable request.The Planning may be part of Jump Creek No. 7 and requires a separate CUP approval. maintenance storage other than this will be built with the additional 44 units of multifamily that The applicant has not provided any information regarding the management office and -this requirement is met. requirement. The applicant will need to submit floor plans at the time of CZC that demonstrate The submitted floorplans indicate patios and decks on the units that are slightly less than the -developments of more than 20 units.Requirements for a management office, central mailbox and maintenance storage for -Two amenities with this development-250 sq. ft. of common open space per unit.-80 sq. ft. of private common open space per unit-•There are specific use standards for multifamily units. These standards include: property.As a condition of approval, staff recommends that two qualifying amenities be provided on the subject of the Jump Creek subdivision.whether the residents of the multifamily properties were entitled to use the same amenities as the rest 7. However, it was not indicated in the associated development agreement -built with Phases 5All amenities have already been constructed except for one tot lot and several trail connections to be Two amenities are required with this development. -fourplexes as well as meet all requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). architecture of the covered carports utilizing similar materials and architecture as that of the Certificate of Zoning compliance, the applicant shall submit color elevations that reflect that the elevations do not indicate architecture and materials other than prefinished metal. At the time of and conceptual elevations have been submitted of the carports. However, the conceptual foot sidewalk. The site plan shows 30 of these parking spaces to be covered, -overhang onto a 6foot -The site indicates 65 parking spaces that are 18 feet in length with wheel stops and a one-of them covered. 3 bedrooms, this amounts to 56 parking spaces, at least 28 -carport or garage. With 28 units of 2bedroom units, with at least one in a covered -3-A requires 2 parking spaces per 2-3C-UDC 11 D.-27-3-4-site amenities shall be provided which meet the requirements of UDC 11-Two onC.-27-3-4-space exhibit that meets the requirements of UDC 11At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC), the Developer/Owner shall submit a common open phase (Phase 4) should be temporarily reserved for this purpose until Phase 7 is constructed. been approved through conditional use yet, or whether one of the 28 units proposed with this particular The Planning Commission should determine whether this is acceptable request given Phase 7 has not 27. -3-4-office and associated maintenance building in accord with UDC 11Creek No. 7 for such use including the maintenance building OR construct a standalone property management family development currently being platted with Jump -convert one of the units in the second phase of the multiIf a management office and maintenance storage area is not part of this development, the applicant shall those entering the development.maintenance storage area and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the CZC shall be revised to depict a management office, Staff Recommendations / Conditions Changes to Agenda: None Item #7: The Vault (H-2021-0017) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drinking establishment Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2,170 sq. ft. of land, zoned O-T, located at 140 E. Idaho Ave. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Property within the Old Town, surrounded by restaurants, drinking establishments, office and residential. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town Summary of Request: The Applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow a drinking establishment in an existing building in the O-T zone district. The present business is a cigar bar (retail establishment) that recently begun serving ancillary beer and wine. The applicant proposes to expand the business to allow dispensing of all types of liquor. As this qualifies as a lounge, nightclub, or tavern, UDC 11-2D-2 only allows the use through conditional use permit. The building is an existing building in the O-T zoning district. All parking, sidewalks and landscaping is already installed. The new outdoor patio meets all setback requirements and does not encroach into any public right of way. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Old Town. This designation includes the historic downtown and the true community center. Allowed uses include offices, retail and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. The existing cigar bar and expansion to allow serving of alcohol will encourage a neighborhood “hang out” for locals and guests. This type of use is what has been envisioned for this area by the Comprehensive Plan 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-2021-0017, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 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-2021-0017, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0017 to the hearing Item #8: Jump Creek North Four-Plex (H-2021-0018) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit to allow 7 fourplex buildings of 28 units total on 2.2 acres in the R-15 zoning district. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.2 acres of land, zoned R-15, located on the west side of N. Black Cat Road, midway between W. McMillan Road and W. Chinden Boulevard. Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow 7 fourplex buildings of 28 units total on 2.2 acres in the R-15 zoning district.  The subject property was annexed and zoned in 2014 as part of the Jump Creek Subdivision (AZ-14-011, PP-14-013).  The approved preliminary plat, final plat (H-2018-0113) and associated development agreement (Instr. 2014-105206) specifically identifies the subject property for a multi-family development.  The required infrastructure and landscaping has already been installed; improvements associated with this project would include asphalt driveways, parking lots, and site landscaping. The internal parking lot sidewalks have been installed.  There are specific use standards for multifamily units. These standards include: o 80 sq. ft. of private common open space per unit. o 250 sq. ft. of common open space per unit. o Two amenities with this development o Requirements for a management office, central mailbox and maintenance storage for developments of more than 20 units.  The submitted floorplans indicate patios and decks on the units that are slightly less than the requirement. The applicant will need to submit floor plans at the time of CZC that demonstrate this requirement is met.  The applicant has not provided any information regarding the management office and maintenance storage other than this will be built with the additional 44 units of multifamily that may be part of Jump Creek No. 7 and requires a separate CUP approval.  The Planning Commission should determine whether this is acceptable request given Phase 7 has not been approved through conditional use yet, or whether one of the 28 units proposed with this particular phase (Phase 4) should be temporarily reserved for this purpose until Phase 7 is constructed.  Two amenities are required with this development.  All amenities have already been constructed except for one tot lot and several trail connections to be built with Phases 5-7. However, it was not indicated in the associated development agreement whether the residents of the multifamily properties were entitled to use the same amenities as the rest of the Jump Creek subdivision.  As a condition of approval, staff recommends that two qualifying amenities be provided on the subject property.  UDC 11-3C-A requires 2 parking spaces per 2-3-bedroom units, with at least one in a covered carport or garage. With 28 units of 2-3 bedrooms, this amounts to 56 parking spaces, at least 28 of them covered. The site indicates 65 parking spaces that are 18 feet in length with wheel stops and a one-foot overhang onto a 6-foot sidewalk. The site plan shows 30 of these parking spaces to be covered, and conceptual elevations have been submitted of the carports. However, the conceptual elevations do not indicate architecture and materials other than prefinished metal. At the time of Certificate of Zoning compliance, the applicant will need to submit color elevations that reflect that the architecture of the covered carports utilizing similar materials and architecture as that of the fourplexes as well as meet all requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM).  Staff Recommendation / Conditions o The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the CZC shall be revised to depict a management office, maintenance storage area and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. o If a management office and maintenance storage area is not part of this development, the applicant shall convert one of the units in the second phase of the multi-family development currently being platted with Jump Creek No. 7 for such use including the maintenance building OR construct a standalone property management office and associated maintenance building in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27. o The Planning Commission should determine whether this is acceptable request given Phase 7 has not been approved through conditional use yet, or whether one of the 28 units proposed with this particular phase (Phase 4) should be temporarily reserved for this purpose until Phase 7 is constructed. o At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC), the Developer/Owner shall submit a common open space exhibit that meets the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27-C. o Two on-site amenities shall be provided which meet the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27-D. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to for approval of File Number H-2021-0018, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 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 H-2021-0018, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0018 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Changes to Agenda: Item #4: The Oasis (H-2021-0004) Continued from 3/18 Commission hearing Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of a portion of 3.26 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick Roads, 3185 Ustick Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – Ustick Road; C-G zoning and commercial development  East – Eagle Road; C-G zoning and commercial development  South – Undeveloped C-G zoning (being presented tonight); further southwest is the Jackson Square subdivision  West – Undeveloped C-G zoning (Villasport site) History: H-2019-0082 (DA Modification to remove the subject site from an existing DA and enter into a new one specific to this site; DA Inst. #2019-121599); H-2020-0104 (Pre-plat approval to subdivide property into 5 lots); A-2019-0376 & A-2021-0010 (CZC for parking lot, landscaping, and other relevant site improvements); A-2021-0012 (CZC and Design Review approval of the building proposed to house requested business). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Regional Written Testimony: As of 4pm there were 225 pieces of public testimony – Those who support project note a desire to have a music venue for entertainment here in Meridian instead of in other cities. Those who oppose the project note concerns over increased traffic, overall safety, drunk driving, parking count, and how it would degrade the moral character of the City. Since the first commission hearing, there have been nine (9) additional pieces of public testimony; one offered support for the proposed project. Summary of Request: The subject property was annexed in 2003 as part of a larger annexation area (AZ-03-018). There was a Development Agreement (DA) associated with this annexation which was modified in 2019 to remove this property from that DA (H- 2019-0082) and enter into a new one serving just this site (DA Inst. #2019-121599). In December of 2020, the land owner (not the current Applicant) received preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property for future ownership purposes. The subject project is proposed within a new multi-tenant building on one of those lots. The subject site is part of a larger Mixed-use Regional area that includes the commercial developments to its north, northeast, east, and the Villasport site to the west. A project of this small size is not intended and cannot comply with all of the mixed-use regional policies and goals. However, in conjunction with the existing and approved uses in this general area, the mixed-use policies have been met. A few of the comprehensive plan policies that Staff found relevant are as follows:  Diversify Meridian's economic base to establish and maintain a self-sustaining, full-service economy.  Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments.  Enhance crime prevention awareness through the education of neighborhood watch groups, multi-family property management companies, homeowners' associations, and other organizations.  Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. In regards to the last policy noted, there is no neighborhood directly adjacent to the subject site but the closest home is approximately 330 feet from the southern property line. Future commercial buildings and parking lots will separate this project from this existing residential to the southwest. With the recently approved CZC and Design Review approval for the multi-tenant building, the approved landscaping meets all code requirements and helps to beautify the property while offering an appropriate visual landscape buffer to the closest neighborhood to the southwest. Likely, the subject site will not be directly viewable from the nearest residential neighborhood once other properties redevelop in the near future. The parking is located on the interior of the overall property which will be largely screened by buildings and landscaping from adjacent properties, usually one of the most noise inducing elements of a commercial site. Other general comprehensive plan policies were discussed and analyzed within the staff report but is in no way an exhaustive list of applicable policies either in support of or against the proposed project. The approved building that would hold the proposed use is constructed with a modern and urban design that should integrate with the overall design of the other commercial buildings within this commercial development and with those adjacent to the site. However, according to the Applicant, the real buffering of the proposed use comes from within the building where there is proposed soundproofing materials, techniques, and technologies. When it comes to the screening and buffering of the building and use, Staff finds the proposed landscaping and internal building materials to be sufficient; this does not mean issues like parking and capacity are addressed with the landscaping and soundproofing. The administratively approved building, Eagle View Retail Center, will be approximately 8,300 square feet in size with two tenant suites. The Oasis is proposed in the larger suite at an approximate size of 7,000 square feet and the building and use meet all of the code required dimensional standards. The proposed business is a combination of a nightclub and music venue which falls under Drinking Establishment and Indoor Recreation Facility uses within the development code, respectively. The indoor recreation facility use is a principally permitted use within the C-G zoning district unless it incorporates a music venue and is located within 1,000 feet of an existing residence which then requires a conditional use permit; as is the case with this application. A drinking establishment is a conditional use within the C-G zoning district. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval for these two uses to reside within one building and one business, The Oasis. It is anticipated that directly south of the approved building there will be additional landscaping, a larger parking lot, and a drive aisle. This parking lot and landscaping received preliminary approval with the Villasport applications. Main access to and for this development will be via a shared driveway connection to Ustick Road limited to a right-in/right-out access—the land owner is currently constructing this shared driveway access for their development because this site is developing before the Villasport project and ensures there is more than one way to get to the entrance of the site. This drive aisle will connect to N. Cajun Lane to the south. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and therefore no stub streets are proposed. Instead, there are private drive-aisles as are standard for commercial developments. The Applicant has an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties (Inst. #106169335) but this agreement does not currently include a cross-parking agreement. In addition to the shared drive aisle that abuts the property to the west, The Villasport site improvements and recorded cross-access agreement will include an additional Ustick Road access point further west, N. Centrepoint Way. These access points to the arterial are long approved for the site. Staff finds there is adequate and safe access to the site at full build-out and also with only the most adjacent Ustick access in conjunction with the drive aisle connection to Cajun Lane and then out to Eagle Road. However, to help mitigate any residential cut-through traffic this Applicant and land owner should work with the Villasport Applicant to construct a driveway through their site in-line with where they plan to construct one in the future. This driveway would provide a more direct means of accessing Centrepoint Way and the existing traffic signal at that intersection without having to use the roads adjacent to the residential subdivision further to the south. ACHD is the leading agency on access points and traffic mitigation for the City of Meridian; because peak traffic times should not be drastically affected by the proposed use on any access point, ACHD did not require a Traffic Impact Study for this application. Even with the assumed capacity of 1,000 persons in the initial submittal this was not required and restricting the capacity to 500 persons should help with the traffic concerns of this type of use. Further analysis regarding access should be addressed to ACHD. Staff also agrees that at peak hours of business (after 8pm) access to the site should be improved as adjacent traffic levels on Ustick and Eagle should be much less than at 5 or 6pm. With the proposed uses of a music venue and nightclub, capacity and hours of operation are integral factors in determining the compatibility of the uses with neighboring and planned development, both commercial and residential. The Applicant proposes hours of operation for The Oasis as 4:00PM to 1:00AM on the weekdays and 4:00PM to 2:00AM on the weekends. For reference, the Villasport site is approved to remain open until 12:00AM, midnight which would cover a majority of the same operating hours proposed with this application. The Oasis is further away from the existing residential than Villasport but this does not mean any negative impacts are automatically alleviated. Therefore, Staff recommends weekday (Sunday thru Thursday) hours for The Oasis be limited to 4:00PM to 12:00AM and weekend hours to be limited to 4:00PM to 1:00AM. These hours of operation match or closely match the closing time of Villasport which makes it more compatible with that use and nearby residential development. These limitations are one less hour than what the applicant requested. In order to meet UDC minimum parking requirements for the approximate suite size of 7,000 square feet, a total of 28 parking spaces should be provided (this is a ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet of the gross floor area – ratio requirement for restaurant use). With the approved CZC and the additional spaces on the site specific site plan, 102 parking spaces are proposed on-site and would likely be used because there is an existing cross-access and cross-parking agreement in place for the site. Both the land owner and Applicant understand the entire site will likely be used for parking for the proposed business. The approved plans do not show any parking along the future northern commercial lots and the land owner has guaranteed that those spaces will be built prior to this use commencing. Depending on how the parking is configured on the north side of the site, there is physical room for approximately a maximum of 37 additional parking spaces at the required 9 feet of width and including four landscape planters in line with code requirements. Again, this is a maximum but does show additional parking spaces will be provided on site beyond what is currently being shown. Because of the anticipated parking issues for the proposed uses, Staff has recommended the Applicant and land owner obtain a cross-parking agreement with the adjacent properties to the south and to the west to increase the amount of available parking for the proposed use. In addition, a minimum of 125 total parking spaces shall be constructed within Eagle Commons to obtain a parking to patron ratio of 1:4 in accord with previous approvals. The Applicant’s original narrative estimated a capacity of approximately 1,000 patrons for the 7,000 square foot tenant suite. After receiving a conceptual floor plan, preliminary discussions with Fire plan reviewers discussed a maximum capacity closer to 700 persons; the exact number for maximum building occupancy cannot be known until architectural plans are submitted with building permit submittal at a later date. However, through the CUP process, capacity can be limited further. Because of the issues outlined, Staff recommends capacity be limited to no more than 500 persons to include employees. Employees will likely take up parking spaces for the entire hours of operation so they should be included in the maximum capacity. Staff arrived at this number because it is the same ratio as the minimum parking ratio for the proposed use, a 1:4 ratio. 500 persons and 125 parking spaces equate to one (1) space for every four (4) people. It should be noted that enforcement of any capacity limits will be difficult for the City. The Applicant should discuss how they intend on enforcing these limits without requiring constant Fire or Police presence on-site. th At the March 18 Commission hearing, the Commission continued this project out for the following reasons: - Work with Meridian Police Department to create a safety plan and protocol - Provide a circulation plan and a Ride Share Promotion Plan to include a plan outlining the dedicated spaces for ride share parking - Gain a shared parking agreement with adjacent properties to show a minimum of 170 parking stalls It is staff’s understanding that the Applicant reached out to the Police Department but they do not participate in projects on this level until after they are approved. The Applicant did create a safety plan and protocol which the Meridian Police Department has received. The Applicant has also provided a Ride Share Promotion Plan and included the circulation plan for the overall Wadsworth site that is located in the project file. Lastly, no shared parking agreement has been made with adjacent landowners. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit because the proposed use meets or exceeds minimum code requirements as outlined in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 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-2021-0004, as presented during the hearing on May 6, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: Mountain America Credit Union Drive-Through (H-2021-0019) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit  Administrative Design Review (approved at the Staff level) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.16 acres of land, zoned C-G, located on Lot 13 of the Lost Rapids Subdivision, on the west side of N. Ten Mile Road and approximately 1/8 mile south of Chinden Boulevard. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – C-G zoning and vacant land (Costco fuel station is two additional lots north)  East – Ten Mile Road; R-8 zoning and Residential development  South – Undeveloped C-G zoning (approved for a multi-tenant building and drive-through)  West – C-G zoning and Costco site History: H-2018-0004 (DA #2018-079970, Lost Rapids - GFI Meridian Investments II, LLC); FP-2019-0056 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request:  The proposed drive-through is for a financial institution that is within 300-feet of a restaurant drive-through to the south that has recently received Commission approval, which requires Conditional Use Permit approval (CUP) per UDC Table 11-2B-2.  Project must comply with the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-11—Staff believes the project meets all of the requirements. o Specifically, the Applicant proposes a detached drive-through structure for the credit union and; o the stacking lane for any of the three (3) drive-through lanes is less than 100’ and does not require an escape lane.  Applicant applied for and received Design Review approval for the future credit union building and detached drive-through structure. The main field materials shown are fiber cement siding and stone with two main colors of white and a coal-like color. Staff made specific conditions of approval for the elevations to be addressed prior to submitting for building permit. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the CUP request with the conditions of approval noted in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0019, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 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-2021-0019, as presented during the hearing on May 6, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0019 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. 89 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for The Oasis (H-2021-0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Item 5. F90-1 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 6, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 18, 2021 for The Oasis (H-2021-0004) by Brian Tsai of Balboa Ventures, Located at 3185 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment, music venue, and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: May 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: The Oasis (H-2021-0004) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 Y 2 � 3 4 5 0, QA(x ry 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/18/2021 Legend DATE: I�l U Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ®- SUBJECT: H-2021-0004 q _ - The Oasis _; IBM 'J Ey LOCATION: The site is located on a portion of 3185 E.Ustick Road, at the southwest corner of N. Eagle Road and E. Ustick Road,in the NE '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 5, Township 3N.,Range IE. ' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit request for an approximate 7,000 square foot drinking establishment,music venue,and nightclub on a portion of 3.26 acres of land in the C-G zoning district,by Brian Tsai, Balboa Ventures. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage Portion of 3.29(C-G zoning district) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Regional Existing Land Use(s) Vacant but being developed Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial Lots(#and type;bldg./common) On 1 of 5 building lots Physical Features(waterways, Milk Lateral runs along southern boundary of property; hazards,flood plain,hillside) easement being respected and verified in CZC approvals. Neighborhood meeting date;#of January 14,2021— 15 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2019-0082(DA Modification to remove the subject site from an existing DA and enter into a new one specific to this site;DA Inst.#2019-121599);H-2020-0104(Pre-plat approval to subdivide property into 5 lots);A-2019-0376& A-2021-0010(CZC for parking lot,landscaping,and other relevant site improvements);A-2021-0012(CZC and Design Review approval of the building proposed to house requested business). Page 1 Item 5. F92 Description Details Page Public Testimony Due to the controversial nature of this project,there has been a number of written and verbal testimony both for and against this project.Please go here to review this public testimony. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes;Comply with letter noting review that occurred with urgent care CZC(A-2020-0163). • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a proposed shared driveway into Hwy/Local)(Existing and the development from E.Ustick Rd.No direct access is Proposed) proposed or allowed to E.Ustick Rd.or N.Eagle Rd. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Subject site has existing cross-access agreements in place Access for sites within the original 3 acre parcel. Staff is unaware of any cross-access agreements with adjacent sites to the west and south(Villasport approvals). Existing Road Network Internal drive aisles and adjacent drive aisles are currently under construction. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ The required sidewalks and landscaping are currently Buffers under construction commensurate with the approved CZC plans(A-2019-0376). Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not required to perform any road improvements because Ustick and Eagle are at their full- build out at this time. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.2 miles from Fire Station#3 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. 1 • Resource Reliability Fire Station#3 reliability currently 80% • Risk Identification Risk Factor 3—commercial • Accessibility Proposed project meets all Fire required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Police Service • Distance to Station 3.5 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 3.5 minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 2/1/2019- 1/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 2,967 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 251. Between 2/1/2019- 1/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 198 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns Following any approvals,Police will want to meet with Applicant on expectations of Police. Page 2 Item 5. F 3 C. Project Area Maps .Future Land Use Map .Aerial Map Legend Legend Project Location = lProject Location � 1 n Medium- Density " rh , . Resident°aII a ® MU Cornrnercial y r_ -Low Density MU-RG :�F Residential rTTTTTM Civic ®� • ° t-°. .Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 Project Location I El Project Location G-1 R-3 City Limits �R-8 Planned Parcels ie ® C-N C-G RUT �R--2�, CSC - r7i-'! R-8 RI H-- -J -RUT,jR-2� RUT �I ' qO Rl R=2RI - o R-4 ----- -- ' ono R-2-R1 R-4 L-O IC-C R-40 �4 __ =--' `�R1 CM=G , III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Brian Tsai,Balboa Ventures-PO Box 109204,Boise,ID 83719 B. Owner: Nate Ballard,Wadsworth Development- 166 E. 14000 South, Ste. 210,Draper,UT 84020 Page 3 Item 5. 94 C. Representative: N/A IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 2/23/2021 Site Posting 3/7/2021 Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property was annexed in 2003 as part of a larger annexation area(AZ-03-018). There was a Development Agreement(DA) associated with this annexation which was modified in 2019 to remove this property from that DA(H-2019-0082) and enter into a new one serving just this site(DA Inst.#2019-121599).The land owner received approval to subdivide the property for future ownership purposes. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)—In general,the purpose of mixed-use designations is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers. The intent is to promote developments that offer functional and physical integration of land uses,to create and enhance neighborhood sense of place, and to allow developers a greater degree of design and use flexibility. Specifically,the purpose of the regional designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of E. Ustick Road(an arterial street) and N. Eagle Road/SH 55. Staff and the Applicant understand the importance of providing more commercial uses in this area, especially on an undeveloped corner. To the east and across Eagle Road are two large commercial centers; to the north is an additional commercial center. These surrounding areas provide a plethora of commercial uses that are used at a regional level. Directly to the west of the subject site is intended to be a high-end indoor gym (Villasport) and further to the south of the site is existing residential and some community serving commercial.As these lots get developed over time, Staff believes that they will continue to add to the City's commercial base and will likely be a higher benefit to users of the future Villasport and residents to the southwest of this site. The proposed business of a nightclub and music venue offers a new commercial use not only to this area of Meridian but to Meridian as a whole. Staff is of the opinion that despite being on a relatively small site, the proposed use would have regional pull for patrons. Therefore, this project, in conjunction with the approved uses to the west, should satisfy the comprehensive plan and mixed-use policies. Page 4 Item 5. 95 B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridiancity.orglcompplan): Some applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily,and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D). There is no neighborhood directly adjacent to the subject site but the closest home is approximately 330 feet from the southern property line. Future commercial buildings and parking lots will separate this project from existing residential to the southwest. However, with the recently approved CZC and Design Review approval for this multi-tenant building, the approved landscaping meets all code requirements and helps to beauty the property while offering an appropriate visual landscape buffer to the closest neighborhood to the southwest. Likely, the subject site will not be directly viewable from the nearest residential neighborhood once other properties redevelop in the near future. The parking is located on the interior of the overall property which will be largely screened by buildings and helps screen the parking lot from adjacent properties, usually one of the most noise inducing elements of a commercial site. The approved building that is to hold the proposed use is constructed with a modern and urban design that should integrate with the overall design of the other properties and with those adjacent to the site. However, according to the Applicant, the real buffering of the proposed use comes from within the building where there is proposed soundproofing materials, techniques, and technologies. When it comes to screening and buffering any incompatibilities of the proposed use, Staff finds the proposed landscaping and internal building materials to be sufficient in integrating the use into the existing and planned development. "Diversify Meridian's economic base to establish and maintain a self-sustaining, full-service economy."(2.06.01).Meridian does not have a business of the kind being proposed within this application. The Applicant appropriately described within their narrative the lack of entertainment, art, and music activities available within the City. The Applicant discusses this as a major need for the City. Staff can see the proposed use as adding to the economic base of the City because it would be a new type of use and offer a commercial use in the hours after IOpm, which is not a normal occurrence within the City. "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A).Pedestrian connectivity to this site is not one of the major issues for this proposed use. Where feasible, each building site will have pedestrian connections to one another and will have connections to the sidewalks along the adjacent major roadways on the north and east sides of the overall site. So long as these connections are required with each CZC review, Staff believes the subject site will have adequate pedestrian circulation especially due to the relatively small size of the overall commercial development. In addition, as future commercial sites to the south develop and additional pedestrian connections are introduced to the area,future patrons of this nightclub would have ample places to recreate before and after participating in this use and get to and from different uses safely. "Determine and respond to the community's art and cultural facility needs."(5.03.01E). The City is not working in collaboration with the Applicant so the context of this policy is not precisely what is called for within the comprehensive plan. However, a private business can add art and cultural facilities just as easily as the City. According to the Applicant, a nightclublindoor recreation facilityldrinking establishment can and should add to the community's art and culture. It is the Applicant's intent to increase the availability of a music venue for Meridian residents to have more opportunity to share in music as art and potentially bring new cultural experiences to Meridian through this business and venue. Page 5 Item 5. 96 "Enhance crime prevention awareness through the education of neighborhood watch groups, multi-family property management companies,homeowners'associations, and other organizations." (4.11.02F). The Applicant has been eager to work with the Meridian Police Department in order to help mitigate any future negative impacts of the proposed use. The Police cannot give an "approval"of the proposed project but they are working with the Applicant and have had conversations with the Applicant. MPD has shown interest in educating the Applicant on any and all crime prevention techniques here in Meridian. "Support efforts to evaluate and plan for future transportation services such as public transit, on- demand services, autonomous and shared vehicles."(6.01.04A).Again, the City is not partnering with the Applicant in pursuit of this policy but the Applicant has discussed thoroughly the applicability of ride-sharing for patrons of their proposed business. The Applicant noted that in most markets an average of 40%of the patrons for a business like this utilize ride-shares like Uber and Lyft in order to offset parking or having to drive at all. Staff cannot confirm these statistics but with the lack ofpublic transportation within the City and the overall car dominant landscape we live in here in Meridian, it is unlikely that the 40%usage would occur for those attending The Oasis. There should be no doubt this service would be utilized but not at a level that Staff can overlook the parking and traffic issues presented by the proposed use. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent and in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan as noted above. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject site is currently having its basic improvements completed(grading, drainage,water& sewer,and parking lot)but generally is a vacant parcel.Recent site visits also show a foundation of one of the approved buildings within the site(nearest Eagle and in the southeast corner of the subject site).All road improvements along Ustick and Eagle Roads are existing. With the approved CZC,the building,utilities,and drainage will be completed regardless of the proposed use being approved or denied. D. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The submitted conceptual elevations are those approved with the recent CZC and Design Review approvals. The approved commercial building complies with the UDC and the Architectural Standards Manual. The elevations show modern architecture with glazed glass storefronts, awnings,vertical trellis,and varying wall modulation on all sides of the building. hi addition,the elevations show brick,polymer, and rustic corrugated metal panels as finish materials. As noted, these elevations have already been approved by Staff at an administrative level. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The building proposed to contain the proposed use has recently received CZC approval and meets all dimensional standards for setbacks,parking,building height, and access. The proposed use of a music venue falls under the Indoor Recreation Facility specific use standards(UDC 11-4-3-2) and if one is to be located within 1,000 feet of an existing residence a Conditional Use Permit is required;part of the Applicant's CUP request is to satisfy this requirement. In addition,one of the proposed uses is for a Drinking Establishment and is also subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-10); the required dimensional standards noted within this code section are being met with the CUP request. F. Proposed Use Analysis: The administratively approved building,Eagle View Retail Center,will be approximately 8,300 square feet in size with two tenant suites. The Oasis is proposed in the larger suite at an Page 6 Item 5. 97 approximate size of 7,000 square feet. The uses allowed on the subject site are those listed in UDC Table 11-213-2 for the C-G zoning district. The proposed business is a combination of a nightclub and music venue which falls under Drinking Establishment and Indoor Recreation Facility uses within the development code,respectively. The indoor recreation facility use is a principally permitted use within the C-G zoning district unless it incorporates a music venue and is located within 1,000 feet of an existing residence which then requires a conditional use permit; this is the case with the proposed use of the music venue because the building is approximately 330 feet from the nearest residence. A drinking establishment is a conditional use within the C-G zoning district. Therefore,the Applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval for these two uses to reside within one building and one business,The Oasis. Staff recommends the Commission review the Applicant's narrative to gain further insight into how the business is intended to operate in terms of soundproofing techniques,security,business operations, and alcohol consumption. Staffs use analysis is not exhaustive as the Applicant's narrative details more of their proposals than is necessary to discuss within this staff report. According to the Applicant, The Oasis is meant to be a premier music venue and nightclub that offers entertainment and a nightlife for those in Meridian, much like other prominent cities. The Applicant also understands the negative stigmas surrounding a "nightclub"and provided a detailed response to this within their narrative. Staff agrees with some of the points made by the Applicant but must analyze the proposed uses against development code. As noted, the approved building and proposed uses meet all required dimensional standards as they are not directly adjacent to a residential district(approximately 330 feet from the closest residential district) and meet all building and landscaping setbacks. It is anticipated that directly south of the approved building there will be additional landscaping, a larger parking lot, and a drive aisle. This parking lot and landscaping received preliminary approval with the Villasport applications and a user is currently in process on this site that would make these improvements more tangible. This parking lot and landscaping would abut the drive aisle that extends from N. Cajun Lane to the south and continues north adjacent to this subject site and connects to Ustick, the main access to this commercial development. This drive aisle is currently being constructed with the site improvements for Eagle Commons as a whole to ensure there is more than one way to get to the entrance of the site. Further discussion on this is in the Access section below, V.G. With the proposed uses of a music venue and nightclub, capacity and hours of operation are integral factors in determining the compatibility of the uses with neighboring and planned development. The Applicant proposes hours of operation for The Oasis as 4:OOPM to 1:OOAM on the weekdays and 4:OOPM to 2:00"on the weekends.It is unclear what specific days the Applicant is referring to as "the weekends;"Staff is recommending for future analysis, discussion, and conditions of approval purposes that this is in reference to Friday and Saturday nights only. The Villasport site was approved to remain open until 12:OOAM, midnight which would cover a majority of the same operating hours proposed with this application. Both proposed uses, Villasport and The Oasis, are likely to drastically increase activity on this currently vacant corner. However, the Villasport approvals are set to expire soon unless that Applicant applies for a time extension. This calls into question how this corner will look in the coming years and it is not feasible for Staff to speculate too far as there could be many unknowns. Staff must analyze this project based on the current situation known which includes the Villasport development. The Oasis is further away from the existing residential than Villasport but this does not mean any negative impacts are automatically alleviated. Therefore, Staff recommends weekday (Sunday thru Thursday) hours for The Oasis be limited to 4:OOPM to 12:OOAM. These hours of operation for the weekdays match the closing time of Villasport making it more compatible with that use and nearby residential development. The opening time is of less concern to Staff because these Page 7 Item 5. ■ types of businesses do not generally have peak hours of operation earlier in the evening. It can be assumed that the 4:OOPMstart time is likely more associated with private events like that of weddings than it is associated with the nightclub or concert uses. In addition, the hours of operation are only applicable to use of the site by those other than employees; ancillary indoor business activities are allowed beyond these hours for employees, as outlined in UDC 11-2B-3B. Staff recommends the weekend(Friday&Saturday)hours are also limited to help with being compatible to nearby residential. These hours should be limited to 4:OOPM to 1:OOAM, a reduction in one hour of operation from the Applicant's request and one more hour than the weekdays. The Applicant's original narrative estimated a capacity of approximately 1,000 patrons for the 7,000 square foot tenant suite.After receiving a conceptual floor plan,preliminary discussions with Fire plan reviewers discussed a maximum capacity closer to 700 persons; the exact number for maximum building occupancy cannot be known until architectural plans are submitted with building permit submittal at a later date. However, through the CUP process, capacity can be limited further. Because of the issues outlined in this staff report, Staff recommends capacity be limited to no more than 500 persons to include employees. Employees will likely take up parking spaces for the entire hours of operation so they should be included in the maximum capacity. The Applicant and Staff have discussed this number and there is preliminary agreement on this condition. Staff arrived at this number because it is the same ratio as the minimum parking ratio for the proposed use, a 1:4 ratio. 500 persons and 125 parking spaces equate to one(1)space for every four(4)people; drastically improved from one (1)space for every 6 or 7 people with a capacity over 700. Further analysis on the parking is below in section V.H. IF the Applicant can adhere to the recommended conditions of approval noted below, Staff finds the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in that it should be mitigated appropriately. Commission may determine further mitigation is needed through this CUP process. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Main access to and for this development will be via a shared driveway connection to Ustick Road limited to a right-in/right-out access—the land owner is currently constructing this shared driveway access for their development because this site is developing before the Villasport project. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and therefore no stub streets are proposed. Instead,there are private drive-aisles as are standard for commercial developments. The Applicant has an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties(Inst. #106169335)but this agreement does not include a cross-parking agreement. As previously discussed above, the subject site abuts a drive aisle that connects to Ustick and is the main access to this commercial development. This commercial drive aisle will be a continuation of N. Cajun Lane, a private street,from the south but in fact will not be a named street. This off-site drive aisle is currently being constructed with the site improvements for Eagle Commons as a whole because Cajun Lane connects to Seville Lane and is an access point to Eagle Road. Constructing this connection ensures there is more than one way to access the site entrance other than from Ustick. The Eagle Road access is an existing access that is off-site and limited to a right-in/right-out only access. Because the overall site, Eagle Commons, has received preliminary plat approval to subdivided the property, cross-access and cross parking between the five proposed lots is required. In the recorded Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (Inst. #2020-075457) this cross-access is discussed and dictated for each lot and future user. In addition to the shared drive aisle that abuts the property to the west, The Villasport site improvements and recorded cross-access agreement will include an additional Ustick Road Page 8 Item 5. 99 1 access point further west, N. Centrepoint Way. These access points to the arterial are long approved for the site. Staff finds there is adequate and safe access to the site at full build-out and with only the most adjacent Ustick access in conjunction with the drive aisle connection to Cajun Lane and then out to Eagle Road. However, to help mitigate any residential cut-through traffic this Applicant and land owner should work with the Villasport Applicant to construct a driveway through their site in-line with where they plan to construct one in the future. This driveway would provide a more direct means of accessing Centrepoint Way and the existing traffic signal at that intersection without having to use the roads adjacent to the residential subdivision further to the south. Staff also agrees that at peak hours of business (after 8pm) access to the site should be improved as adjacent traffic levels on Ustick and Eagle should be much less than at 5 or 6pm. This is due to the fact there are not many businesses open beyond 9pm within Meridian that draw the kind of customers that can be assumed for the proposed business. However, once the Villasport project is constructed this may change and traffic along Ustick will likely increase in the hours between 8pm and midnight due to their approved operating hours as noted. ACHD is the leading agency on access points for the City of Meridian and because peak traffic times should not be drastically affected by the proposed use on any access point,ACHD did not require a Traffic Impact Study for this application. Even with the assumed capacity of 1,000 persons in the initial submittal this was not required and restricting the capacity to 500 persons should help with the traffic concerns of this type of use. Further analysis regarding access should be addressed to ACHD. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Minimum off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 for a restaurant use at the ratio of one (1) space per 250 square feet of gross floor area because the Applicant has noted the business will be serving food. If food was not being served,the minimum code required parking ratio would be one(1) space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. In order to meet UDC minimum requirements for the approximate suite size of 7,000 square feet, a total of 28 parking spaces should be provided. With the approved CZC and the additional spaces on the site specific site plan, 102 parking spaces are proposed on-site and would likely be used because there is an existing cross-access and cross parking agreement in place for the site. Both the land owner and Applicant understand the entire site will likely be used for parking for the proposed business. The approved plans do not show any parking along the future northern commercial lots and the land owner has guaranteed that those spaces will be built prior to this use commencing. Staff recommends a condition of approval commensurate with these conversations and assurances. Stafffinds this condition and assurance incredibly important to the project because those additional spaces could amount to the 125 total spaces previously mentioned—depending on how the parking is configured on the north side of the site, there is physical room for approximately a maximum of 37 additional parking spaces at the required 9 feet of width and including four landscape planters in line with code requirements.Again, this is a maximum but does show additional parking spaces will be provided on site beyond what is currently being shown. With 30 additional spaces, a total of 132 spaces would be provided throughout the entire site, exceeding the UDC minimums by approximately 45001o. However, not just this use can be analyzed on site because only two other users are currently known and there is potential for additional commercial buildings along the north side of the site. The two other uses currently known are an Urgent Care Facility and Jamba Juice. Jamba Juice is intended to share the same building as The Oasis and would be located in the 1,200 square foot suite to its east, requiring five(5)spaces at a minimum. The urgent care facility will be closed by 5pm and requires only 7 Page 9 Item 5. Fool spaces per UDC,• these hours of operation for the urgent care facility should not affect The Oasis and are a preferred set of hours when adjacent to a use such as a nightclub and/or music venue that has peak operating hours later in the evening and night. As noted, other future uses on the undeveloped north half of the site are not currently known. Preliminary discussions with the land owners have yielded assumptions that those future uses are likely office uses with a potential for an additional drive-thru but nothing concrete is currently known by Staff. With the potential of additional traffic and parking spaces being utilized during the operating hours of The Oasis once future uses come online, Staff recommends the Applicant and land owner obtain a cross parking agreement with the adjacent properties to the south and to the west to increase the amount of available parking for the proposed use. In addition, a minimum of 125 total parking spaces shall be constructed within Eagle Commons to obtain a parking to patron ratio of 1:4 in accord with previous approvals. IF these conditions can be met, Staff finds the proposed uses of the property should minimize the impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Minimum 5-foot wide sidewalks are required adjacent to all commercial buildings as outlined in UDC 11-3A-17. The building containing the proposed use has been approved with approximate 8-foot wide sidewalks on the north and west side of the building. These areas of the site are where patrons would congregate as the south and east side of the building contain a drive-thru. The subject building is not directly adjacent to any public streets and was therefore not required to directly connect to those sidewalks. However,the building will have easy access to proposed sidewalks along the drive aisle to the west of the subject site which is being constructed by this land owner because this site is being developed prior to the Villasport site. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 5-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to the drive-through along the southern property line. This landscape strip has been reviewed and approved with the existing CZC and complies with code requirements. Furthermore,as the commercial site to the south develops in the future,additional landscaping will be provided to screen the building and any future use from the residences to the southwest. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit application per the conditions of approval in Section VIII and the Findings in Section DX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. Page 10 Item 5. F 101 1 V11. EXHIBITS A. Overall Site Plan(dated: 1/13/2021) ............. cll! dnoig juawd019AG(I qjJQMSPUM C-4 ca 319V3 ONY m3usn iv SNDWW03 3183 HO !NWHIOM as M!2 -am A P i R-C 5 1- oil- oe Ll . ... . .... ... .... ... ... ..... ... .......... ILL IIoi L: T L.J. The Oasis- Proposed 46 Page 11 Item 5. F102 B. Site Specific Site Plan(date: 2/26/2021)Approved under A-2021-0012 I I � . I I I { I I 90id�PAS.F�Ea ... 'O THE`dG E WrA.1F.FOEr N LFT}:< MTHE EMLE I T-: I CCMMOMATLUM •,j' AND EAGLE PHLECT a0 a ,, riY NO FPhT.PEFER PROPOSED I T9 iiE 5lGiE i ]7M0.10hS AT L5,ICN T BUILDING s pXt7 EA61f PRGEC 'J,. . * I 2 � ••• CCMYONS Ai J:nC7i ,la Tut WE&GLEF IE7 mam L __- --- WT-AFART.96ER '�...'}�J. ! iC 1E 4LL'Sa]R' f _._4- �, ,..... � CIC-Site Plan Page 12 Item 5. 103 C. Landscape Plans(date: 01/13/2021 &2/26/2021) pp CO dnoig juawdoiM(I qijomspeM 31 DV3 a mv mousm SNOWWOO 319V3 gH FA- gs N 5M -A Peqj 4 1 II II IR II jj T If eC Tl I 11 F6 P4 Page 13 Item 5. ■ +nV� ..........,,��,, 7 _- � IT ..—_________ r mi 41 r iI PROPOSED r BUILDING aEU " W H9: M7d CIC-Landscape Plan Page 14 Item 5. Fio5l D. Conceptual Floor Plan MFZZ ExIT ONLY REST SO NDCABNET .......................... ROOM MEZZANINE MEZZANINE xon ABOVE 2,M OUTLINE INE F2-DFFIOE DASHED (HEAVY) FI-OFFICE LIGHT(S) LIGHT(S) SOUNDI --- FRIGGING RIGGING LIGHTING MEzz --- ------ ABOVE movE EAR CFKH) Fl-ST. TOI : : STAGE BOARD JWBAJUICE -GORR� Z0725-8' T-02 �F2 OASIS RESTAURANT 1,205 SF IL--- AND EVENT MR 7 016 Sr ------------ F2-OFFIOE ------------- ------- ABOVE .......................... REST ROOM ,I-0FFlm II MAIN ENTRY FUTURE I% STOREFRONT "101T I EXIT1111E. LICATIO N Page 15 E. Approved Building Elevations .. 2/05/2021) �'� Ar■ err+�� -�_- ����,� L i. d U. 31D VIEW FROM THE AP OM THE NORTHWIN r � irrr, ■�A■ n-viEwoz Page • Item 5. F107 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The Applicant and/or assigns has the ongoing obligation to comply with the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-121599) and all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site: H-2019-0082,H-2020-0104,A- 2019-0376,A-2021-0010, and A-2021-0012. 2. The Applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards for a Drinking Establishment(UDC 11-4-3-10) and Indoor Recreation Facility(UDC 11-4-3-2). 3. The Conditional Use Permit is approved with the following conditions: a. The proposed business shall have operating hours as set forth: Sunday through Thursday, 4:OOPM to 12:OOAM and;Friday and Saturday,4:OOPM to 1:OOAM. b. The maximum number of patrons and employees allowed at any one time shall not exceed five-hundred(500)persons. c. A minimum of 125 parking spaces shall be provided on the overall Eagle Commons site prior to commencement of the proposed uses. d. The Applicant and/or land owner shall obtain a cross-parking agreement with the adjacent sites prior to commencement of the proposed uses(Parcels 51105110111 and/or 51105110120). e. Prior to obtaining Certificate of Occupancy for the building,the drive aisle connection from Ustick Road to N. Cajun Lane shall be constructed. 4. To establish the new uses,the Applicant shall apply for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance- Change of Use prior to commencing the proposed uses—with this submittal the Applicant shall provide the cross-parking plan with adjacent sites as well as their plan to incentivize patrons to use ride-sharing services to get to the site during events. 5. The Applicant and land owner shall work with adjacent land owners to construct a driveway connection to the west commensurate with the Villasport approvals and site layout to have more direct access to N. Centrepoint Way. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I I-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all previous ACHD conditions of approval. 8. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements,acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F.4. Page 17 Item 5. Fo8l B. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223212&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty C. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223054&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223661&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222985&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit Findings(UDC 11-5B-6D: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. If all conditions of approval are met, Staff finds the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development regulations in the C-G zoning district in which it resides and compliance with the required specific use standards ((JDC 11-4-3-2& 11-4-3- 10) 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed uses are, with Staffs conditions of approval, is harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Regional and the requirements of this title. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses nearby to the southwest, Staff finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be more compatible with other uses in the general vicinity and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, so long as the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval and maintains all required landscape buffers. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Page 18 Item 5. F—log] 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Staff finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services because all services are readily available. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Staff finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic is sure to increase in the vicinity with the addition of the proposed business, all major roadways adjacent to the site are already at their full width and the peak operating hours should be later than peak traffic hours.In addition, if the Applicant complies with all conditions of approval, Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord.05-1170,8-30- 2005,eff. 9-15-2005). Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features within the development area, therefore, Stafffinds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 19 Applicant Presentation s�ssfir-ss--as ss . -ss - —ss -(g)-- ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ssal -ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss v, T i- i i T ------_ \ T - T T T 1 T T T i i T T w �Sg SD \./ AYE .� 39' 'd.-�.: ...... -. - �•��„ e.s `uv oxv ,eN ......... .... ..-.-..::......:'�...-:.... , •�,;, " Tff f 3Pgq �' 3PI1 m s I FUTURE g iF 3 w mnP FUTURE FUTURE I PAD z, PAD :.�• PAD �GJa ur T - �' s 1 � .L•hrrr•: •:•:1:� EP��EP��EP-yam :: I 11 } •tom:••;•;•�•/yt EP 10 JL m JJ] m kg Pa ___ ) 45 aCEt�4�36 11 gT � � :� "�"9B�� LL lr/�° � �"— R+:�}•,',',', EHO 2 _— . o q 2,21 31 2 fI� 1 J 3 u' *01p 13 _ � -�m I° .'..:.'...: B95' 9$ptlCEg®Y: .\ nA �� 1 66PACES®9.61 W W 1 * I .. 1 mW 2 6 O O J;\ '\\ R lB I B '➢s PI ' —�16PACE®8• 63 _ i - ... _ lJ e r.•. I s9 s 1 Y YY 1 — g ��� 5 I 'I� P° NIJ � � � 13�� � � 1 .• r.•.. �5 FUTURE PAD , _ :_>:•:>: \ e [ G G FUTUREa, :.......:: PAD ___ s•PwP v Ir I ��� 1 J 3 NOT A - _ _ ..anN ;_� u. T 1 u" •���k PART xa pa6 etltli Irrig tiong tl I�a T ` G ��I � r i 36YiPo1 � — 61PP. . ..... .... tll B� �A Site & Materials Plan-Parking Area Plan eAl Ride Share Parking Flow Plan �. . V-0 PROPOSED BUILDING - E�d�r . � i r, F. - - - r �. Parking Ratio City Code Comparison City Code Requirement Number The Oasis Comparison Los Angeles, CA 12 . 21A4 1 per 100sf 95 + 31 % Evanston , IL 6- 16-2 1 per 250sf 38 + 328 % Laguna Beach , CA 25 . 52 . 012 1 per 100sf 95 + 31 % Salt Lake City, UT 21A . 44 . 060 6 per 1000sf 57 + 219 % Chicago, IL 17 - 10-0207 2 . 5 per 1000sf 24 + 521 % St . Petersburg, FL 16010002001 1 per 150sf 63 + 98 % San Francisco , CA 150 ( b ) 1 per 200sf 47 + 265 % New Orleans , LA 22 . 4 . A 1 per 200sf 47 + 265 % Portland , OR 33 . 266 1 per 250sf 38 + 328 % Bentonville , AK 501 . 06 1 per 200sf 47 + 265 % Drinking and Not Driving Main Reason for Rideshare % that identify the main reason that led a rider to choose Lyft/Uber over other options Going out/drinking 36.6% Parking is difficult/expensive 20.7% Don't have a car available — 17.1 % Reimbursement (Cost) — 11 .0% Able to do something while riding - 3.7% ��� Other (Convenience) - 3.7% Time ■ 2.4% Uber Weather ■ 2.4% Other ■ 2.4% Passenger surveys Collected in Denver, Colorado for Uber and Lyft over a period of 14 weeks during fall 2016. Dataset includes 311 responses over the course of 308 OOOrides (during three rides, more than one passenger took the survey). @Statistacharla source: journal of Transport and Land Use, Volume 12 No. 1 (2019) p. 127-147 statista r .d Ll I �r iT 1+ I� I T , Hawaii Ln Boise School District - 3 District Services Center Cn LL ?' 'f �I 3 • 4 ;a w: �„_ Jubilee Ln Item 6. L162 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Mountain America Credit Union Drive-Through (H-2021- 0019) by Mountain America Credit Union, Located on the West Side of N. Ten Mile Road, Approximately 750 Feet South of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district for a financial institution on 1.16 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Item 6. 163 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 6, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Mountain America Credit Union Drive-Through (H-2021-0019) by Mountain America Credit Union, Located on the west side of N. Ten Mile Road, approximately 750 feet south of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and zoning district for a financial institution on 1.16 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: May 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Mountain America Credit Union Drive-Through (H-2021-0019) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 1 2 i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 6. ■ E STAFF REPORT REPORT a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 5/6/2021 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning CommissionTM FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner ------ 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0019 &A-2021-0063 ° Mountain America Credit Union—CUP WUA &DES YN LOCATION: W. side of N. Ten Mile Rd.,north of W. �A� ENE Lost Rapids Dr. (Lot 13,Block 1,Lost Rapids Subdivision—Parcel #R5330761300),in the NE '/4 of Section ® ® FEL 27, Township 4N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment on 1.16 acres of land in the C-G zoning district and concurrent Administrative Design Review. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.16-acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Financial Institution with a detached drive-through Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 18,2021;2 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2018-0004(DA#2018-079970,Lost Rapids-GFI Meridian Investments II,LLC);FP-2019-0056 Page 1 1 1 1 — • — • I IIII — • — • —_ — -•. . - • \ t � -: ,. .'_ Z Sit Lai 19 �� 1� ■ f ;e r J'w ,a�\. �■ 11 _ INS ll ■ .� ,. v --- '.- ill •'II117111111 � i CHI�NDEN- CHINDEN - IIIIIIIIII111111 1111111in11ni QITi► nnm r 1 IIIInI IIIIIII 0 IIIp=�_p_ - ■11111111111111■ IIIIII IIII_ III -IIIII _-� � _ _ �R ii�■ on IIIII(IIIIIII p•'" �nr - - _�■ 1. +�1 �` Zn111111111 IIIIIII III/ Z =?� WIIn1111I1 Ill IIIII t+ LU _ I` Bill I II.- III ,� ■ Fx - . l - - _ ~ ��■Ill era__ _ �,�_` - . - . '-=� nlll. I. ■■■IIII mmlllfli 1 l l "''-, I ��i Ill■ ~ _ i ll� �� fl a NINI a I III` 11 1 i ,lily w p NINI � � 111 � ■N r�� son •� ■� 111 � �-a=1.77 r� � I— lll 11..III■ IIII I I !11 IA..III 11111111 � '- lii CHINDEN I -CH�I�NDEN111 IIIIII nuullnml �n1► IIIIIIIIII111 IIIIII 111111111 I �IIIIIIi1111111 �n1► 111 IIIInI IIIIII ^ �__� IIIIIII rr IIIIIII ������� IIIInI IIIIIII�� �'__; i (�,..�p� IIIII C ^��^ IIIII IIIII -•V._ ;; i''��_ IIIIIII■! � O __i^-^.■-� �� IIIIIII■DIIIII � � ^i i■i■ii A ' �-In .. MINIM 1111 IIIIII IIII qll !1• —_:� n ql ��_ ■__ ■ ((IIIIIII 111 II ++ ��i r;■_ Nl49III111111 IIIII ++ on on_�IIIII ■p I 1 _ _� IIII IIIII■p I I _ L I ��IIIIII :•� l C � .�.��1 �- �IIllllllll•� l�� •i Irllllrlll ■:____ ��■Ill •i 1r1111r111 ■• _ �+-� �� 111 milli IIII • �� IIIII IIII �� In IIIIII ■� IIII ii 1■��1 111■illl IIIII ■�III t. �� ii 1��� I I • . � II C • Item 6. F166] C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/16/2021 Radius notification mailed to 4/13/2021 properties within 500 feet Site Posting Date 4/26/2021 Next Door posting 4/13/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed drive-through is for a financial institution and is within 300-feet of a restaurant drive- through to the south that has recently received Commission approval(Lost Rapids Drive-through,H- 2021-0001),which requires Conditional Use Permit approval(CUP)per UDC Table 11-2B-2. There are also residential uses and zoning to the east across N. Ten Mile Rd. but because the uses are separated by an arterial street, these are not a factor in the CUP requirement per UDC 11-4-3-11A. 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: Staffs 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; The proposed drive-through has three (3)stacking lanes that are approximately 65'+/-from the drive aisle to the drive-up services for the bank;furthermore, the proposed drive-up services are proposed in a detached structure that is on the west end of the site with the main building being on the east of the site, approximately 95'apart. Staff believes the stacking lane has sufficient capacity to serve the use without obstructing driveways and drive aisles by patrons. 2)The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designed employee parking. Per the submitted site plan, the stacking lanes are off of the shared internal access and provide at least 65'of are before any vehicle would impede any access. Staff does not foresee the stacking lanes impeding the circulation lanes, especially due to the proposed design of a detached drive- through. 3)The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100)feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and Page 3 Item 6. ■ The stacking lanes do not exceed 100'in length so no escape lane is proposed. However, the exit drive-aisle for the detached drive-through is shown as 23'wide, allowing for patrons to exit the drive-through and turn north or south with ample room on either side. 5)The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The detached drive-through is not exceptionally visible from N. Ten Mile Rd. (the closest public street) along the east boundary of the site but the south boundary of the site is one of the main ingress and egress drive aisles for the overall Costco site. Staff finds this shared drive-aisle and overall proximity to Ten Mile Road(no more than 185 feet in distance)provides for adequate surveillance opportunities. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through in compliance with the specific use standards as required. The proposed use of a financial institution is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-17. The proposed site plan appears to show compliance with all of the standards and will be further verified with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application. At the time of CZC review,Meridian Police Department will verify compliance with the required specific use standards. Access: One driveway access is proposed to the site via the north/south driveway along the west boundary of the site from W. Lost Rapids Dr. from the south and a driveway access via N. Ten Mile Rd. adjacent to the property along the south boundary. A reciprocal cross-access easement exists for lots in this subdivision as noted on the Lost Rapids subdivision plat(note#12)and in the Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(Inst. 2020-071547). Parking: A minimum of one (1)parking space is required to be provided for every 500 square feet of gross floor area for nonresidential uses. The proposed building is shown as 4,276 square feet requiring a minimum of 9 (rounded up from 8.5)parking spaces;the submitted site plan shows 30 proposed parking spaces exceeding UDC minimums. The recorded Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this development establish cross-parking easements for lots in certain groups within the development(Inst. 2020- 071547,Amended Inst. #2020-171404). This lot(Lot 12)is grouped with Lot 11 directly to the north and shares a perpetual,non-exclusive cross-parking easement with that lot. A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is shown on the submitted plans in compliance with code. Pedestrian Walkways: A pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site plan from the arterial/perimeter sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Rd. to the main building entrance as required by UDC 11-3A-19B.4a and meets code as submitted. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.B in planter islands within the parking area as required. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided along the perimeter of the parking or other vehicular use areas as set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. The submitted landscape plan shows the required perimeter buffer but the buffer along the north boundary does not show any trees within this buffer. Trees are required to be provided for within these buffers at a ratio of at least 1 tree every 35 linear feet. With the CZC submittal,the landscape plan should be revised to show compliance with this standard. Page 4 Item 6. ■ Street buffer landscaping, including a sidewalk, along N. Ten Mile Rd. was installed with development of the overall subdivision. The submitted landscape plans show a majority of this buffer remaining as it currently exists but towards the southern end of this buffer the plans show additional landscaping to highlight the building and future monument sign. This area of the buffer also contains the new sidewalk connection from the existing sidewalk along Ten Mile to the front of the proposed building. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. If mechanical equipment is proposed to be roof-mount, all equipment should be screened and out of view as noted above. Building Elevations: The Applicant applied for Design Review concurrently with this CUP application and therefore provided building elevations to be reviewed. The building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VILC and incorporate two main field materials,fiber cement siding and stone. The siding and stone are two contrasting colors(coal-like color and white,respectively) which adds to the overall modern design of the building. On the east and west elevations,the number of proposed windows can act as either an accent material or a third field material. The lack of modulation along the north and south elevations are of concern to Staff. In order to meet the modulation requirements for these two facades,a column of stone at least 6 inches in depth should be added to each fagade,matching the overall aesthetic by placing them as evenly as possible on each fagade. The detached drive-through canopy is shown with the same two field materials(fiber cement siding and stone)as the main building and meets all of the applicable design standards outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual. No elevations were submitted that show the proposed trash enclosure; this should be corrected with the future CZC submittal and should match the color of the proposed building. The submitted landscape plans show adequate screening of the trash enclosure. 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 VIII and UDC standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. The Director has approved the administrative design review request. Page 5 Item 6. ■ VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 3/23/2021) i F. C_ TWO f 7 id f me I r- 'b 1�— 4 77 R ®r jr it r, L13 15XII&MLe. JTJ 4 7r ----------------------------------------- + _77 ------------------------------- LF Lot with previously approved drive-through(Lost Rapids Drive-through,H-2021-0001). Page 6 Item 6. F170] B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 3/23/2021) e. 71, VA Ti" 4 .1,09 IYaO 71i O F LD III (D 7. ;t < C-> u Lu -----------------------—---- zE z z P F— PM= MFIM LAND CAP MOUNTAIN AMERICA LL b L I.I z Page 7 Item 6. 171 ill + II 1 i�l III l' l 1 III dl II �Il I � , r, rrr 9 I � El tRom r* �:..�:. ' fay. .:��t:• sin r, '. I I II f p MACU fl I II I ::R. - I ��}• - .; ..�':' •i■sae,�:�:::'::.::{6�:':Cl:':�F�L�:�!': .:C2: .� ::�:.�::. � "�i' frt �dl ill ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- III fl ; I I I III I f{� ---- ---------------------- -----------�=o. Page 8 Item 6. F172] C. Conceptual Building Elevations - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1:f]Gf 11�1-4�j J---- ILI,11 Ei ------------- AE201 I'D C41,,,, - AE202�T Page 9 Item 6. ■ VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2018-079970,Lost Rapids-GFI Meridian Investments II,LLC)and associated conditions of approval(H-2018-0004; FP-2019-0056). 2. The site plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the parking stalls in accordance with UDC Table 11-3C-5 to be at least 9' wide and 19' deep unless there is at least a 2' overhang in front of the stall allowing the stall depth to be reduced to 17'. b. If 17' stall depths are desired abutting the proposed building,depict the sidewalk to be at least 7' in width; all sidewalks shall be at least 5' in width. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the required number of trees within the planter bed along the north boundary,per UDC 11-3B-8. 4. The elevations submitted with the Administrative Design Review(DES) application are approved with the following revisions: a. Show the north and south elevations with additional qualifying modulation per standard 3.1A&3.1B in the Architectural Standards Manual. The revisions to the elevations are required with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. 5. Submit elevations of the trash enclosure that matches the proposed building color. 6. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 —Drive-Through Establishment is required. 7. Comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-17—Financial Institution. 8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. 9. Prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy,the required 35-foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road shall be vegetated and completed in accord with previous approvals and UDC I I- 3B-7. 10. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. Page 10 Item 6. F174] B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. There are no utilities shown with the plans submitted.Any changes to public water or sewer infrastructure must be reviewed by Public Works prior to approval. C. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=227458&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ia D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=226253&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=225686&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. 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 financial institution with a detached drive-through will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Staff ,finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. Page 11 Item 6. 175 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes, glare or odors. 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. Page 12 Applicant Presentation • ®�• ' :• . e • . ANDERSASSOCIATESRRCHITECT 2MBG..,a�.. 1 ' _ • 1 O,dm,urn MQ1 j��■!m �■!'�I♦'i■iij ■■!Hi■��i���i11 Ji■��i■M1■j ems I. eae 1��' ■■r' ■■�•i�■=■■ r' ���=■��-■�rP=■fir-i��il ,.�..,U.� i1 ■ ■ ■__ ■__ ■__ ■__ II__ ■__ ■_, ® �■:::�■: �■:::�:_ - ■! MOUNTAIN AMERICA :_:�■__:�■_ �■_:�■■:�■■:_�■i • •• ME -i■" i■�' i■" ��/i, C R P;D I T UNION ■-. ■.. ■.. �Y.. ■.. ■.. ME ON i Ii■:■i �..w■i■_■1 - iAv - MA I ■■ IAPr 1■-.�i/ 1■.. lil'�� - ■i■'■ 1, ■■ Ili, �/ ■ J, ■, ■1 .. . ■ I_ ■■_ ■■_ ■1 ® oImmmimmmm■ ■■_ ■ j11 �■�1■ ' 11�■�1■ ■�1� ■i1��1� mommommo 1 1 1■• Io 1■• 1■• 1■• ■I■■ ■■•_ p._ i p-_ 1. lop ■off 1■■ �■ 11 P■■�r7��■■�■ 2- 01oil �I ��L �I 1'. ��L �L ��L �■ —,■L —�L —�L —1 IL —1■L —�L 1 ■ 1 ■ i i ■�� a■ice ii■••i ' 0�. ■i■=���� ■'::■:� i■=;i • ail=i� ■=ii' I j� MOUNTAIN AMERICA �i �� � j � MOUNTAIN AMERICA ■ ■ 11 MEN l //, CREDIT UNION 1��■1 rr■:�ii■�� /i; C RED I T l J N I O N • ■ ■ FONE �■ ■i �i i aim �i � i�; ■.�.-� �1 •■1�.-■.■••1_ ::■--w■■- :w _ w■ _�.-.-z.:■■�•II■��I ���I 9 •_.■�� �.■��■■��■��■■�•■■���■�•■■�•■■�l It■■�•■■ ■■ _ ! , . 6 1�■��I�■ '�I��■■�■■■�■■�■�■�■�■�■1■■�rl�■�■■■�■11!�■1 _ _ � �■��■■��■■��■■�� VW■■i■■■1■i■■■I■■■■■■■r1�1■C�1 ■-- -■-- -■-- -■ MOUNTAIN AMERICA ■-- -■-- =■-- ■- • -•-:■-.�■ ■■1-.� All � CREDIT UNION o ,--.�■1-.�,--.� �-- jo ins 2-1 • =f .ems Ian��■I ® m ® =■Ir .� ji��■i ��� ON F1111111 on ... .. ' ww.v.sanders•ich.mm �`.. • ..■t-an A0p'; 00 A �,��� ■�!�■��■..■1 �� MOUNTAIN AMERICA •,■■�, ������•■� �//�, CREDIT UNION INN 0 0 r, I I � �� ' I�1���I ���;:.I ■ ;',:III Elm IL = ■���.� �� 11.E ` �s Item 7. Ll 76 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for The Vault (H-2021-0017) by Joshua Evarts, Located at 140 E. Idaho Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drinking establishment. Item 7. 177 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: May 6, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for The Vault (H-2021-0017) by Joshua Evarts, Located at 140 E. Idaho Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drinking establishment. 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: May 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: The Vault (H-2021-0017) 9 PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO w ek 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 7. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 5/6/2021 Le g e n d 1 ; I I I I r DATE: ( I ti r f I .�Jproaeot Locaon 10 I III I TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Mun ter � = = FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner -LoterafE-P'IWE-AVE 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: H-2021-0017 EE11 The Vault CUP LOCATION: 140 E. Idaho Ave W-��rFF--F--=rJ1T-- I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow a drinking establishment in an existing building in the O-T zone district. The present business is a cigar bar (retail establishment)that recently begun serving ancillary beer and wine. The applicant proposes to expand the business to allow dispensing of all types of liquor. As this qualifies as a lounge,nightclub, or tavern,UDC 11-2D-2 only allows the use through conditional use permit. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2,170 sq. ft. Future Land Use Designation Old Town Existing Land Use(s) Cigar bar with ancillary beer and wine. Proposed Land Use(s) Drinking Establishment Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 lot Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 18,2021—no citizens in attendance attendees: History(previous approvals) CZC-11-023,DES 15-087,A-2017-0216,CZC,DES A-2021- 0048 Pagel Item 7. F179] Description Details Page B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Traffic impact study not required.No comments Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Primary access occurs from E. Idaho Ave,a local street. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Existing Road Network Yes Fire Service No comments submitted Police Service No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.09 • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Comments • No additional comments Water • No comment Page 2 Item 7. F180] C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend s -AW. I I I I f J Le end1�2; � ■ 0 E l4VE Projeot LooationProjeot Lcoation F JFU Id fio I 75 LLL - -Hunter i E=1 I= un r -LoterafE-PIN-E AVE ra P IN.E 1fiE �. ME E IBAN0 E B RO n0 a —I i Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend s 0 Legend I I f 1 . 0 0 coProjeot Lcoation Projeot Looation City Limits — Planned! Paroels un r ME E P I tern t = E� j FI 14. �+ R-1S � �LI II E IBAHO AVE FIB, Ii (OFF �—I— I � I I . I �� [ J � I IIEM E-A�] E BROADW _ _ — — fBWAR-WAY-AVE-- F1=L III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Owner Joshua Evarts,Novemberwhisky Properties LLC-77 E. Idaho Ave, Ste 300,Meridian, ID, 83642 B. Applicant Joshua Evarts- 303 E. State Ave,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 3 Item 7. 181 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/16/2021 Radius notification mailed to 4/13/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 4/22/2021 NextDoor posting 4/13/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /g compplan) Old Town-This designation includes the historic downtown and the true community center. Sample uses include offices,retail and lodging,theatres,restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses are also envisioned and could include reuse of existing buildings,new construction of multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. The business is proposed to be located within an existing historic building which was constructed in 1915 and significantly rehabilitated and remodeled by the present applicant in 2015-2016 The current establishment serves as a neighborhood cigar bar with ancillary beer and wine sales (retail establishment), and is proposed to be expanded to allow all types of liquor, although the applicant states the primary use is still a cigar bar. The business fronts directly onto E. Idaho Ave and a certificate ofzoning compliance (CZC) and design review(DES)were recently approved to allow a 600 sq.ft. covered outdoor patio in the alley help activate the downtown area in and around Generations Plaza. This type of neighborhood gathering place is exactly the type of locally-owned and serving businesses intended by the Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /�compplan): Goals, Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • Support redevelopment and infill opportunities Downtown. (2.09.01) The business is located within an existing building in the historic downtown core. This would be considered redevelopment(more specifically, adaptive reuse of an existing structure). The applicant made significant interior and fagade improvements in 201 S- 2016 and is currently constructing an outside patio to activate the area. • 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). As mentioned, the business is located within the historic downtown core and zoned Old Town (O-T). Within this area, a mix of land uses is encouraged which creates a vibrant downtown, enhances sense of place, and provides gathering places for locals and Page 4 Item 7. F182] visitors. This existing cigar bar, which is now proposing to expand their uses to allow full service serving of alcohol, is already serving as a community gathering place and this proposal would enhance this use. • Support a compatible mix of land uses Downtown that activate the area during day and night. (2.09.02F) The existing cigar bar and proposed conditional use to allow additional alcohol consumption is the type of downtown use which activates an area during day and night. • Minimize noise, lighting, and odor disturbances from commercial developments to residential dwellings by enforcing city code. The business and the outdoor patio will seat a total capacity of 49 people. Business hours will be from 12PM—IOPMMon-Tours, 12PMto IIPMon Friday, and IOAMto IIPM on Saturday. The purpose of the O-T district is to accommodate and encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.As this business is within the old town mixed use district, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates activating the area day and night. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The existing and proposed business is located within a 1,500 sq. ft. space in an existing historic building;this conditional use is to allow expansion of allowed uses. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is proposed to still be primarily a cigar bar,but with the use expanded to allow serving of all types of liquor(drinking establishment). This use is allowed by conditional use permit in the O-T zone district subject to specific use standards. As this conditional use is to allow the establishment of a new use, a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a Change in Use will be required per UDC 11-513-1. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-10 allows drinking establishments with the limitations that it shall not be within 300 feet of a church or any other place of worship or any public or private education institution. For properties abutting a residential district,no outside activity or event shall be allowed on the site, except in accord with chapter 3, article E, "temporary use requirements." The nearest place of worship or educational facility is the United Methodist Church,which is approximately 250 feet away. The closest residence is approximately 100 feet to the north,on the opposite side of the alley as the proposed establishment. However,the church and the residence are in the Old Town zoning district,which is not a residential district, and a mix of uses including restaurants and drinking establishments are appropriate and encouraged. NOTE:If the use is allowed to commence on the property, the applicant is required to obtain a liquor license with the State, County and City prior to serving alcohol. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): (double read this) In the O-T zone district,there is not a setback requirement,there is a minimum building height of two stories, and there are requirements for streetscape improvements. The building in which this establishment is already located is within an existing one-story historic building. Other than an outdoor patio,no other extensions or additions are proposed as part of this business. Page 5 Item 7. F183] G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to this business is provided from NE 2nd St and E. Idaho Ave. This proposal was referred to ACHD,who had no comments. H. Parking(UDC I1-3C): UDC 11-3C-6B-3 requires one parking space for every one thousand square feet of gross floor area in all traditional neighborhood districts. Lawfully existing structures in traditional neighborhood districts shall not be required to comply with the requirements of this section except when a proposed addition increases the number of off-street parking spaces normally required,then the applicant shall provide additional parking. The business is within an existing building, and no building additions have occurred(covered outdoor seating is not considered an addition). This business is within the historic downtown core,where adaptive reuse of historic structures is encouraged and on-street parking in the area is plentiful. There are at least 17 existing on-street parking spaces in front of the business within 100 feet. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17) Detached sidewalks and streetscape improvements already exist along E. 2nd St and E. Idaho Ave. 1. Parkways No parkways are proposed with this project. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Landscaping and streetscape improvements already exist along E.2nd St and E. Idaho Ave. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): An outdoor eating area has been approved for this project through a certificate of zoning compliance with design review. This includes a Y-6"fence bordering the outdoor area.No other fencing is existing or proposed. L. Utilities All utilities for the proposed development are already in place.No additional services are needed. M. Building Elevations No additional modifications to the existing building fagade have been proposed. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VII per the Findings in Section VIII. Page 6 Item 7. [184] VII. EXHIBITS A. Approved Site Plan(CZC,DES A-2021-0048,March 26,2021) K F atio area • r I ' ■ B. Approved Elevations of Outdoor Sitting Area(CZC,DES A-2021-0048,March 26,2021) 0 a. NORTH ELEVATION (BUILDING) Page 7 Item 7. ■ C. Site Photos(date: 4/14/2021) 1 '_ -111 . war•. ..-.. —t_ WORK r .a AHEAD, -T� _ Existing business as viewed from E.Idaho Ave Rear of site as viewed from N. 2nd St showing area of outdoor patio Page 8 Item 7. F186] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval. If the use has not begun within two (2)years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 2. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions associated with development of this site including CZC-11-023,DES 15-087,A-2017- 0216, and CZC,DES A-2021-0048. 3. The Applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards for a Drinking Establishment(UDC 11-4-3-10). 4. The business shall comply with all Idaho state, local and City code regulations regarding the sale, manufacturing, or distribution of alcoholic beverages. 5. Outdoor activity associated with the business shall be restricted to the 600 sq. ft. outdoor patio. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D for the O-T zoning district. 7. The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC I I-3A-11. 9. The applicant shall complete a certificate of zoning compliance for a change in use as required per UDC 11-513-1. C. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianci(y.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=226106&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The building is an existing building in the O-T zoning district. All parking, sidewalks and landscaping is already installed. The outdoor patio meets all setback requirements and does not encroach into any public right of way. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Old Town. This designation includes the historic downtown and the true community center.Allowed uses include offices, retail and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. The existing cigar bar and expansion to allow serving of alcohol will encourage a neighborhood "hang out"for locals and guests. This type of use is what has been envisioned for this area by the Comprehensive Plan. Page 9 Item 7. F187] 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. As mentioned, the existing and expanded use is within an existing historic building, and is within the Old Town district in which retail, restaurants and drinking establishments enhance the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The proposed use is within the old town area where the type of use proposed is anticipated. It will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity any more than any of the other surrounding restaurants, coffeeshops and drinking establishments. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The proposed use will be served adequately by all public facilities and services. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will be beneficial 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. This proposed cigar bar and drinking establishment is using existing tenant space within a historic building, and staff is recommending outdoor activities be restricted to the 600 sq.ft. outdoor patio. The surrounding area already consists of restaurants, retail, and drinking establishments as anticipated in the old town. The use is appropriate in this location. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005) The proposed use will occur in a historic building in a historic district. The applicant has already made significant upgrades to the building, enhancing the area. The proposed use will contribute to a vibrant downtown space. Page 10 Item 8. L188 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Jump Creek North Four-Plex (H-2021-0018) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Gondola Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow 7 fourplex buildings of 28 units total on 2.2 acres in the R-15 zoning district. Item 8. 189 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: May 6, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Jump Creek North Four-Plex (H-2021-0018) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Gondola Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow 7 fourplex buildings of 28 units total on 2.2 acres in the R-15 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: May 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 8 PROJECT NAME: Jump Creek North Four-Plex (H-2021-0018) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 2 vv0 Nv\ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 8. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 5/6/2021 Legend _{ DATE: Po:ec- !oca=or TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach .R .' 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development ---— Services Manager �.. . 208-887-2211 -- SUBJECT: H-2021-0018 Jump Creek North Fourplex CUP LOCATION: The site is located on the west side of N. Black Cat Road,midway between W. McMillan Road and W. Chinden Boulevard. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit(CUP)to allow 7 fourplexes(28 units) on 2.2 acres in the R-15 zone. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.2 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Multifamily Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 7 existing multifamily lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 7 fourplex buildings;totaling 28 units of units) Density(gross&net) 12.72 gross density Open Space(acres,total Jump Creek Subdivision approved with 13.54 acres of [%]/buffer/qualified) common open space,which amounts to 15.73%. Amenities 6 amenities approved with the Jump Creek Subdivisions.3 tot lots,multi-use pathway;connection to pathway systems and 5%additional open space;2 amenities are required for the proposed development. Physical Features(waterways, N/A hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 16,2021 —3 Attendees attendees: Pagel Item 8. 1 1 1 Description Details Page History(previous approvals) AZ-14-011,PP-14-013,DA Instr.2014-105206,H-2018- 0113 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) N • Requires ACHD Commission No.Traffic impacts and associated improvements reviewed Action es/no with preliminary and final plat. Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access will occur from W. Joseph Dr.,a local road,which Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) leads to N.Black Cat Rd via W.Malta.Dr. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No stub streets proposed. Access Existing Road Network All roads serving this development phase(W.Joseph Dr., W.Malta Dr.)have been installed. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ N.Black Cat including 5'wide detached pathways and 25' Buffers landscape buffer has already been installed. Proposed Road Improvements All road improvements were installed with Jump Creek FP Nos. 1,2 and 3. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1 mile+/-to Keith Bird Legacy Park size Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.8 miles from Station 5 • Fire Response Time Falls within 5-minute response times • Resource Reliability 80%Reliability • Risk Identification Risk Factor 4 because of firefighting in multistory buildings and large amounts of people in one location • Accessibility • Special/resource needs No special needs • Water Supply 2250 gpm estimated,but property less due to sprinkling. • Other Resources None Police Service • Distance to Police Station 7.2 Miles • Police Response Time P 1 <5 minutes • Calls for Service 464 • %of calls for service split by P 1 -%73.7,P2—24.1%,PO—2.2% priority • Specialty/resource needs None listed • Crimes 26 • Crashes 6 West Ada School District • No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services N/A • Sewer Shed N.Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.09 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan Water • Distance to Water Services 0 Page 2 Item 8. F192 Description Details Page • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Utilities have already been approved and built. Page 3 Item 8. 193 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend + Legend + 0 = 4 W LADLE' W LADLF - RA W QS D.4 RA Pr d5 D�m G Sear }ri}j' r rye r ' - �I 4Y I St ED fW-? `a REEK DR {REEK R R",S '' ... ZoningMap Planned Development Map Legend ; - Legend IP•ejec� Lcca-iaR ILA DR --_ � F^ale0#Laca-rror% - ft- meaty Um } P�3r•red For-e:s f 1511 kR TFUR R-4 J R- — �f — _ f -I I I III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Kent Brown,Kent Brown Planning Services- 3161 E. Springwood Dr,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Corey Barton, Open Door Rentals 1977 E. Overland Rd,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 4 Item 8. F194 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/16/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/13/2021 Nextdoor posting 4/14/2021 Sign Posting 4/17/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This proposal is for a conditional use permit to allow 7 fourplexes consisting of a total of 28 dwelling units total on 2.2 acres in the R-15 zone. The subject property was annexed and zoned in 2014 as part of the Jump Creek Subdivision(AZ-14-011,PP-14-013). The approved preliminary plat,final plat (H-2018-0113) and associated development agreement(Instr. 2014-105206) specifically identifies the subject property for a multi-family development. The required infrastructure and landscaping has already been installed; improvements associated with this project would include asphalt driveways, parking lots,and site landscaping. The internal parking lot sidewalks have been installed. The proposal as submitted generally conforms to the site plan, landscape plan and conceptual elevations included with the development agreement except that one of the fourplexes on the northern side of the property is slightly reconfigured. The approved development agreement concept plan reflects two fourplexes on either side of a drive aisle,whereas what was submitted indicates three fourplexes on the west of the drive aisle, and a fourplex on the east side of the aisle. Two of the fourplexes have also been rotated on their axis 90 degrees. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancity.or /g compplan) The Jump Creek property is designated" Medium Density Residential' (MDR) on the future land use map. The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is one of two multi-family properties that was approved with the preliminary plat(there is another designated multi-family property to the south of which the application for the final plat has been submitted). These two areas conceptually depict nineteen(19)fourplex structures on approximately 4.89 acres. The gross density for the multi-family portion of the development is anticipated at 15.5 dwelling units to the acre which is higher than the MDR designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The overall gross density for this project is 12.72 dwelling units to the acre. However, it was determined with the preliminary plat approval that when combined with the entire development(which includes 318 single family lots)the overall gross density is approximately 4.59 dwelling units to the acre which is consistent with the MDR land use designation. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https:llwww.meridiancity.or /�compplan): • Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels,household sizes, and lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01) This project proposes 7 fourplex units with 28 units total. This increases the diversity in housing and meets the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. Page 5 Item 8. Fl-951 Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) As mentioned above, allowing 7 fourplexes would contribute to a diversity in housing. • Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers. (2.01.01H) The proposed development will provide housing opportunities in close proximity to an existing Walmart, Costco and an employment area at the southeast corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road. Future employment uses are planned a mile east of the proposed subdivision along the west side off. Ten Mile Road. • Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. (3.03.03F) City services were required to be extended to the properties upon development in accord with UDC 11- 3A-21. Infrastructure was constructed with phases 1, 2, and 3. No additional infrastructure is required with this proposal. • 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. This proposal was referred to fire and police services as well as WASD. There were no additional comments beyond what were listed with the preliminary plat and final plat. • "Require open space areas within all residential development."(6.01.01A) For multifamily units, UDC 11-4-3-27C requires common open space based on the square footage of the units. In addition, the development agreement approved with the annexation required 15%total open space, and 15.3%was provided with the total development. The landscape plan submitted with this application for this multifamily area is consistent with the conceptual one approved with the annexation and preliminary plat. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject property is presently vacant,but the sidewalks serving the fourplexes have been constructed, and the unpaved configuration of the drive aisles and parking lot have already been established with paving to be completed as part of this project. D. Proposed Use Analysis: This proposal is for 7 fourplexes,totaling 28 dwelling units. A fourplex(four units in one building on one lot)is considered multifamily which requires procurement of a conditional use permit in the R-15 zone. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): Specific use standards for this multifamily project include a minimum setback of 10 feet, 80 sq. ft. of private, common open space and site amenities per unit, and requirements for a management office, central mailbox and maintenance storage for developments of more than 20 units. The site plan and landscape plan indicate the minimum 10' setback is met along all perimeter property lines. The submitted floorplans indicate patios and decks on the units that are slightly less than the requirement. The applicant will need to submit floor plans at the time of CZC that demonstrate this requirement is met. Page 6 Item 8. F196 The applicant has noted the central mailbox already exists, although it is not indicated on the plans. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the management office and maintenance storage other than this will be built with the additional 44 units of multifamily that may be part of Jump Creek No. 7 and requires a separate CUP approval. The Planning Commission should determine whether this is acceptable request given Phase 7 has not been approved through conditional use yet,or whether one of the 28 units proposed with this particular phase(Phase 4)should be temporarily reserved for this purpose until Phase 7 is constructed. Requirements for common open space and amenities are discussed below. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The fourplexes meet the minimum dimensional requirements for the R-15 zone district. This includes a minimum lot size of 2,000 sq. ft.,minimum setback of 25' from a collector road,rear setback of 12'and side setback of 3' (although the specific use standards for multifamily requires a minimum 10',which the fourplexes also meet.)The existing landscape buffer along N. Black Cat Rd meets the minimum width of 25',and the buildings are approximately 28' in height,well within the maximum building height of 40'. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): All access was previously approved with the Jump Creek preliminary plat. Primary access for this project will occur from N. Elmstone Ave. which connects to N. Black Cat Rd via W. Gondola Rd. There is additional access through numerous roads in the Jump Creek Subdivision which eventually terminate at N. Rustic Oak providing access to W. McMillian Rd. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-A requires 2 parking spaces per 2-3-bedroom units,with at least one in a covered carport or garage. With 28 units of 2-3 bedrooms,this amounts to 56 parking spaces, at least 28 of them covered. The site indicates 65 parking spaces that are 18 feet in length with wheel stops and a one-foot overhang onto a 6-foot sidewalk. The site plan shows 30 of these parking spaces to be covered, and conceptual elevations have been submitted of the carports. However,the conceptual elevations do not indicate architecture and materials other than prefinished metal. At the time of Certificate of Zoning compliance,the applicant shall submit color elevations that reflect that the architecture of the covered carports utilizing similar materials and architecture as that of the fourplexes as well as meet all requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). I. Pathways( UDC 11-3A-8): There is an existing 5' wide detached sidewalk along N. Black Cat Rd, at the eastern perimeter of the subject property. As required per UDC 11-3A-19,the development includes a 5' wide pedestrian connection to this sidewalk. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): The landscape plan depicts 6' wide sidewalks along both sides of the access road and parking lots. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-3B-8 requires a five-foot minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas,with no grouping of parking spaces to exceed 12 in a row without a parking island. The parking aisles and lot appears to meet all requirements,including Page 7 Item 8. F197 minimum amount of landscape plantings. The foundations of all fourplexes are landscaped with at least 3' of landscaping along their foundations as required by the Specific Use Standards listed in 11-4-3-27. L. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-4-3-27): The specific use standards for multifamily in UDC 11-4-3-27-C require two hundred fifty(250) square feet of common open space for each unit containing more than five hundred(500)square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20)feet. The building plans submitted with this application indicate unit sizes of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. per unit. Based on this unit size,this requires 7,000 sq. ft. Staff believes the landscape plan as submitted reflects this project far surpasses the requirements, but staff will require an open space exhibit indicating the exact amount of qualifying common open space with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). M. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC I1-3G): Two amenities are required with this development. During the approval process for the entire Jump Creek Subdivision(which included both multifamily portions), approved amenities included three tot lots, an integrated pathway system, extension of the Meridian Pathway system and 5%additional open space. All amenities have already been constructed except for one tot lot and several trail connections to be built with Phases 5-7. However,it was not indicated in the associated development agreement whether the residents of the multifamily properties were entitled to use the same amenities as the rest of the Jump Creek subdivision.As a condition of approval, staff recommends that two qualifying amenities be provided on the subject property. N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): The landscape plan indicates there is existing fencing along the northern perimeter that is proposed to be retained.No other fencing is shown with this development. Any fencing should comply with UDC 11-3A-7. O. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities have already been reviewed and approved with the Jump Creek preliminary and final plats. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. P. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant submitted building elevations as well as building plans. The colored elevations indicate pitched roofs and entry features,horizontal and board&batten siding, and rock accents. Elevations of the multifamily units were included as part of the annexation development agreement, and the elevations submitted with this conditional use generally comply with the approved elevations. Final design is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The building elevations submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications should be consistent with those standards and the elevations attached as Exhibit F and G below. Page 8 Item 8. F198 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Page 9 Item 8. 199 1 VII. EXHIBITS p A. Final Plat for Phase 4(date: 10/14/2020) " MAL Pi)w UNPLATTED CF BEGINNINGS --- --�------ __—SM'21'48•E 41US Neczl'+s3r BLOCK }G 54k57 9942�d I m tbryG RJIRBS OR. 7 �/C_�I�11�I i �1 ' ` 4a BLOCK rs Ta 12 11 + QW JIIYP CREQS _ 1{4 �/2013-4'r924R 9116pYTSI4N NG _ ----- ------ s+sw�9 1 L— — 2b 70} 2d 27 y '�� 105.Sn' r y1 5M2011VE 271.76�----- --� ---------------- NE�29}Yw 212.39'- 5 56"45'2S"Yf ik W, OOFbOIA DR. W S45'3d4.�7 uMPCREEIC - -- - - f � , Stif3oiv151d { B. Conceptual Site Plan Approved with Development Agreement(date: 11/25/2015) 4 E f " L uu ,i" ,,f i1kIL#la'�Y11rY whF�lh APFUMIMN A y A �¢ . �t — } Page 10 Item 8. ■ C. Site Plan(date: 1/31/2020) LLl 1 J LOT 4 ; �J Ini J I _ at h I I i t I I i o 16f r Ei1 '❑f 'I i � �, reaE r� - �.. - - ❑ � - - i I a.. - l r le Eli _ I FM �� b'Fti">�A 'i,►,�1�—� _ __SLIWk�N L._ _ __ iLi- '�P_ _ _ _ N 0 L,�Tj iW+s.T s' _ _ __ _+ Lr JI 4 I1 I ! I j 1� '� � '-- r ' �� y � — ■ I I Im"mrE YS!lNB IT'E lW is i OF AT TM F4 LWF 5 ❑nr. W O M Luc fdl 11-1V RP.rddll[dYL �✓ I � I Iw�Awn� ti ti I Page 11 D. Landscape Plan(dutcl/3l/2020) Item 8. F202] E. Floor Plans (date: 12/14/2020)tj Li _ - - f L i i i c-'.. _ �L S_2.. Ste•. w l9 '-a UON. p BUILDING TYPE 2-1 BUILDING TYPE 2- FIRST FLOOR PLO SECOND FLOOR PLAN F. Carport Elevations(date: 12/14/2020) �— --- ---� m -----� --- 12aAY CARPORF PUN 23-BAY CARPORT PLAN 34-HAT CARPORT PUN r,,.. 43"RAT CARPORT PIAN. . 5:_BAY CARPORT ELEVATION 63_DAY CARPORT ELEMIGN 7A-BAY CARPORT ELEVATION OWBAY CARPORT ELEVATION I , f v - ----- -------- KEYNOTES 4-TL E.M -- - GENERAL NOTES L 3-BAY CARPORT PLAN 10 B-BAY CARPORT PLANTTP.CARPORT END ELEVATION TYPICAL CARPORT SECTION 3-BAT CARPORT E LEVATMM 129-BAY CARPORT I'iEVATEON Page 13 F203] G. Building Elevations d. Page 14 Item 8. F204] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. The applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation(AZ-14-011),preliminary plat(PP- 12-018, final plat H-2018-0113)and development agreement(Instrument#2014-105206) for this development. 2. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two(2)years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 3. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised to depict a management office,maintenance storage area and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.7: a. If a management office and maintenance storage area is not part of this development,the applicant shall convert one of the units in the second phase of the multi-family development currently being platted with Jump Creek No. 7 for such use including the maintenance building OR construct a standalone property management office and associated maintenance building in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27. b. The site plan/landscape plan shall indicate the location of the central mailbox. 4. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC),the Developer/Owner shall submit a common open space exhibit that meets the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27-C. 5. Two on-site amenities shall be provided which meet the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27-D. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 7. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC),the Developer/Owner shall submit floorplans which comply with the private open space requirements of 11-4-3-27B. 8. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4- 3-27F. A recorded copy of said documents shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 9. All structures on the site shall be designed to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. All carports shall complement the design of the fourplexes.A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s)is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. B. Public Works C. ACHD https:llweblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=225820&dbid=0&repo=M eridianCity Page 15 Item 8. ■ D. Meridian Police Department https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=226107&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-15 district. The number and type of buildings and general site configuration was tentatively approved with the Jump Creek Subdivision preliminary plat and annexation. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed multi-family development is consistent with the overall density recommendations of the FLUM in the Comprehensive Plan and is allowed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-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. Staff finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Staff finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Page 16 Item 9. L206 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4, and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. Item 9. F 07 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Bill Parsons Meeting Date: May 6, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. 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: May 6., 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 9 PROJECT NAME: 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 9. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 5/6/2021 �` ' 4 DATE: ' 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 16 55 26 FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor _-Ti 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: ZOA-2021-0002 — 2021 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: • Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; • Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and • Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite#102 Meridian, ID 83642 Page 1 Item 9. F209] III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 4/16/2021 Public Service Announcement 4/13/2021 Nextdoor posting 4/13/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https://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 associated with this text amendment 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. City staff keeps a running database of code revisions throughout the year. The Department's goal is to amend the UDC twice a year to keep the code current. This round of changes has been a result of a culmination of multiple revisions based largely on citizen input during the Comprehensive Plan update which has resulted in a major revamp of the UDC's open space, amenity and landscape requirements. Staff believes the proposed changes encompass the vision of the plan and is largely supported by those who participated in the process. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDC In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5,the Planning Division of the Meridian Community Development respectfully submits a UDC text amendment application. The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code(UDC)and overhaul the landscape and common open space and site amenities standards for residential and multi- family developments. Many of the changes coincide with the policies and feedback received during the update and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Last minute changes where added at the request of Code Enforcement to assist in their effort to enforce the code. The proposed text amendment includes a broad range of changes to the sections as follows: 1. UDC 11-313—Landscape Requirements 2. UDC 11-3G—Common Open Space and Site Amenity Standards 3. UDC 11-4-3-27—Multi-family Development: Updating the common open space standards to align with some of the changes being proposed with the Common Open Space and Site Amenities 4. Miscellaneous changes to code sections in Chapters 1-5 and Chapter 7. All the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are included as part of the public record. Staff has purposely not attached all of the changes to the document to minimize the size of the staff report. Further, staff anticipates further refinement to these documents as the project transverses through the hearing process. Except for the Code Enforcement changes,all of the proposed changes went through an extensive and collaborative review process over several months between City staff,the UDC Page 2 Item 9. F210] Focus Group and the Open Space Committee. An informative meeting with the BCA was held on April 13"'. In summary, City Staff believes the proposed changes will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. 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 presented in Exhibits 1-5 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Section VII. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 3 Item 9. F211] VII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant 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 4 Item 9. F212] UDC Section Proposed amendment Proposed language Notes/reason 11-1A-1 Add definition of DISMANTLED VEHICLE:Any vehicle, or parts Code Enforcement had a case regarding a "dismantled vehicle" thereof,which: violation of UDC section 11-4-3-37 (specific use 1. Cannot be safely operated under its own standards for major/minor vehicle repair). The power; violation (among other things)was that 2. Is missing any one of the following: foot dismantled vehicles were not properly brakes, hand brakes, headlights, taillights, screened. The lack of definition of"dismantled horn, muffler, rearview mirrors,windshield vehicle" presented a bar to conviction. wipers, or adequate fenders; 3. Has been declared salvage, or has been physically damaged to the extent that the cost of parts and labor minus the salvage value would make it uneconomical to repair or rebuild such vehicle; or Is otherwise in a wrecked, inoperative, or dilapidated condition. 11-1A-1 Update definition of Vehicle wrecking or junk yard. Any area, lot, To intent is that where two qualifying vehicles are "vehicle wrecking or land, or parcel where two (2) or more vehicles in the yard, it is a wrecking yard. But as written, if junk yard" without current registration or twe (2) eF m there is one unregistered vehicle and one inoperable or dismantled vehicles that are not in dismantled vehicle, it is by definition not a operating condition (or parts thereof) are wrecking yard, because the definition envisions stored, dumped, dismantled, partially two unregistered vehicles or two dismantled dismantled or wrecked; or as defined by Idaho vehicles. Code § 40-111, the use of a site that is maintained, operated, or used for storing, keeping, buying, or selling junk, or for the maintenance or operation of an automobile graveyard, garbage dumps and sanitary fills. The following uses are excluded from this definition. agricultural equipment on a farm as herein defined and vehicles stored or dismantled within a completely enclosed structure. Item 9. F213] 11-3C- Update provision 2. Types 4vehi^'^s•, '^^^+i^" 4 Gr-kin^ ^"'Y 1. UDC defines "required yard" and "street 4(A)(2) regarding vehicles that uternehi'^-s and FneteFG Glee displaying 'i^^"`^ yard," but does not define "required street can be parked in the plates assigRed +^the.,^..._.. ...... ^"+ yard." Remove the word "required" to avoid street yard of single- registration may be parked in the required confusion. family dwellings street yard-All otheirveh+c4es,inGludin^mot 2. Allowing one RV, boat, or trailer to be stored 1;.,,;+^,_ +^ vehicles without nt registFatieR, in the street yard will improve visibility and ^hieles,.,;+heat 4^"se plate reeFeational safety by moving them off the roadways. ^hieles persenal r tiena' items, beats 3. Neighborhoods that prefer no RV/boat/ +F^i'^.F_r ^"d/^F eth^F ^"ir'^< `hall only be trailer storage on residential properties can ^Fl(ed in the • Side y aFd and sh^" h^ privately enforce CC&Rs. screened by-a selid fence, six '6` feet in height. 4. Code's enforcement of this provision results in the greatest number of citizen complaints 2. Types of vehicles;location of parking. regarding dissatisfaction with the City and a. Street yard. The following vehicles may be with Code Enforcement, especially in parked in the street yard: neighborhoods without CC&Rs. Several of (1) Automobiles and motorcycles our older neighborhoods were built prior to displaying license plates assigned to the the parking standard; at many homes the City vehicle with current registration; and has even issued permits for electrical (2) One (1) other vehicle, which may hookups to their RV pad in the street yard. include a recreational vehicle or trailer (11-3C-4(A)(2) establishes a standard, not a displaying license plates assigned to the land use, so nonconforming provisions do not vehicle with current registration, or one apply.)These citizens are frustrated when the (1) boat, off-highway vehicle, or City then requires them to remove their RV specialty off-highway vehicle. from the pad. This standard is especially Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating frustrating for citizens where there is a of 16,000 pounds or more shall not be "neighborhood norm" of parking RVs, boats, parked in the street yard. Vehicles parked and trailers in street yards. Code typically in the street yard shall not encroach upon sees a domino effect of finger pointing when any sidewalk or public right-of-way. responding to a complaint in such neighborhoods. As Code responds to each b. Side yard, unscreened. If no recreational successive complaint, moving throughout vehicle, personal recreational item, boat, entire neighborhoods, people again feel like or trailer is parked in the street yard, one they are being"harassed." (1) of the following vehicles may be parked Item 9. F214] in a side yard that is not screened by a solid fence: a recreational vehicle, personal recreational item, boat, or trailer. c. Rear or side yard. Except as otherwise allowed by this section,the following vehicles shall be parked in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six (6) feet in height: (1) Vehicles other than automobiles and motorcycles; (2) Vehicles without current registration; and/or (3) Vehicles without license plates assigned to the vehicle. 11-3C-4(B) Update provision B. Improvements. Enforcement of standards for parking area regarding surface of 1. Except -,ii.,,ied- in subse .+;en (Q'(" of this surface in rear yard, behind fence/screen, is off-street parking areas sue,All Of Off street parking areas in the impractical. Requiring concrete or asphalt at single-family street yard and driveways into and through a parking surface in front yard adequately serves dwellings parking area in the street yard shall be improved the public purpose of this provision (dust with a compacted gravel base, not less than four suppression, aesthetic). (4) inches thick, surfaced with concrete or asphaltic pavement. No person shall park, or allow to be parked, +.,mAhii, +,,.-ey � any vehicle in the required street yard on any surface other than compacted gravel base, not less than four (4) inches thick, surfaced with concrete or asphaltic pavement. ydithha ;4pro icm-irr^i J h''t Ret limited- to vegetatien, phaltice pavemeRt, 6i. Item 9. F215] F2m-cri,=racFS ;-cSS Ic rr5{-rf;;c-., will e m I., be -,Il., .,.,rr -,++h., rri.is r.,+.A-., .,f+h., ni.r.,P+.,r f.,r Item 9. F 16 Proposed UDC Text Amendments (Phase 2) UDC Section Topic Reason for Change Proposed Change 11-2A-3E Standards Increase the maximum height limit for education 3. Notwithstanding other height limitations as set forth in this chapter,the maximum height for institutions education facilities shall be firmer-yfeet(540') Table 11-213-2 Allowed use table in Medical centers are identified in the M-E zone but commercial districts hospitals are a prohibited use in the table. ��Fc �IM-EUse C-N C-C -G L-0 H-E -F- Hospital' F v l v l v l = P 11-3A-5 Bikeways ACHD has a master plan specific to bikeways that "Bikeways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan and the Ada County highway supplements the Master Street Map. district master street map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan." 11-313-7C.2c Location of fences/walls 11-31-1-4D requires a berm or berm/wall combination for "Except where fences and walls are used as decorative landscape elements or as noise abatement, fences on interior edge of noise abatement for residential and other noise sensitive and walls are permitted only on the interior edge of the street buffer." street buffers uses adjoining state highways. - 11-313-14C Installation Coincides with the changes requested below to the C. Extension Of Time For Installation: surety standards. 1. Non-Residential: The director, may recommend issueance of a tompeFaFy certificate of occupancy for non-residential projects for a specified time period, not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days when: la. Due to inclement weather or other extenuating circumstances,the landscaping or other required site amenities cannot be completed_;aid 2b. The applicant has provided surety to the city for the required improvements consistent with the provisions of chapter 5, article C, "Surety Agreements", of this title. 2. Residential: The building official, upon recommendation of the director, may recommend issueance of a certificate of occupancy for residential dwelling units when: 4a. Due to inclement weather or other extenuating circumstances,the landscaping or other required site amenities cannot be completed_,•,•—and 2b. The applicant has provided surety to the city for the required improvements consistent with the provisions of chapter 5, article C, "Surety Agreements", of this title. c.Within ninety(90) days of the first certificate of occupancy being issued, all required landscaping, irrigation systems and site features shall be installed, or additional certificate of occupancies will be withheld. REV DATE: 10/21/2020 Item 9. F217] Table 11-3C-6 Required parking Revisit the parking ratios for multi-family developments. Studio 1 per dwelling unit spaces for residential use 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, fourplex, 2/3 carport or garage apartments, etc.) 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Guest 1 per 10 dwelling units spaces 11-4-3-18 Flex space Provide an avenue for an applicant to incorporate A. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the loading docks in the commercial districts. structure and/or tenant space. B. Light industry and warehousing shall not comprise more than seventy percent (70%) of the tenant space. C. In the C-C, C-G and M-E Districts, roll-up doors and loading docks shall not be visible from a public street. D.Except in then-m=rc rrzur Distriets, leading a vElS-cr�phib-i-*ca . DI;. Retail use shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of leasable area in any tenant space. 11-4-3-43C.8 Lattice or guyed We have considered a lattice structure to fall into the Lattice or guyed designed structures are prohibited unless approved through the conditional use process. designed structures category of"other wireless communication facilities that do not meet the standards set forth in this section shall require conditional use approval in 11-4-3-43C.10" although 11-4-3-43C.8 specifically prohibits these type of structures. (i.e.Ada County Dispatch Center CUP-14- 018,Day Wireless CUP H-2019-0115) REV DATE: 10/21/2020 Item 9. F218] 11-SA-6D City takes over posting There have been complaints that properties are not D. Posting Of Public Hearing Notice: of 4'x 4' signs and being posted in a quality and timely manner. The City ensures they are affixed should contract out the posting requirements to lessen 1. Required: All applicants f^r applications requiring a public hearing shall be posted on the subject to ground the amount of continuations. property, except posting is not required for a unified development code text amendment, comprehensive plan text amendment,vacation, comprehensive plan map amendment initiated by the city, and/or short plat. 2. Time Frame: Not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing, the applicant shall post a copy of the public hearing notice of the application on the property under consideration. Except as noted herein, posting of the property must be in substantial compliance with the following requirements: (Keep Exhibit) 3. Sign Placement: The signs shall be posted securely on the land being considered along each roadway that is adjacent to the subject property boundaries. The sign(s) shall be located on the property, outside of the public right of way. If the sign cannot be placed on the property and still be clearly visible,the sign may be placed within the right of way if the applicant can obtain the consent of the owner of the right of way can be obtained. In circumstances where placing signs per the standards listed herein is not practical the applicant may request-a-director's determination to may identify an alternative sign placement strategy. 4. Proof Of Posting: The applicant shall submit aA notarized statement, map depicting the location(s) of the sins and a photograph of the posting shall be provided to the city no later than seven (7) days prior to the public hearing attesting to where and when the sign(s) were posted. Unless certificate is received by such date,the hearing will be continued. S. Sign Removal: The signs shall be removed no later than three (3) days after the public hearing for which the sign had been posted is ended. 11-SA-6G Public hearing process Add a new provision that specifies when revised plans 8. If revised plans are required by director, commission or council, the applicant shall provide those 15 are due to staff for adequate review. Many times days prior to the scheduled hearing for review and approval. If plans are not received within the applicants are providing staff with revised plans to close established timeframe,the project shall be continued to extend the review period. to the public hearing and staff doesn't have enough time to analyze them to ensure that meet city codes. REV DATE: 10/21/2020 Item 9. F219] 11-5C Surety agreements Recently City was issuing CO's for single family homes 11-5C-1: PURPOSE: without all of the subdivision improvements being completed. The City does not issue TCO's for single The purpose of this article is to establish procedures that guarantee the completion of improvements family residences even if surety is in place for such where City Engineer signature on the final plat or occupancy of a structure is desired, but the improvements. This section of code is being amended to address this issue. improvements required by the City have not been completed. (Ord. 11-1487, 8-9-2011, eff. 1-1-2012) UDC 11-313-14 covers the nonlife, nonsafety 11-5C-2: APPLICABILITY: improvements a project can provide surety for. Remove duplication in 11-5C-3D. The provisions of this article shall apply to those improvements that are not needed to protect the public health, safety and life (including, but not limited to: landscaping, fencing, pressurized irrigation systems and site amenities) and those improvements that are needed to protect the public health, safety and life (including, but not limited to,water, sewer, reclaimed water, stormwater facilities or improvements, and power facilities; parking lot paving and striping; and street paving). (Ord. 11-1487, 8-9-2011, eff. 1-1- 2012) 11-5C-3: PROCESS: A. The City may withhold building, electrical or plumbing permits, certificates of zoning compliance, or certificates of occupancy on the lots or land being developed or subdivided, or the structures constructed thereon, if the improvements required under this title have not been constructed or installed, or if such improvements are not functioning properly. B. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements that are needed to protect the public life, safety and health including, but not limited to, water, sewer, reclaimed water, stormwater facilities or improvements, and power facilities; parking lot paving and striping; and street paving in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat. The estimated cost shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. In addition to the performance surety, all such improvements shall also be subject to a warranty surety in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the cost of improvements for a period of two (2) years. The amount of the performance surety shall be established by City Council resolution. C. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete the nonlife, nonsafety and nonhealth improvements, such as landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation,pathways and fencing, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved in accord with the procedures set forth in this chapter. The estimated cost for landscape and fencing sureties shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Director. The amount of surety called for shall be established by City Council resolution. —D. Wher-e a surety is aeeepted feF nonlife, nonsafety and nenhealth improvements by the City and deposited as pFevided by this article,the City may release temper-aFy eceupaney Of a stFuetUr-e OF Din-Bete--. TL,p,tP.rw. shall not exeeed one hundr-ed eighty (1 80) days i length. REV DATE: 10/21/2020 Item 9. F220] D-9. Sureties shall be in the form of a bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or a cash deposit. In all cases the surety shall be drawn solely in favor of, and payable to, the order of the City of Meridian, in accord with the regulations contained in the surety agreement by and between the guarantor and the City of Meridian. E-F. Where a surety is accepted by the City and deposited as provided by this article, the surety shall be released subject to the following regulations: 1. The owner shall submit a written request to the City to lease the surety. The request shall include the following documents: a. A statement from the owner that the required improvements are complete. b. Two (2) sets of prints of the as built plans and specifications for all improvements. 2. The City Engineer and/or Director shall verify and certify that the required improvements, as detailed in the surety agreement, have been installed and/or accepted by the City at the end of the warranty period. The as built plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or Director. 3. Upon certification of the City Engineer and/or the Director, the City shall release the sureties heretofore deposited in the manner and to the extent as provided for in the surety agreement in accord with the regulations of this article. F&. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 11-7-4C.3 Density formula (All The UDC no longer has a maximum number of units Density Formula: Residential density in a planned development shall be calculated by multiplying the net- PUD Standards) associated with zoning we should remove REV DATE: 10/21/2020 Item 9. F 21 ARTICLE B. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS SECTION: 11-313-1: Purpose 11-313-2: Applicability 11-313-3: Application Requirements 11-313-4: Application Process 11-313-5: Standards And Installation 11-313-6: Irrigation Standards 11-313-7: Landscape Buffers Along Streets 11-313-8: Parking Lot Landscaping 11-313-9: Landscape Buffers To Adjoining Uses 11-313-10: Tree Preservation 11-313-11: Stormwater Integration 11-313-12: Pathway Landscaping 11-313-13: Landscape Maintenance 11-313-14: Installation 11-313-1: PURPOSE: A. The regulations of this article are intended to promote landscaping in the city of Meridian that will improve community livability, preserve the quality of life, and enhance the aesthetic quality, economic viability, and environmental health of the city. (Ord. 12- 1514, 5-16-2012, eff. 5-21-2012) B. The city of Meridian recognizes that landscaping can be a significant expense to business people and residents.At the same time, high quality landscaping improves the livability of residential neighborhoods, enhances the appearance and customer attraction of commercial areas, increases property values, improves the compatibility of adjacent uses, screens undesirable views, and can reduce air,water and noise pollution. (Ord. 16- 1717, 1-3-2017) C. The intent of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the right of individuals to develop and maintain their property in a manner they prefer and the rights of city residents to live,work, shop, and recreate in pleasant, healthy, sustainable, and attractive surroundings. D. The City recognizes that surface irrigation water is not available everywhere, that seasonal availability fluctuates, and that highly treated potable water is expensive and less desirable for landscapin . These regulations are intended to encourage the use of water conserving landscape designs and low water use plant materials and to discourage landscaping that requires high water use for maintenance, such as large expanses of lawn or turf. E. These regulations are intended to assist in the implementation of CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) strategies to reduce the opportunities of fear Item 9. F222] and incidence of crime and improve the quality of life. (Ord. 12-1514, 5-16-2012, eff. 5-21- 2012) 11-313-2: APPLICABILITY: A landscape plan shall be required for the following: A. All development, redevelopment, additions, or site modifications except detached single-family and secondary dwellings. B. All common lots in all subdivisions. C. All applications for a conditional use permit (CUP), preliminary plat (PP), final plat (FP), certificate of zoning compliance (CZC), administrative design review (DES), or planned unit development (PUD). (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff. retroactive to 2-4-2009) D. Applicability of additions to existing structures: Existing development shall be required to conform to this article based upon the following guidelines: 1. For additions less than twenty five percent (25%) of the existing structure or developed area, no additional landscaping shall be required except for buffers to adjacent residential uses. 2. For additions that are twenty five percent (25%) to fifty percent (50%) of the existing structure or developed area, perimeter and right of way landscaping as required by this article shall be installed. 3. For additions greater than fifty percent (50%) of the existing structure or developed area, all current landscape standards of this article shall be met. 4. If the location of existing buildings or other structures prevents conformance with the requirements of this section, or if its implementation would create nonconformity,the director shall determine how this article is to be applied through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 11-313-3: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: A. All landscape plans shall comply with the requirements for size, scale, number of copies, and contents as detailed in the application form. B. The landscape plan may be on the same site plan used to show parking layout, setback compliance, etc. C. The landscape plan shall depict all ground level mechanical equipment areas and include details for vertical screening. CD. All landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect, landscape designer, or qualified nurseryman. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 11-313-4: APPLICATION PROCESS: A. Preliminary Landscape Plan Review: A preliminary landscape plan review is recommended prior to submission for all developments, but is not required. B. Landscape Plan Review: A landscape plan will be reviewed in accord with the standards and procedures set forth in this article and approved by the department. C. Landscape Plan Modification: Item 9. F223] 1. An approved landscape plan shall not be altered without prior approval of the Planning Department. 2. No significant field changes to the plan are permitted. 3. Prior written approval of all material changes is required. 4. All approved changes to the landscape plan shall be documented prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 11-313-5: STANDARDS AND INSTALLATION: A. Approved Tree Species: 1. The publication titled "Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide" is hereby adopted by this reference as the City of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species, except for following Arborists Revised List of trees, are aisallevoxed i n"Perlman w thoutwith written approval byfrom the City's arborist. The publication categorizes the trees by size as Class I, Class II, or Class III trees. • List of trees (Ord. 19-1833, 7-9-2019) 2. In addition to the trees identified above,the trees listed in the Park's and Recreation Water Conserving Tree Species listtable 11-3u-5-' of this subsection lists appFoved water TABLE 11-2--B-5-1 APPROVED WATER CONSERVING TREE SPE4E-S Common Name 2Ata-Pi ea I N-,me Hedge maple Acer- eampestr-e AmUF maple A r ginna4a A eeF . lab-,,m Big teeth maple AeeFg ,,rle.ae t.,t„m T Ae negunde Item 9. F 24 p l o A cer-pl-,tanoiaos D-,e;fie Sul et maple CorsicebeRy Red d Ger-eis eanadensis n r-r-axinus pennsyl Honey l o st r_lo,l;tsi-, tri-,ca thos Tlo,,t, c!W coffoot,-eel Sweetgum Tulip t„ 01 t„lipeifeF Gr-abapple London plane tr-eel Higan ehe D.PF n , H4 rh„l(e .h,,r+y Item 9. F 25 Rear n„ C-.hil4Pr,P rPhAjAl2 tl2PPI Conifer-: RIllp AtlAq pp dAr- rh-,r-,.,o,ypr-;s 1.,ws,,,,;.,n Alaskan cedar Reek mountain juniper-us Utah ; unipeF T„ peFus ,tAho Color-a to SPFUGel D'. pine A, str o1 D.,,,.loreasa pine 1 D',, nde Scotch r e D',, s;h str Item 9. F 26 Note: 1 PFohibited in aFkways and/or F owl pa-ling lot lani-lcca li. � C--A-Psid-e-r- other- species not listed in these pUh-1-j-r--at-:j-A-ns. Copies of the publications will be ua'aill bleat the planning department. (OF . 11 1493, 9 6 2011, e€f. 9 12 201 1) B. Minimum Plant Sizes: The following are minimum plant sizes for all required landscape areas: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-313-5-2 MINIMUM PLANT SIZES Type Of Tree Minimum Size Evergreen trees 6 foot height minimum Ornamental trees 2 inch caliper minimum Shade trees 2 inch caliper minimum Woody shrubs 2 gallon pot minimum (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 11-1493, 9-6-2011, eff. 9-12-2011) C. Prohibited Plant Material: The plants listed in Treasure Valley Tree Guide, under trees not permitted for rights of way property planting, and those in the Arborists Revised List. are prohibited from being planted along any street or within any parking lot regulated by this article. The only exception is that conifers (not otherwise prohibited) may be planted in the center of street buffers that have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') as measured from the edge of the sidewalk to the street curb. For public safety purposes,the location of such conifers shall maintain view corridors of nonresidential structures. D. Tree Species Mix: When five (5) or more trees are to be planted to meet the requirements of any portion of this article (including street trees, street buffers, parking lot landscaping and other landscape guidelines), a mix of species shall be provided. The number of species to be planted shall vary according to the overall number of trees required to be planted. See the table below: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-313-5-3 REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES AND SPECIES Required Number Of Trees Minimum Number Of Species 5to10 2 11to30 3 31 to 50 4 More than 50 5 Item 9. F 27 (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 11-1493, 9-6-2011, eff. 9-12-2011) E. Plant Quality: All plant material installed pursuant to this article shall meet or exceed the minimum federal standards as regulated by ANSI Z60.1, "American Standard For Nursery Stock". F. Planting Standards: All trees, shrubs, and other plant material shall be planted in appropriate soil medium and using accepted nursery standards as published by the America Association Of NuFseryme (latest edition) including hole size, backfilling, and fertilization:,or as detailed by a certified Landscape Architect or qualified arborist., G. Staking: Tree staking is not required but may be used in areas with high winds or other situations that make staking desirable. If trees are staked, the stakes shall be removed within twelve (12) months to prevent damage to the tree. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005) H. Mulching: Mulch shall be used in all required planting areas.Approved mulches may be organic, such as bark or soil aid, or they may include rock products, such as "permabark" or similar products. Use of mulch, organic or rock, as the only ground cover in required planting areas is prohibited. Pea gravel, drain rock, road base gravel, and similar products shall not be used as mulch.All mulch shall be contained by a curb, concrete mow strip, or other edging material to contain the mulch and prevent it from migrating to adjacent surfaces. If rock mulch is used, a weed barrier fabric shall be used beneath the rock. Impermeable plastic weed barriers are prohibited because they restrict water and oxygen to the plants. Within stormwater facilities, mulch may not float. (Ord. 16-1717, 1-3-2017) 1. Curbing: All planting areas that border driveways, parking lots, and other vehicle use areas shall be protected by curbing, wheel stops, or other approved protective devices. Such devices shall be a minimum of thirty inches (30") from all tree trunks to prevent cars from damaging tree trunks. J. Utilities: The following standards apply to the planting of trees near existing utilities and to trenching for new utilities near existing trees: 1. Overhead Utilities: Only class I trees in the recommended plant list may be planted under or within ten (10) lateral feet of any overhead utility wires. 2. Underground Utilities: All trees shall be planted outside of any easement that contains a city water or sewer main, unless written approval is obtained from the city engineer. If any utility easement precludes trees required by this article, the width of the required buffer shall be increased to accommodate the required trees. 3. Trenching: New underground utilities shall stay outside of the drip line of existing trees if trenched, or be tunneled a minimum of three feet (3') below existing grade within the tree's drip line. The guiding principle is that no root two inches (2") or larger shall be cut. Note: This requirement is for placement of new utilities and does not affect the city's ability to access existing utilities for repair and maintenance. K. Erosion Control: The landscape installation shall stabilize all soil and slopes. L. Berms: Berm slopes shall not exceed two three to one (23:1) (horizontal:vertical). Three to one (3:1) maximum slopes are recommended. Grass that requires mowing shall not be used on slopes steeper than three to one (3:1). (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) Item 9. F228] M. Screening: Where screening is required in this article and/or this title, chainlink fencing with or without slats does not qualify as a screening material. (Ord. 06-1241, 7-5- 2006, eff. 7-15-2006) N. Vegetation Coverage: Required landscape areas shall be at least seventy percent (70%) covered with vegetation at maturity,with mulch used under and around the plants:, or alternatively, meet the standards for Water Conserving Design below.An exeeption Ma be appFoved by the dilrecto r r WateF censerwing designs that meet both the following standards-- 1. plants, G- boulders, Glble haFdscape mateFials such as pavers and flagstones; and 7 RequiFed landscape aFeas sh-AI i,., -at least fOFty peFeent (409 ) e e vegetation at matuFityL 0. Water Conserving Design: To qualify for the exceptions for water conserving designs as set forth in this chapter,the applicant shall demonstrate the following: 1. The design includes water conserving trees as set foFth in table 1 -313-5-' of this section:, use of native or drought resistant shrubs, perennials or ornamental grasses, water conserving plants, boulders, rocks, decorative walls and/or permeable hardscape materials such as pavers and flagstones, and that are visually distinct (size, texture, or color) and clearly visible from the adjacent travel roadway or drive aisle. 2. The design includes plants that can thrive in climates with approximately ten (10) to twelve inches (12") of annual rainfall. 3. Lawn and turf areas shall not comprise more than fifty percent (50%) of the total landscaped areas and shall consist of water conserving grasses, including, but not limited to, buffalo grass, blue gamma grass, compact fescue, z^# nXerilawn,turf type tall fescue and/or rhyzomotuous tall fescue. 4. Herbaceous and/or perennial ground cover shall be drought tolerant and able to withstand dry conditions once established.As a guide, refer to the recommended plants in the city of Boise parks and recreation "Water Conservation Guidelines". (Ord. 11-1493, 9-6- 2011, eff. 9-12-2011) S. Excluding lawn and turf, no area larger than (37S) square feet may be covered by a single ground cover material without additional hardscape or design feature of no less than (125) square feet. 6. Required landscape areas shall be at least forty percent (40%) covered with vegetation at maturit. P. Safety: 1. Landscaping shall be designed and installed in such a way as to provide natural surveillance opportunities from public areas and not create hiding places or blind spots. 2. Shrubs and plant material installed in close proximity to windows and entryways should be limited in size and be of slow growing varieties to prevent overgrowth and concealment of windows and entryways creating opportunities for crime. (Ord. 12-1514, 5- 16-2012, eff. 5-21-2012) 11-313-6: IRRIGATION STANDARDS: Item 9. F229] A. Irrigation Required: All landscape areas regulated by this article shall be served with an automatic underground irrigation system.Additional requirements affecting pressurized irrigation systems can be found in section 9-1-28, "Pressurized Irrigation System", of this code. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) B. Performance Specifications: 1. Coverage: The irrigation system shall be designed to provide one hundred percent (100%) coverage within lawn areas with head to head spacing or triangular spacing as appropriate or point to point (drip) at each plant or planting area. 2. Matched Precipitation Rates: Sprinkler heads shall have matched precipitation rates within each control valve circuit. 3. Irrigation Hydrozones: Sprinkler heads irrigating lawn or other high water demand areas shall be circuited so that they are on a separate hydrozone from those irrigating trees, shrubs, or other reduced water demand areas. 4. Overspray: Sprinkler heads shall be installed and adjusted to reduce overspray onto impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, driveways, and parking areas. (Ord. 11- 1493, 9-6-2011, eff. 9-12-2011) C. Backflow Prevention: Provide an appropriate backflow prevention device as required by title 9, chapter 3, "Cross Connection Control", of this code. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) D. Nonpotable Water: Use of nonpotable irrigation and/or reuse water is required when determined to be available by the city public works department as set forth in section 9-1- 28, "Pressurized Irrigation System", of this code; reuse water may not be used for stormwater facilities.Water availability during the fall and spring seasons is also required by connecting to city potable water, city reuse water, and/or an on site well as a secondary source.An exception may be approved for water conserving designs as set forth in subsection 11-313-50 of this article. In such cases,the requirement for a secondary source may be waived by the director. If city potable water is used, a separate water meter is required. (Ord. 16-1717, 1-3-2017) E. Subdivision Irrigation Systems: If a pressurized irrigation pump station is required on the developed property, such station shall be on a lot solely dedicated to that pump station. Said lot shall be owned by the entity that owns and maintains the pressurized irrigation system. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007) 11-313-7: LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG STREETS: A. Purpose: The intent of these requirements is to ensure the long term and consistent maintenance of landscape buffers along streets that improve the visual quality of the streetscape, unify diverse architecture, and carry out the comprehensive plan policies related to promoting attractive street(s) and street beautification. B. Applicability: Landscape buffers shall be required along streets in all locations, except for local streets adjacent to single family residential, duplex, and te14, e-residential properties. C. Standards: Standards for landscape buffers along streets shall be as follows: 1. Buffer Size: See chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Item 9. F230] a. Measurement: (1) All street buffers with attached sidewalks shall be measured from the back of sidewalk. Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street, the width of the buffer shall be measured from the ultimate sidewalk location as anticipated by ACHD. (2) All street buffers with detached sidewalks shall be measured from the back of curb.Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street,the width of the buffer shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by ACHD. Detached sidewalks shall have an average minimum separation of greater than four feet (4') to back of curb. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007) b. Easements: Where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions, the buffer area shall include a minimum five foot (5') wide area for planting shrubs and trees. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) c. Width Reduction: In a development where the required street buffer width results in an otherwise unavoidable hardship to the property, a written request for a buffer reduction may be submitted through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. The request shall demonstrate evidence of the unique hardship caused by the required street buffer and propose a specific alternative landscape plan that meets or exceeds the intent of the required buffer. In no case shall the width be reduced to less than ten percent (10%) of the depth of the lot, except in the Old Town district.A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. (Ord. 10-1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010) 2. Buffer Location: Landscape buffers along streets shall be located at all subdivision boundaries. a. All residential subdivision street buffers shall be on a common lot, maintained by a homeowners' association. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) b. All commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential street buffers shall be on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007) c. Except where fences and walls are used as decorative landscape elements, fences and walls are permitted only on the interior edge of the street buffer. 3. Buffer Landscaping Materials: a. All required landscape buffers along streets shall be designed and planted with a variety of trees awl shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Plant materials in conjunction with site design sheall elicit design principles including rhythm, repetition, balance, and focal elements. b. The minimum density of one tree per thirty five (35) linear feet is required. At least 35% of qualifying trees must provide urban canopy at maturity, and at least 25% of qualifying trees must be Class 2 selections, unless it can be shown that utility conflicts prohibit installation of Class 2 trees.lsAll calculation results in a fraction of five (5) or greater, round up to an additional tree. lsAll calculation results in a fraction less than five (5), round the number down. Item 9. F231] c. Large shrubs, hedges and conifers should be used sparingly and in clusters that are well integrated with the landscape design. Such plants shall not screen or create a public safety hazard. d. Where street trees are within a parkway, they shall be centered within the parkway planter.Where street trees are not within a parkway, they shall be offset a minimum of five feet (5') from the edge of sidewalk. e. Lawn and other grasses requiring regular mowing shall comprise no more than 65% of the vegetated coverage of a landscape buffer. This maximum area excludes landscaped parkway with trees.All other vegetated coverage shall be mulched and treated as planting area for shrubs or other vegetative cover.Areas along required walls and closed vision fences should generally be reserved for planting beds with a minimum of one shrub per seven lineal feet of frontage. f. Entryway Corridors: along all entryway corridors, additional landscape design features shall be provided within landscape buffers. Features may include berms of no less than (4:1) slope to at a 3-foot minimum height, decorative landscape walls (no greater than 3-feet in height), decorative open vision fencing (no greater than 4-feet in height), or design elements with a similar level of effort (Example: a dry creek design with river rock, boulders. etc.). Detached sidewalks within landscaped buffers are required along entryway corridors, unless curb, gutter and sidewalk already exist. g. In conditions with reduced landscape buffers, additional design elements shall be required including reduced turf area, increased mulched planting area and increased plant diversity, and additional vertical design features such as decorative landscape retaining walls (no greater than 3-feet in height). 4. Tree Spacing: For design flexibility, trees may be grouped together or spaced evenly as desired. Landscape designs should consider tree placement location, spacing, and clumping to avoid conflicts with wayfinding and business identification signs. However, trees shall be spaced no closer than eighty percent (80%) of the average mature width of the trees, as demonstrated in the following examples: FIGURE 1 TREE SPACING Item 9. F232] FIGURE 1 TREE SPACING Examples x (40+40).8 32' �M11 2 n)LMin Spacing Minimum Tree Spacing. Examples: X Y (x2).8 (4-0 15).g = 22' Min Spacing p g Minimum Tree Spacing. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 5. Landscaping Within Right Of Way: a. If the unimproved street right of way is ten feet (10') or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line, the developer shall maintain a ten foot (10') compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority Item 9. F233] and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative ground cover. (Ord. 16-1672, 2- 16-2016) b. Landscaping improvements within the right of way shall require a license agreement between the property owner and the transportation authority. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 6. Impervious Surfaces: Allowed impervious surfaces within the landscape buffer include driveways, outdoor seating, signs and walkways. Vehicle display pads are prohibited in the required buffer. (Ord. 10-1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010) 7. Berms In Street Buffers: Berm design is subject to the provisions in accord with subsection 11-313-51, of this article. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 8. Stormwater Detention: Stormwater swales and other green stormwater facilities may be incorporated into the buffer in accord with section 11-313-11 of this article. Other stormwater detention and retention facilities shall not be permitted in the street buffer, except along 1-84. (Ord. 16-1717, 1-3-2017) 11-313-8: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: A. Purpose: The purpose of perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is to soften and mitigate the visual and heat island effect of a large expanse of asphalt in parking lots, and to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians.T andseaping can also r-eduee sum-mer heat gain in parking aFeas and define pedestri B. Applicability: The requirements for perimeter and internal lot landscaping shall apply to all commercial, industrial and multi- family development,with the following exceptions: 1. Parking spaces adjoining loading areas in the I-L and I-H districts are excluded from the interior landscape requirements. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 2. For parking lot reconstruction, exclusive of sealing, striping, or overlaying, all current landscape standards of this section shall be met, unless approved as set forth in section 11-113-4 of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016) 3. If the location of existing buildings or other structures prevents conformance with the requirements of this section, or if its implementation would create a nonconformity with parking standards, the director shall determine how this article is to be applied through the alternative compliance process. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) C. Standards: 1. For Perimeter Landscaping: The following standards apply to the perimeter of parking or other vehicular use areas, including driveways: a. Requirement: Provide a five foot (5') wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas, including driveways,vehicle sales areas,truck parking areas, bus parking areas, and vehicle storage areas, subject to the following exceptions: (1) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director where there is a shared driveway and/or recorded cross parking agreement and easement with an adjacent property. (2) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director for truck maneuvering areas in industrial, mixed-employment and high-density employment districts. (Ord. 09-1420, 6-23-2009, eff. 6-23-2009) Item 9. F234] b. Landscaping: The perimeter landscape buffer shall be planted with one Class II or Class III tree per thirty five (35) linear feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-8-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) c. Encroachments: Structures less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, including, but not limited to, trash enclosures and storage sheds, may encroach into a required landscape buffer, excluding any buffer to adjoining residential uses as set forth in section 11-313-9 of this article. (Ord. 09-1420, 6-23-2009, eff. 6-23-2009) 2. For Internal Landscaping: Interior parking lot landscaping shall be required on any parking lot with more than twelve (12) spaces. The following standards apply to internal landscaping: a. Planter Size: Landscape planters shall contain a minimum of fifty (50) square feet, and the planting area shall not be less than five feet (5') in any dimension, measured inside curbs. The only exception to the five foot (5') minimum dimension is at the tip of triangular planters located at the end of rows of angled parking. b. Parking Spaces: No linear grouping of parking spaces shall exceed twelve (12) in a row,without an internal planter island. The planter island shall run the length of the parking space and may be reduced by two feet (2') to allow for improved vehicular maneuvering. c. Parking Lot Layout: Interior landscaping shall, insofar as possible, be used to delineate and guide major traffic movement within the parking area so as to prevent cross space driving. Interior landscape planters shall be spaced as evenly as feasible and at the ends of rows of parking throughout the lot to consistently reduce the visual impact of long rows of parked cars. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) d. Trees Required: Each interior planter that serves a single row of parking spaces shall be landscaped with at least one tree and shall be covered with low shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Each interior planter that serves a double row of parking spaces shall have at least two (2) trees and shall be covered with low shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Trees shall be centered within the planters and provide urban canopy. Deciduous she urban canopy trees shall be pruned to a minimum height of eight feet (8') above the adjacent parking areas. Evergreen trees and class III trees are prohibited in interior planters. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007) e. Design Flexibility: In parking areas where the strict application of this subsection C will seriously limit the function and circulation of the lot, up to fifty percent (50%) of the required landscaping may be located near the perimeter of the paved area or adjacent to pedestrian corridors to emphasize entrance corridors, pedestrian safety,.or special landscape areas within the general parking area. Such required interior landscaping that is relocated shall be in addition to perimeter landscape and right of way screening requirements. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 11-313-9: LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO ADJOINING USES: A. Purpose: The requirements in this section shall apply to the landscape buffer to residential and/or nonindustrial uses in section 11-213-3,table 11-213-3 and section 11-2C- 3, table 11-2C-3 of this title. The landscape requirements in this section are intended to ensure that incompatible, adjoining land uses are adequately protected and are provided Item 9. F235] an appropriate amount of land separation to conduct permitted uses without causing adverse impact. B. Applicability: The landscape buffer is required in the C-N, C-C, C-G, L-0, M-E, H-E, and I-L districts on any parcel sharing a contiguous lot line with a residential land use. The landscape buffer is required in the I-H district on any property sharing a contiguous lot line with a nonindustrial use. C. Standards: 1. Buffer Materials: The materials within the required buffer between incompatible land uses are regulated as follows: a. Mix Of Materials: All buffer areas shall be comprised of,but not limited to, a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Fences, walls and berms may also be incorporated into the buffer area as set forth in subsection 11- 3B-7C2c of this article. b. Barrier Effectiveness: The required buffer area shall result in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of the tree w,.,*uFit ,w; (5) years of planting. Trees that will not touch until maturity outside of this timeframe must be supplemented with additional materials such as tall columnar evergreen shrubs, or other qualifying materials. c. Buffer Wall And/Or Fence: Where existing or proposed adjacent land uses cannot be adequately buffered with plant material(s),the city may require inclusion of a wall, fence, or other type of screen that mitigates noise and/or unsightly uses. If a wall or fence at least six feet (C) tall is provided, the planting requirement may be reduced to a minimum of one tree per thirty five (35) linear feet, plus shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. d. Chainlink Fencing: Chainlink fencing with or without slats does not qualify as a screening material. Except in the I-L and I-H districts, chainlink or cyclone fencing is prohibited within required buffers between different land uses. Chainlink may be used beyond the required buffer. 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum buffer size.A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. 3. Pedestrian Access: Landscape buffers shall facilitate safe pedestrian access from residential development to abutting commercial districts and vice versa. 4. Relationship To Parking Lot Perimeter Requirements: All buffers between different land uses may include any required perimeter parking lot landscape buffers (see subsection 11-313-8C of this article) when calculating the minimum width of the buffer. (Ord. 12-1514, 5-16-2012, eff. 5-21-2012) 11-313-10: TREE PRESERVATION: A. Purpose: The regulations of this section are intended to preserve existing trees four inch (4") caliper or greater from destruction during the development process. Item 9. F236] B. Applicability: Tree preservation is required in all districts. C. Standards: 1. Site Plans: Site plans shall make all feasible attempts to maintain existing trees four inch (4") caliper or greater within their design. 2. Landscape Plan: All existing trees greater than four inch (4") caliper shall be shown on the landscape plan. Indicate whether each tree is to be retained or removed. Include on the plan a description of how existing trees to be retained are to be protected during construction. 3. Protection During Construction: Existing trees that are retained shall be protected from damage to bark, branches, and roots during construction. The city of Meridian parks department arborist shall approve the protection fence(s) prior to construction.Any severely damaged tree shall be replaced in accord with subsection C5 of this section. 4. Construction Within The Drip Line Of Existing Trees: Construction, excavation, or fill occurring within the drip line of any existing tree shall be avoided, except to supplement existing trees with new irrigation. Specific requirements for construction within the drip line of existing trees are as follows: a. Paving: Whenever possible, impervious paving surfaces shall remain outside of the drip line of existing trees. When it is not possible, impervious surfaces shall be allowed at a distance from the trunk of a retained tree equal to the diameter of the tree trunk plus five feet (5'). b. Grade Changes: Grade changes greater than six inches (6") are prohibited within the drip line of existing trees. c. Compaction: A fence or barrier that encloses the entire area beneath the tree canopy shall be in place prior to construction. d. Utilities: New underground utilities to be placed within the drip line of existing trees shall be installed in accord with subsection 11-313-5J3 of this article. 5. Mitigation: a. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four inch (4") caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred percent (100%) replacement: (Example: Two 10-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five 4-inch caliper trees, or seven 3-inch caliper trees.)_Deciduous specimen trees (4") caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. b. No mitigation is required in the following: 1) existing prohibited trees within toe *"^^*buff or par-king lot;the property boundary of the project. 2) existing dead, dying, or hazardous trees certified prior to removal by the city of Meridian parks department arborist; 3) trees that are required to be removed by another governmental agency having jurisdiction over the project. 6. Required Landscaping: Existing trees that are retained or relocated on site may count toward the required landscaping. Existing trees (12") caliper or greater that are verified healthy by the City Arborist or a certified arborist and located within common open space or as focal elements within the site may count equally towards the mitigation of Item 9. F237] calipers lost from other removed trees. Mitigation trees are in addition to all other landscaping required by this article. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 7. Fee In-lieu: In conditions where it is desired to remove healthy trees for design flexibility, and where other mitigation methods are less desired, an in lieu-fee may be contributed towards the City's Tree Mitigation Fund. The purpose of this fund is to offset urban tree canopy loss by having the City install new trees in other areas of the community. 8-7. Incentives: The director may allow a reduction up to ten percent (10%) of the required parking spaces to accommodate existing trees through the alternative compliance process in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title.Approval of an alternative compliance application for a reduction in required parking shall be obtained prior to submittal of plans. (Ord. 10-1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010) 11-313-11: STORMWATER INTEGRATION: A. Purpose: The regulations of this section are intended to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated, well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow. B. Applicability: The standards for stormwater integration shall apply to all subdivisions, site improvements and ACHD stormwater facilities.ACHD stormwater policy shall supersede city requirements for stormwater facilities, except that facilities counting toward open space requirements must also meet or exceed city requirements. C. Standards: 1. Stormwater swales incorporated into required landscape areas shall be vegetated with grass or other appropriate plant materials. Such swales shall also be designed to accommodate the required number of trees as per section 11-313-7 of this article if located in a street buffer or other required landscape area. 2. A rock sump may be incorporated into a vegetated swale to facilitate drainage. The rock sump inlet may not exceed more than five feet (5') in any horizontal dimension. 3. Gravel, rock, sand, or cobble stormwater facilities are not permitted on the surface of required landscape areas, unless designed as a dry creek bed or other design feature. 4. Plant materials shall be a species that are able to withstand the anticipated changes in soil wetness and moisture levels. 5. Organic mulch shall not be used against drainage catch basins because of potential sediment clogging. 6. Slopes shall be less than or equal to three to one (3:1) (horizontal:vertical) for accessibility and maintenance. 7. The stormwater facility shall be designed free draining with no standing water within forty eight (48) hours of the completion of a storm event. (Ord. 16-1717, 1-3-2017) 11-313-12: PATHWAY LANDSCAPING: Item 9. F238] A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to promote trees and other landscaping along pathways developed within the city. The required landscaping will provide shade and visual interest along the pathways. B. Applicability: Wherever pathways are installed and/or required,the landscaping standards within this section shall apply. C. Standards: 1. Planter Width: A landscape strip a minimum of five feet (5') wide shall be provided along each side of the pathway. Designs are encouraged in which the width of the landscape strip varies to provide additional width to plant trees farther from the pathway, preventing root damage. The minimum width of the landscape strip shall be two feet (2') to allow for maintenance of the pathway.Alternative compliance as set forth in section 11-513- 5 of this title shall not be required to meander the pathway as long as a total width of ten feet (10') of landscaping is maintained along the pathway. 2. Required Plants: The landscape strips shall be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. There shall be a minimum of one tree per one hundred (100) linear feet of pathway. If this calculation results in a fraction of five (5) or greater, round up to an additional tree; if the calculation results in a fraction less than five (5), round the number down. 3. Improvements: The pathways construction shall be in accordance with the site specific geotechnical report for light duty paving. In the cases where no geotechnical report is available pathways shall be built using 2.5 "of asphaltic concrete over 4" of crushed aggregate base over 10" of structural subbase over compacted subgrade. Materials and methods shall conform to ISPWC standard specifications. shall be paved with three inches (3") of asphaltic concrete OF .alert. (Ord. 10-1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010) 4. Tree Branching Height: Trees along the pathway shall be pruned with a clear branching height of at least eight feet (8') above the path surface. 5. Shrub Height: Shrubs are limited to three feet (3') high or less at mature size to allow for safety provisions and sight distance. 6. Mulch: The solitary use of mulches, such as bark alone without vegetative ground covers, is prohibited. Mulch under the trees and shrubs is required in accord with subsection 11-313-51-1 of this article. 7. Prohibited Trees: No evergreen trees or class III trees shall be planted within the required landscape strips of less than 10-feet because of safety, sight distance, and maintenance concerns. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 8. Fences: See section 11-3A-7 of this chapter for pathway fencing standards. (Ord. 10- 1439, 1-12-2010, eff. 1-18-2010) 11-313-13: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: A. Purpose: The regulations of this section are intended to ensure that all required landscaping is maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times. B. Applicability: The requirement for landscape maintenance applies in all districts where landscaping has been required. C. Standards: Item 9. F239] 1. Responsibility: The property owner is responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening devices required by this article. 2. Topping Prohibited: Topping any street tree required by this article is prohibited. 3. Tree Grates: Tree grates shall be widened to accommodate the growing tree trunk and prevent girdling of any trees planted in tree wells within sidewalks or other public right of way. 4. Dead And Diseased Plant Materials: Plant materials that exhibit evidence of insect pests, disease, and/or damage shall be appropriately treated to correct the problem. Dead plant materials shall be replaced. 5. Inspections: All landscaping required by this subsection maybe subject to periodic inspections by city officials to determine compliance or to investigate. 6. Pruning: The lower branches of trees shall be pruned and maintained at a minimum height of six feet (6') above the ground or walkway surface to afford greater visibility of the area, except as otherwise required herein. (Ord. 12-1514, 5-16-2012, eff. 5-21-2012) 11-313-14: INSTALLATION: A. Certificate Of Completion: A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The certificate of completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are planted and installed in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan and details. B. Installation Schedule: 1. All required landscaping, irrigation systems and site features shall be installed according to the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 2. All pathways conveyed to the City for permanent maintenance, must be inspected and compaction tested prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 3. Private site improvements that are above and beyond the requirements placed on the development do not require completion prior to occupancy. (For example a clubhouse in a residential development need not be completed prior to occupancy of residences in the development.) 4. For final plats, all landscape buffers along streets,with the exception of local streets, shall be installed prior to signature on the final plat. Street buffers on local streets may be installed at the time of the lot development; installation of such improvements shall not be required at the time of plat approval. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Item 9. 11/10/20 F)^'t�*^w.t New text F240] Article G. COMMON OPEN SPACE AND SITE AMENITY REQUIREMENTS 11-3G-1: Purpose 11-3G-2: Applicability 11-3G-3: Standards for Common Open Space 11-3G-4: Standards for Site Amenities 11-3G-5: General Standards for Common Open Space and Site Amenities 11-3G-1: PURPOSE: A. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. 2. Require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy_pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new residential and mixed-use developments- B. The,.egg *ions of this ,-fiele are iffteaded t To provide for common open space and site amenities in Residential Districts and in areas designated as mixed-use in the Comprehensive Plan that improve the livability of residential neighborhoods,buffer the street edge, provide alternatives to driving, and protect natural amenities. C. The r-eg latio s are intended * To establish minimum quantity and standards for common open space and site amenities, and requirements for the long term maintenance of these areas. 11-3G-2: APPLICABILITY: The standards for common open space and site amenities shall apply to all new single-family, townhouse, and two-family duplex, and multi family developments of five (5) acres or more. Open space and site amenity standards for multi-family developments are provided for in Section 11-4-3-27C and D of this Title. 11-3G-3: STANDARDS FOR COMMON OPEN SPACE: A. Open Space and Site Amenity Minimum Requirements: The minimum requirements are based on both the quantity and quality of open space provided. 1. Minimum open space quantity requirements: The total land area of all common open space that meets the standards as set forth in subsection B of this section shall equal E)r exeeed to 1 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted e)(t New text F241] per-eent ( 00%) f the gross land o f the deve opine„t. provide five percent(5%) common open space if the entire development is comprised of buildable lots, a minimum of sixteen thousand(16,000) square feet, not including landscape buffers along arterial or collector roadways; or as shown in Table 11-3G-3. a. Table 11-3G-3 Minimum Open Space Re uirements Zone % Open Space R-2 10% R-4 12% R-8 15% R-15 15% b. When a project is located in more than one zone, the calculation of the minimum required open space shall be based on the land area in each zone, and the total for each zone shall be combined for the minimum required open space for the entire project. 2. Otie additional site amenity that meets the standards as set forth in subseetion C of seefien shall be required for-eaeb additional twenty(20) aer-es of development afea. Minimum open space quality requirements: All open space areas shall meet the following quality standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have direct (a) direct pedestrian access, (b) high visibility, c) comply with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards, and d) sppport a range of leisure and play activities and uses. Open grassy areas that are crooked or jagged in shape, disconnected or isolated do not meet this standard. b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development; connected by pathways and visually accessible along collector streets; or are a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. B. Qualified Open Space: The following may alif.to meet the eenffnefi Open 1. Active or Passive In intended T T�o Open Spaces: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including, but not limited to: 2 Item 9. 11/10/20 ppiptM tpwt New text F242] a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet(50'x 100') in area and is surrounded by the front yards of lots on at least 50% of its perimeter. Intervening local streets may be located between the open space and front yards of the lots; rs ,�.� •� - s a � b. Community gardenLss,); c. Ponds o water-f tttr-e; Natural waterways, open ditches, and laterals. Protective buffers a minimum of ten feet (10') in width dedicated for active access alongthese hese natural open spaces count toward meetingthe space minimum requirements; d. Plaza with a minimum dimension of twenty feet (20') in all directions and including hardscape, seating, lighting in conformance with the standards set forth in section 1I- 3A-I I and landscaing in conformance with the requirements set forth in Article 1I- 3B Landscaping Requirements; or F" I e. Linear open space area that is at least twenty feet(20') and up to fifty feet(50') in width, has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in subseetio,, E of this seetion; Article 11-3B Landscaping Requirements. 2 Additions T IP4 he Pad Additions to the land area of a public park or other public open space area. 3 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted e)(t New text F243] 3. Full Area Of Buffer: One hundred percent(100%) The area-of the landscape buffer along collector streets ffia-y eeu-n4 t,,w ,.a the required common open spnee and 4 - Dor-een4 ge Of Buffer--. Ffifty percent(50%) of the landscape buffer along arterial streets that meet the enhanced buffer requirements that follow may count toward the required common open space. a. Enhanced landscaping as set forth in Article - - 11-313 Landscaping Requirements b. Multi-use pathway c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. 4-5. Parkways Along re"ee*or and Local - Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the -�=F following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: o a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11-3A- 17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be excluded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet(26')by the width of the parkway. 56. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-3B-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count up to twentypercent 25%) towards the qualified open space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand(20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 4 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted New text 244 67. Open Water Ponds: "esthetieally desi.ne Artificial open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one site amenity in accord with subse do r Table 11-3G-4 of this section. All ponds with a permanent .4 - Sw water level shall meet the following - standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water; and b. The pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. 11-3G-4: Standards For Site Amenities A. Site Amenities Minimum Standards: The minimum site amenity required is based on the point value of the amenity as set forth in subsection B of this section and the size of the development. 1. For each five (5) acres of gross land area, one (1)point of site amenity is required. If the calculation of the number of required site amenities results in a fraction, such number shall be rounded up or down to the next whole number: fractions less than one-half(0.5) shall be rounded down to the whole number and fractions which are one- half(0.5) and greater shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number. 2. For projects forty(40) acres or more in size, multiple amenities are required from the separate categories listed in Table 11-3G-4. B. Qualified Site Amenities: 1. Qualified site amenities shall include,bu4 not be lif ite to the features listed in Table 11- 3G-4. 2. The assigned point value may be decreased depending on(a)the size, (b) quality of the feature, (c) ease of maintenance, (d) durability, (e) integration with other open space or amenities and(f)year-round usability. The burden will be on the applicant to demonstrate that the amenity meets these criteria. 3. Through the Alternative Compliance provisions asset forth in Section 11-5B-5: 5 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted text New text F245] a. Amenities not listed in Table 11-3G-4 may be considered. b. Amenities that are a centerpiece or of benefit to the entire city; that creatively create a sense of uniqueness to the neighborhood; or preserve or represent the historic context of the place may be substituted for required open space as set forth in section 11-3G-3. Application fees for alternative compliance for such amenities shall be waived until [DATE]. Table 11-3G-4 Site Amenities and Point Value Site Amenity Maximum Point Value Quality of Life Amenities Business center 2 Clubhouse between-5 000- -,OWsf or geater in size 6 Clubhouse less than 5,000 sf or o en air ramadas 3 Semi-enclosed clubhouse 3 Fitness facilities 5,000 sf or greater in size 4 Fitness facilities less than 5,000 sf 2 Locker rooms in association with clubhouse or fitness 2 facility Public art 1 Fountain 2 Picnic area on a site 5,000 sf or greater in size 2 Picnic area on a site less than 5,000 sf 1 Fitness course 2 Open s ace commons 3 Open s ace commons Shelter 2 Communication infrastructure with fiber o tic cable 2 Dog Park 2 Dog waste station 0.5 Commercial outdoor kitchen 2 Outdoor fire ring 1 Recreation activity area amenities Swimming pool 4 Swimming pool changing facilities and restrooms 6 Interactive splash pads, fountains or water features 4 Tot Lot 1 Playground 3 Sports coj!rts awed 4 Sports courts, unpaved 2 6 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted text New text 246 Site Amenity Maximum Point Value Sports fields 5 Pedestrian or bicycle circulations stem amenities When aligned with a waterway 1 per 1/4 mile When aligned with a linear open s ace 1 er 1/4 mile Multi-use pgLhways 2 per 1/4 mile Multi-modal amenities Bicycle storage 2 Bicycle storage adjacent to transit stop or park and ride 3 lot Bicycle repair station 1 Sheltered transit sto 2 Park and Ride Lot with a minimum of 20 spaces 5 C. Quality of lifeamenities: amenity standards: 1. Clubhouse is an enclosed or semi-enclosed space ,including open air or ramadas neighborhood events and support facilities for recreation. The points for a clubhouse maybe combined with the points for other amenities that maybe located within the clubhouse including fitness and business centers, sports courts, swimming poolsand locker rooms. 2. Fitness facilities is an enclosed space equipped with commercial grade sports exercise equipment. 3. Public art is custom designed for the site size, location, and surroundings etting_ 4. Fountain is custom designed for the site size, location, and surroundin setting, etting_ 5. Picnic area includes tables,benches, landscaping, and a structure for shade. 6. Fitness course with a minimum of six (6) stations permanently installed. 7 Additional itiona "alified open sraw Open space commons of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet,which is surrounded on all sides by the front yards of lots. Intervening streets may be located between the open space and lots. 8. Communication infrastructure meeting the following minimumstandards.: with two (2) conduits running side by side to and through the development; each conduit being two inches (2") in diameter. The plie n4 shall be eligible f a o ra amenity there 0 7 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted e)(t New text F247] 9. Dog Park owner f edit es meeting the following minimufnstandards! with: 7 deg shing station with dr-ain to sanitary sewer system and tfash f!eeeptaeles, and a)bags for dog waste disposal; or--b) double entrance gate, c)bench(es) and d) fencing to enclose a minimum of 0.75 aer-e of five thousand (5,000)square feet and secured open space for an off leash dog park and tfash ro eptae es and bans for-dog waste disposal. The open space shall count toward any required open space. 10. Dog waste station is an installed in the ,ground fixture with waste disposal bags and trash receptacle. i.11. Neighborhood business center meeting the following standards: a. The area devoted to the business center shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. b. The business center shall provide access to high speed internet, fiber optic cable, or communication infrastructure and/or facilities with a minimum capacity equivalent to a thirty-six (36) strand single mode fiber optic cable. c. The business center shall, at a minimum, provide workspaces for three (3)people, a meeting space for six (6)people, and access to printing facilities. d. The business center may be leased to a private entity for operation and maintenance, however the property shall be owned by the owners' association. e. The business center operator may charge fees for use or membership; however members of the owners' association should be given priority in use of the business center. 12. Commercial outdoor kitchen is an outdoor or semi enclosed space that includes commercial grade appliances for food preparation and sink with utility connections. 13. Outdoor fire ring that meets fire safety standards, is located on a noncombustible surface and includes fixed seating. D. Recreation activity amenity standards: 1. Swimming pool constructed in .,.ground and meeting all Building Code requirements. 2. Interactive splash pads, fountains or other water features are permanent, commercially ,grade constructed with filtration systems. 3. Tot lot with commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children. Benches for seating shall be nearby. 8 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted e)(t New text F248] 4 !''1,ildre 's lay s*m,,tufe; Playground on a site with a minimum size of five thousand (5,000) square feet and including benches for seating and multiple commercial grade play structures. of 5. Sports courts with markings and including benches for seating. Sports court may include tennis, basketball,pickleball, horseshoes, bocce ball, cornhole, or golf putting 6. Sports fields for neighborhood scaled sports activities. E. Pedestrian or bicycle circulation system . amenity standards: The system a) is not required sidewalks adjacent to public right-of-way; b) The-sue connects to existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle routes outside the development, as designated in the Meridian pathways master plan; and c) The system is designed and constructed in accord with adopted City standards. F. Multi-modal amenity standards: 1. Bicycle storage is a roofed space for the secure storage of a minimum of six bicycles. 2. Bicyclepair station is a fixed installation with tools and an air pumP. 3. e Transit stops, park and ride facilities or other multimodal facilities to encourage alternative automobile transportation. 4. Sheltered transit stop is covered with a roof and transparent enclosure on three sides. 5. Park and Ride facilitypaved off-street parking area for a minimum of twenty vehicles located adjacent to a public transit stop. 11-3G-5: General Standards for Common Open Space and Site Amenities A. Location: 1. The eemmon open spaees and site amenities shall be leeated on a eenffnoa lot of-an area ,its, nto,,.nee agreement. 1. Common open space shall be grouped contiguously with open space from adjacent developments whenever feasible. 2. Common open space and site amenities shall be located in areas of high visibility(i.e., along streets, where doors and windows overlook public areas, etc.)to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas, unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime. 3. Common open space shall be located in areas that maximize pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within and outside the neighborhood. 9 Item 9. 11/10/20 Deleted e)(t New text F249] 4. Common open space in mixed use developments may be allowed to deviate from the location standards through the alternative compliance process as set forth in Section I I- 5B-5. B. Improvements and Landscaping: 1. Common open space shall be suitably improved for its intended use, except that natural features such as wetlands, rock outcroppings, ponds, er-eok, etanatural waterway riparian areas, open ditches, and laterals may be left unimproved. At a fninimum, eemman open space areas shall inelude one deeiduous shade tfee per eight thousand (8,000) s o feet and i,,.z,,, either-seed o a 2. Common open space shall comply with the applicable landscaping requirements set forth in Article 11-3B Landscaping Requirements of this Title. C. Maintenance: 1. The common open spaces and site amenities shall be located on a common lot or an area with a common maintenance agreement. All rd to amenities shall be . the ar 0 0r s o r. 2. Maintenance and operation of the open space and site amenities shall be the responsibility of the property owners' or homeowners' association. 3. Land dedicated as common open space may be conveyed to the City, where the Parks and Recreation Department agrees to accept conveyance and when the common open space area is in the public interest and complies with one of the following_: a. Is adjacent to an established or planned City park or school grounds; or b. Connects to a regional- pathway. 10 Item 9. F250] 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Multi-family developments with multiple properties shall be considered as one property for the purpose of implementing the standards set forth in this section. A. Purpose: 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. -12. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. 2-.To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. 3-.To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. 4-.To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community, provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. (Ord. 19-1833, 7-9-2019) 2. All on site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. 3. A minimum of eighty (80) square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-513-5 of this title. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this title. 7. Developments with twenty (20) units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. Item 9. F251] b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773, 4-24-2018) C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten percent (10%) of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five (5) acres or more. In no case shall the multi-family development exceed a total of fifteen percent (15%) common open space. 2. All common open space shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have (a) direct pedestrian access, (b) high visibility, (c) comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTED) standards. and (d) support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. Irregular shaped, disconnected or isolated open spaces shall not meet this standard. b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development, accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. 3. All multi-family projects over 20 units shall provide at least one common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total. Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway, are exempt from this standard. a. Minimum size of common grassy area shall be at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative Compliance is available for these standards, if a project has a unique targeted demographic: utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or Mixed-Use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. -14.In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: Item 9. F252] a. One hundred fifty (150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty (350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of living area. 2-5.Common open space shall be not less than four hundred (400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet (20'). 46.In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 47.Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet (4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area Off-At I-e-a-st-fifty by one hundri-ed (90 x 100') in size. (12-) Community garden. (2-3) Ponds or water features. (34) Plaza. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi- family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty (20) units,two (2) amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty (20) and seventy five (75) units, three (3) amenities shall be provided, with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy five (75) units or more, four (4) amenities shall be provided, with at least one from each category. Item 9. F253] d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred (100) units, the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D, provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016) 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet (Y) wide. b. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty four inches (24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016) F. Maintenance And Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16- 2016)